The invention and implementation of the
internet, and the birth of social media has arguably had the greatest sociological
impact since the Industrial Revolutions (1760-1850). For Sociology, and we
humble Sociologists ( J), this is a
pretty big deal. For it was the social change brought on, in part, by the
Industrial Revolutions that lead to the coining of the term Sociology in 1838
by Sir Auguste Comte and the birth of Sociology as a discipline later in 1895
(Thank you Durkheim). Therefore, I would
argue that because the study of society was born from explaining Social change
it is only fitting that we use Sociology to study the Social changes brought on
by the Internet and Social media. To
that end, I will begin with a brief comparison between the changes brought on
by the Industrial revolution and those we’ve experienced through the use of the
internet. Yet, the main focus of this piece, given the theme and nature of this
blog, will be on the shifting patterns of content creation and consumption we’ve
experienced as a result of the changing media landscape using current pop
cultural examples.
The Industrial revolution(s) in a
symbiotic and reciprocal relationship with the French Revolution of 1789 (Bastille
Day, Reign of Terror) and (to a lesser extent) The American Revolution created
a period of social change that transformed society from a pre-modern age into
one of modernity.
Components of Modernity:
- - Shift
in the economic system. From a Barter Systems of trade, to Capitalism
- - New
technologies emerged causing an increased focus on industry and production (
resulting in hydro and steam power, textiles, steel, and increased
transportation (sea trade))
- - Expansions
in Medical Science leading to Population Growth (lower infant mortality)
- - Urbanization
( City boom; go where the jobs are)
- - Increase
in Secularism
This
shift was also important for those of us (Sociologists) that study
Stratification (usually from a Power/Conflict or Critical Perspective) as it
was this shift in social organization and institutionalization that was the beginning
of so many forms of oppression and domination that we still see today. In fact,
Some Classical Theorists believe, rightly so, that with the birth of Modernity
we see the complex transformation of inequality to many forms of intersecting
injustices.
Similarly, we see this type of Social
change mirrored in the transitional changes from pre- internet age to a post
internet age:
Paralleling
effects of the Internet and Social media (Abbreviated):
-
Shift
in the economic system: Online ordering, purchasing, distribution and banking.
The existence and popularity of online currency ( Bit-coin)
-
New
Technologies emerge: Social media changes the way we socially interact. 3-D
printing, transportation by internet (video conferencing), online data storage,
Physical space is less important
-
Increased
access to medical records and communication with “providers” rapid test results
and distribution of wellness care
-
Digitalization.
We have online lives, personas, new notion of personal “branding”…every aspect
of our lives is now marketable. Whatwould Marx say about this practice of commodifying ourselves?
-
Ironically,
the online space has allowed for both the expansion of Secularism and the
revitalization of belief at the same time. Even allowing fringe beliefs to gain
support and prominence.
While
there are obvious parallels between the change experienced by the industrial
revolutions and those experienced with the implementation of the internet; what
I am interested in, being both a Sociologist by trade, and a critic of popular
culture by designJ, is the impact
the “age of the internet” has on our creation and consumption of entertainment.
Let me first begin with
consumption. Since the implementation of
the internet, the sheer volume of entertainment content has increased exponentially.
Not only that, but now more content is available in many different forms (through
many different platforms, devices and services). Before, where you may have received
your entertainment content through a few different mechanisms ( TV, Radio,
Concert/ event, Movies, Theater etc), now it is near limitless Thus, not only
are we getting more (which can be attributed to and feed our fetishistic
attitude) but we can consume this content in multiple ways (usually through
hand held multi-media devices).
One the most popular ways to consume
nowadays is through entertainment streaming services. Pioneered by Netflix,
these streaming services (that include Hulu and Amazon Prime as Netflix’s top
competitors) allow (for a monthly fee) all access to enormous amounts of content.
At first, this only included already produced/broadcasted material somewhere else
(Usually in theaters, or on network or broadcast TV). Now, these streaming services are producing
their own original content exclusive for their subscribers becoming, in
essence, the new “TV” networks.
It
is this new form of content distribution that greatly impacts media consumption
behavior. Since these streaming services often release content all at once
(including whole seasons, or in some cases the entire series run of a show),
this has given rise to “binge watching” where consumers consume a large amount
of content at one time. This is not only
a function of the immediate access through the internet but the desire to
complete a particular story.
EX: In comic book terms episodic consumption is
the monthly single issue comic book, where as binge consumption is like having
a graphic novel. An example of streaming services for comics would be The Marvel
Unlimited App.
While
there are many positives to this kind of consumption, (namely allowing for a
diversification of content including the more esoteric variety to reach an
audience and create a fan base) this also increases our desire for instant
gratification to the point where we become content addicts. Thus, when we have consumed all of the
content a particular television program or movie has to offer we go through
feelings of loss and withdrawal until more content is produced or distributed,
or we latch on to another program (i.e. drug). Also, these states of
entertainment distraction and gratification fuel both the Millsian idea of
Private Orbits and the Weberian idea of “The Iron Cage”.
However, what is really fascinating is
the way that this new content consumption has actually effected the way content
is created and distributed. In many
cases, online grassroots organizing has allowed programs to continue, flourish or
be resurrected.
An Aside: There is
a whole other argument I may make in a future post about the lack of online social
activism (sometimes referred to as “slacktivism” or “I-pod Liberalism”) for
legitimate social causes while there is enormous outpouring of support and
dejection anytime a television show may be canceled or new movie news is
released.
Recently,
there have been several examples where the release of content online, and the
public response, has lead to a shift in industry focus.
