"craft it forward" received!

As I posted previously, I joined a crafty project, "craft it forward", couple weeks ago. (see the post here)

I sent out my work like a month ago (not sure if it has arrived safely or not; kind of worried... :P), but didn't receive anything until last week. As the idiom said, "good things come in pairs", not one, but two unexpected packages arrived in my mailbox on March 30.

One was sent from San Diego, USA, by a girl called Jennifer. In the small white package came three delicately made cards, and all cards are about the same theme: mushrooms! (YES, I LOVE MUSHROOMS!) I can feel the care and efforts put into those cards; they are really nicely made, with colorful illustrations on each of the cards and plastic wraps to protect them. Thank you, Jennifer. :)

Another package lying in my mailbox was also mailed from USA, but Durham, NC. It contains a modern orange thank card made by the initiator of this "craft it forward" project (follow him on twitter: @dudecraft). I love the fact that he combined materials other than paper to put together this card, and the cool slogan he put on the envelope: "MAKING SOMETHING CHANGES EVERYTHING." His package was truly a surprise to me; I didn't expect to get a thank card at all.

Actually, I think I really need to thank him for organizing this project. I love working with my hands, and knowing that my work can pass along some love to others makes me even more content. Because the project, warmth is being transferred to and from various spots in the world, embedded in the creative works of the project participants. :)

review: We-Think by Charles Leadbeater

We-think: The power of mass creativity by Charles Leadbeater

[W]e are witnessing the birth of a different way of approaching how we organise ourselves, one that offers significant opportunities to improve how we work, consume and innovate. (24)

Holding this positive attitude toward the web and the world the web is creating, in his latest book We-Think, Charles Leadbeater puts together a recipe for today's generation to either confront or embrace the changes that come along with the emergence of a global virtual society.

The ground rule of the We-Think recipe is to share, as Leadbeater titles his first chapter: You are what you share. Sharing itself is not a novel idea at all. However, "sharing"--the idea as well as the action--is being maximized and reaching a whole new level in the world of highly connectivity and dense networks. The web amplifies the possibility of sharing, makes it much easier than ever, and encourages such action with the feedback, comment, praise--or, using Leadbeater's word, "recognition"--from peers that are generated in the process of sharing.

The ingredients for the recipe are listed as well: a core (providing the original concept/project/platform/scheme), connectivity (among creators, users, peers, participants), being creative, willing to contribute, and collaboration (organizing participants, managing and negotiating the input as well as the output). Again, none of the ingredients is new or exotic. Yet Leadbeater emphasizes and strengthens the importance of these key elements by sorting out a detailed report on many real cases that correspond to the We-Think recipe. His report covers open sources (Linux), collective intelligence (Wkipedia), games (I Love Bees, World of Warcraft, The Sims), social media (MySpace, YouTube), projects that brings the professional, the amateur, and the pro-am together (Open Architecture Network, Instructables), financial/human-resource/political mobilization (Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign), and many other examples.

Like many other authors who writes cookbooks, Charles Leadbeater needs to try out his dish first. What is really interesting here is that We-Think the book is itself the recipe, as well as an experimental practice of the recipe. Leadbeater made his preliminary draft of We-Think available online and free to download, he created a wiki page for the We-Think project, then he collected responses, critique, questions, suggestions from hundreds of intrigued contributors around the world, and he developed, refined, modified his We-Think recipe either according to, based on, or in respond to the feedback he received.

The decision to try out the recipe with his book, in real life, is quite worth noting. First, such decision reveals the central optimism of Leadbeater in his take on the Internet, its consequential creation as well as side effects. Second, by executing his concept, Leadbeater gives credits to not only the recipe (he actually believes in it) but also the people out there--the enthusiastic ones can come along join the discussion, or make contributions to the project, while the skeptical ones can witness an actual practice progressing. Third, making his We-Think practice public, Leadbeater alters the traditional, single-direction way of collecting information. Now information are transited back and forth among peers, critics, and Leadbeater, in the connections built upon his call to exercise the We-Think recipe.

Being a big fan of We-Think, Leadbeater still tries to be objective and reflective. He questions, "How far will We-Think spread?" and then, "For better or worse"? Carefully looking into different societal fields, Leadbeater recognizes that some aspects (design, research, creative works, public services) are prone to be affected by and involved in the chemistry of We-Think while other parts are less likely to follow the guidance (agriculture, mining, quarrying, basic energy production). Yet overall Leadbeater is rather enthusiastic about We-Think and its effects. He claims that the spread of We-Think recipe can make a profound impact on human life--especially more influential for people in developing countries, and that "Yes, We-Think will be good for democracy; yes, We-Think will be good for equality; yes, We-Think will be good for freedom."

