Happenings: The Intersection between the Powers That Be and the Consumer

Democracy

The final three chapters of Jenkins’s book deal primarily with the ways in which democracy has begun to integrate itself into the culture, the ways in which democracy and the process by which the people become involved have started to take hold and truly become a part of convergence culture.  The process of democracy has often played hand in hand with media.  After all, the media is used by politicians to present their platforms, sling mud, and target audiences.  Politicians have used the radio, the television, and the internet to some degree in order to let the people know what they stand for.  But now, political parties are starting to reach out to their audience in ways they have previously neglected.

                Jenkins recalls Howard Dean’s campaign, in particular his game meant to show voters why he was a good choice—the best candidate.  In 2004, Dean’s campaign and subsequent downfall proved, in many ways, to be the first real push into convergence coming from the political world.  Dean’s game, Howard Dean for Iowa, and the subsequent flaming of Dean throughout the internet community brought to light the opportunities and the problems associated with this convergence culture.

                Similar to those who like to spoil Survivor, those interested in the political campaigns and happenings try to spoil and excavate information that could help them discredit another candidate or predict who is going to win.  Politics becomes, in many ways, a game.  We play it the way we play a game, the way we try to manipulate our receiving of the final outcomes of shows.  Convergence, while helping more and more people to get involved (if for no other reason that information is more available than ever before due to the internet), also seems to ruffle the features of those in charge.

                Jenkins recalls the CNN/YouTube candidate debates, in particular the snowman incident.  The question, a serious one couched in an animated snowman, played with humor hoping to evoke a response.  And it did, invoking a response that was both violently dismissive and childish.  The Republican candidates refused to debate with a snowman, the final straw, it seems, on top of a menagerie of other supposed insults.  Apparently, debating with the “uninformed public” is below many candidates.  This debate debacle seems to bring to light the higher-ups problems with convergence in general.  We have seen this with the Survivor producers and the publishing and film companies.  These powers that be are afraid of the changes, or, perhaps, are more concerned with things such as money instead of results.  Publishers need fans to sell their books, film companies need fans to sell movies, and politicians need supporters to win.  Yes, the public cares about the politicians’ ideals and agendas, but we also care about their receptiveness to us.

                Jenkins makes a statement towards the end of his chapter on Democracy about online communities.  He writes that they are “passionate but often short-term investments” (242) of people who “can always move elsewhere if the group reaches conclusions that run counter to their own beliefs and desires” (242).  I would have to disagree, and while he comments that this has been shown throughout book, his evidence seems to be contrary.  The Survivor people still spoil, the fan communities for Star Wars and Harry Potter are still strong enough that there are contests and J.K Rowling has opened up Pottermore.com for the fans.  Internet communities are more resilient than I believe Jenkins gave them credit for in this section of his book.

Conclusion

                Convergence culture is not going to happen, it is not some nebulous thing out there in the future that we can barely grasp.  We are not attempting to discern what will happen.  Instead, we are in the happening at the moment.  The way I see it is, this is kind of like those “Happenings” in art—where a thing happens with little direction from the artist, even though all of the aspects are set up.  The art is created as it goes.  We are creating this art as we go.

                Fans do not want to see “a definitive version produced, authorized, and regulated by some media conglomerate” (267).  Instead, we want to participate within this creation of art, whatever that particular art might be.  We want to be a part of it.  We are aware, and perhaps accepting, of the fact that it will never be a fully shared creation.  We are still, in many ways, viewers, artists who work in the shadow of other artists.  We create alongside others who have the power.  The power of authority will remain concentrated among those politicians, those publishing houses, those producers.  However, in the spirit of convergence (or perhaps because they are starting to run out of options), there may, according to Jenkins, be experiments within this hierarchy of power where fans get some leverage and the creation of art (whether it be movies, writing, politics even) can continue—and thrive.

Questions:

1) Now that we have finished this book, do you see Convergence as a good thing?  Or is it segregating us more than ever?

2) Do you think, in the next presidential election, another YouTube debate would be more accepted, especially seeing the ways in which our culture is moving?

3) Is it possible to know who voted what party based on the entertainment they enjoy consuming?  Just become a person watches The Grudge, is it possible to draw the conclusion that they did not vote in the election?  How so?