The
Film The Interview staring Seth Rogen
and James Franco is a story about a talk show host that is recruited by the US
government on a secret mission to kill Kim Jong-un. Because of its premise, The
North Korean Government banned the film and sent death threats to its writers
and stars. Sony, fearing bad press and
perhaps an international incident, initially pulled the film from theaters and
released it online. This had a two pronged
effect. One, it over hyped a film that was (at least in the minds of critics)
lackluster anyway and Two: it lead to the very explosive computer hack of Sony
Pictures. While the North Korean government denies this, there have been many
reports that implicate their involvement.
Much of the inter-workings of Sony
were released online including any potential deals that Sony was working on, namely
a deal to share the character of Spider-man with Marvel and a lot of personnel
information including bank accounts and social security information. Again what
I find interesting is rather than focus
on the tragedy of releasing personal information, much of the focus was on the
Spider-Man deal.
According to the leaked documents,
the deal with Marvel/ Disney was talked about but then fell through. However, after
the hack, what do we see, but Spider-man soon to be part of the MarvelCinematic Universe. So the conclusion
that one could draw is that the hack itself, leading to a Sony regime change,
was the catalyst for the deal to actually get made. Which in part could give
credence to Sony employees being involved in the hack. So the question is, what
was the purpose of this hack? Was it punishment for the premise of The Interview and the Spider-man deal is
making the best out of a bad situation? Or was it more deliberate? There is
little data (outside of anecdotal evidence and wild speculation) that suggest
the latter. However the next example is a little more direct.
Example 2: Deadpool Leaked Test footage
Since
2009’s disappointing portrayal of Wade Wilson/ Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. There was always a solo Deadpool film in
the works. The buzz was big leading up
to the film and after its initial release. However, news (and public interest)
slowly died. Over the years, we would hear about the film in sound bites; That
Ryan Reynolds was still attached, about how it had a script (written by the
team behind Zombieland ), and how it
had a director (Tim Miller). But it looked like the
studio was very non-committal about it being made.
That
is, until this test footage was “leaked” online
Now,
The Deadpool film is in full
production mode with a release date of Feb, 2016. All involved accredit the green light to the
leaked test footage and the enormously positive fan reaction that followed. Not only could this be a direct example of
how social media and the internet effect content creation, but this could be
the function of the studio’s attempt to maintain social relevance in the public
sphere. This begs the question, if
studios are desperate to have their finger on the pulse of popular and youth
culture (which is nothing new) will we see a few more ideas getting green lit
because of social media buzz that, most likely won’t pan out? (ala “League of Extraordinary
Gentlemen” or “Watchmen”). There are
though examples of content that is punished for their distribution.
Example 3 The Legend of Korra books 3 and 4
The Legend of
Korra is
the popular spin off and continuation of the Nickelodeon animation series Avatar: The Last Airbender created by
Michael Dimartino and Brian Konietzko.
Both shows have a rabid fan base (see my review of Book 1), so much so that episodes of The Legend of Korra were leaked before
the airing of the show’s third season.
This lead to (a continuation of) the mismanagement of the show by
Nickelodeon (putting all of the episodes on Nick.com and pulling it from thebroadcast schedule) and slashing the budget for the show’s fourth and final
season. This was as if the producers of the show, and by extension, the fans
were being punished for their enthusiasm and consuming content in the
normalized form of the new digital landscape.
Finally, it has to be acknowledged
that even though the United States is still the producers of the majority of
this content, due to globalized Capitalism, Americans are now not the majority
of its audience. Because of the majority
of film box office receipts are now acquired overseas (US domestic box officenumbers have been on a steady decline), production companies have now change
release dates that reflect that. Now, movies made by US production companies
are released in Europe and around the world, sometimes weeks or months before
they premiere in the US.
For
all of these reasons we see a shift in both consumption and production of
content in popular culture. Some of it is positive, we get more content, and
greater diversity, much more of it is problematic (elevating the importance of
entertainment over social problems and activism). As the internet becomes less like the new
frontier and is slowly brought under more regulation and control, I wonder how
powerful these behaviors will still be. But until then, enjoy the independent
gems, while being horrified by the creation of (as C. Wright Mills says) TheMass Society. One where both desire and consent are manufactured.
Rant
I
just wanted to take a paragraph or so to rant about the content I consume in
general. I am starting to really enjoy
what I call complete content. Content that has a particular story to tell and a
particular direction. One major
component of that direction is a satisfying conclusion, an ending. Because
there is this thirst for more (mentioned above) this forces a lot of stories to
go on longer than they have the content or premise to sustain. When a show or
program reaches this point it is commonly referred to as “Jumping the Shark”. To me
something only has value because it ends, the infinite continuation of story or
material loses its value, because it becomes a constant. I do not need 10
seasons of a show or 4-5 film franchises, that is way too much. How many TV
shows or films in their later seasons/installments are just as good as the beginning?
So
here is my proposal:
1)
The
Rule of Three ( 3 films in a franchise only or 3 seasons of 22 episodes each)
If you can’t tell your story in that amount of time
start “trimming the fat”
2)
Shorten
episodic television to 12-13 episodes per season (an example of trimming the
fat aka filler episodes)
3)
Follow
the source material without being married to it. Conversely, fandom has to
allow for some “dramatic license when dealing with any adaptation.
4)
Create
something new. New stories, and ideas. Do go back to the same well, Complete
something and then do something different.
5)
Allow
for more diversity. I don’t want to keep seeing the same white able-bodied male protagonist. There are other
perspectives, find them, create them, use them.
End of Rant