A single instruction for diet cannot account for the complete health of everybody, so does the We-Think recipe. Leadbeater is aware of the fact. In the last chapter of his book, he writes that "it would be naive to imagine that a new way of organizing ourselves will necessarily be exclusively positive" (232).

For example, sharing, the fundamental base for the We-Think recipe, can be its Achilles tendon. Sharing (either the idea or the action) is open for people to utilize it, to make good use of it, or even to abuse, misuse it. One can achieve very opposite ends with amazingly similar ideas/tools/means. The hostile spreading of viruses, the scheming of criminal acts/terrorist attacks/conspiracy, or the intrusion of others' privacy (accidental or intended) are not at all hard to imagine in the world the web is creating. The challenge this kind of negativity pushes forward is not to stop believing in the ethics of sharing but "to create a sense of order and security without undermining our capacity for sharing" (235).

Writing with a barely concealed adoration for the interconnected world that keeps growing, expanding, and changing, Charles Leadbeater presents a dish that is rather simple and approachable than the actual flows--untrimmed, outbursting, and enormous--running through the web. This cookbook is more of a welcoming introduction that slowly leads people to the gate behind which sits the real labyrinth of mapping the virtual society and reasoning the logic(s) of living within such society. Without doubts, We-Think is a good start point to initiate the discussion about the future, the implication, and the meaning for mankind to situate themselves in a world of collective collaboration, massive connectivity, and sharing. Leadbeater opens up the banquet with the first course: We-Think. The rest relies on others to cook, to experiment, to produce, to create, all together.

newspaper and...

This week I've been reading articles from "a flying seminar on the future of news".  The articles are all orbiting around one central topic: the future of newspaper/news media/journalism. The industry of newspaper has been shrinking ever since the emergence and prevalence of radios, televisions, which have taken over most of the accountability of spreading the "fact-oriented" news, or the so-called "breaking news."  Yet newspaper didn't face its death penalty until the online society became a crucial, inseparable, and unavoidable element of human life. Nowadays almost everything in real life is being digitalized, adapted, recreated, and relocated into the vase virtual world. Newspaper is, of course, one of the "almost everything." Newspaper is losing its stand point in the world where thousands of millions of ways of either receiving/retrieving or broadcasting/reporting news, facts, information, journals, comments, critiques are opened up to every inhabitants.

So what impacts does the dying of newspaper have on the news industry, on  journalism/journalists, or even on the whole society? These questions are exactly what the articles in the seminar are trying to inspect, to break down, to reason, and hopefully to give some answers or directions for people who are facing, witnessing, effected, or unaware but influenced by this dramatic and painful evolving of the newspaper industry.

Compared to the future of newspaper/news media/journalism, I am actually more interested in the future of human beings' relationship to the world, to each other, and to themselves. Newspaper and the printing press have, to some extent, catalyzed the building, regulating, and solidifying of nation-states as well as citizenship. Through the action of flipping through the same paper, reading the same news, discussing and commenting on the same stories, people who live within the circulating region start to form a collective identification with the region and the people live there.

Now the boundaries of circulation have long been wiped out, and the monopoly of distribution of news/information has been broken; what kind of news media form, or new media will come next? And what change will the new, surviving, winning media species bring to the power structure, to citizens' identity, and to the relationship between the states and citizens? 

"craft it forward" :)

About a week ago while I was wandering around on Twitter, a tweet from @dudecraft caught my eyes. It was like this, "Crafters, please participate and RT: http://tinyurl.com/d6r4oo". I clicked on the link and then became intrigued by this secret Santa in March project. For one thing, I love keeping my hands busy: drawing, paper cutting, sewing, cutting, gluing... For another, it always feels nice to pass along warmth to others with the thing I made. After one day of consideration, I wrote my application to Paul.

Then on March 7 I received this email with the information of my "makee"--a Vancouver guy who loves bicycling and am about to be a dad. Not sure what to make, I saw the two pieces of brand-new eraser sitting on my desk--"I can try to carve a eraser stamp!" Things didn't go well at first; I didn't have the transfer paper with me, and I didn't own a proper knife for carving either. Then I said to myself, "Come on! I am a left-handed. I can draw reversed images!" and I just went for it.

The drafting turned out to be quite OK. How about the carving? Well, the two stamps were a bit rough looking; I didn't do a very good job with curves and dots. Anyways, at least the images were intelligible. (I was soooo happy when I tried out the new-carved stamps and saw the clear images!)

In addition to the rubber stamps, I also made the box to put those stamps in. Making the box was another challenge; I spent quite a long time working with it. The gift box turned out to be very satisfying--my boyfriend: "I love the box!!!!!!" and he didn't say anything about the stamps. :P

Tonight I packed the whole thing together, along with a supposed-to-be-short note--it was, uh....kind of long. Seeing how this craft it forward project was formed from the very beginning--two small erasers, a plain cutter, a pair of scissors, and some pieces of paper--to the wrapped-up package waiting to be sent tomorrow, I feel really content. Yeah, it is always nice to work with my hands, put some care and good will into the object, and give it to someone. :)

to speak and to be heard

Having the right and freedom to speak doesn't guarantee the result of being heard. When the assumptions behind the current discursive space are dominated/pre-structured/mandated by the mainstream voices, how to keep the uniqueness of the marginalized and at the same time make sure they are being heard? The conversation between Henry Jenkins and Dayna Cunningham rotates around a similar but more specific question: Can African-Americans find their voice in cyberspace?

The conversation is divided into four parts; Jenkins and Cunningham respectively give out two sections of their thinking, inquiries, and ideas about the question. It is a long, rich, and very interesting conversation in which many sparkles are popping out here and there. I especially like the part where Henry Jenkins discussing the two models for the black voice to reach its audience. One is the "hush harbor" model, where "blacks could communicate with blacks largely outside of the vision of white America" (part two). The first model is basically aiming on creating a "black public sphere" where a particular kind of critical culture that belongs to blacks can be generated, inspected, articulated and circulated.

The second model is more open and fluid. It follows the "very nature of the modern media landscape"; messages and ideas are moving across communities, networks, and social groups. Thanks to the broadband, online social media, and other technology, more and more open spaces for different people to express, or extend their mind. However, as Manuel Castells points out, "while the network society is organised on a global scale, not all territories, or people, are connected in this network society" ("Why Networks Matter"). People's life, ways of thinking, and perspectives are still being influenced, shaped, and redefined, but they are not necessary participants--for one thing, they might not even aware of the moving of streams; for another, they might have a hard time finding a spot in the chaos. The spaces are seemingly open to all kinds of users, but in fact some unintended restraints might be woven into the structures upon which those spaces are built.  Therefore, another question arises. In order to reach the "mixed audience," should the black voice, or any other subaltern voices, play along or break down the rules/codes of the majority?

No answers are offered here or in the discussion between Jenkins and Cunningham, but the conversation has been opened up. 

See the conversation here: part one, part two, part three, and part four.

thinking about "public sphere"

What is “public sphere”?

According to the entry of “public sphere” in Wikipedia, the term “implies a spatial concept, the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed, and negotiated, as well as the collective body constituted by, and in this process, ‘the public’.”

The birth of Habermas’ idea of public sphere was tied to the debates or discussion taken place in the actual open spaces existing in real world: coffee houses in Britain, or salons in France. Yet as Boeder points out in his essay, “Habermas’ heritage: The future of the public sphere in the network society,” to separate “[public sphere] from the medium in which it develops” is a rather crucial step in understanding “the Habermasian concept of public sphere.” So the public sphere is more of an abstractive concept than a physical existence; it resides in many public places in society such as café, meeting halls, book clubs…, just to name a few, but those places are not equal to public sphere. A coffee shop where customers sit quietly, sipping their coffee while reading magazines can hardly be viewed as public sphere. In other words, what is happening in those public spaces is another key element to form public sphere.

So, what is happening then? In my opinion, communication is the big umbrella here: conversation and dialogue are the basic forms of communication; discussion and debate function as negotiation mechanism when disputes occur in the process of communication; human reason, or rationality, is the underline rule for the communication to take place and to keep ongoing; consensus/public opinions are produced, regulated, circulated, and distributed in the process as well.

Public sphere is thus defined by and born with both the communication that involves and engages the public and the space where such communication is taking place. It is worth noting that a lively, healthy public sphere has certain political implication as an inquiring and monitoring force in society opposed to authorities such as government, church, or canons. And that is why Habermas claims that public sphere is destroyed by the prevailing belief and practices of capitalism, commercialism, and consumerism, as well as the growth and domination of mass media. Forged, fake public opinions are circulated and distributed for commercial or PR purposes; profit-making—to attract, entertain, or hook their customers—replaces the political implication of public sphere as the sole focus now; mass media also carry assumptions and imagination about certain “topical” subjects and filter out marginal issues that don’t fit in the mainstream discourses. To borrow Habermas’ words, public sphere as such is “a public sphere in appearance only.”

Then, will public sphere revival in the era of the Internet?

It is true that the spread of broadband network makes more and more people have access to the enormous cyberspace, and that the bubbling of online social networks carves out immediately useable spaces that, unlike mass media which restrain the possibility for public to interact, welcome and encourage participation and engagement. There are more spaces for people to utilize, to open up conversation/discussion/debate that would not have room in the territory of conventional mass media.

However, an open space is not necessary a public space. Forums or blogs that are wide-open to the public don’t guarantee the participation of the masses. People certainly have more freedom to speak out, to express themselves, yet without audience, whatever they are doing is only soliloquy; no communication is happening there, and no attention is drawn to there either. This is where networks will really help. Having networks helps to increase the exposition—more chance for people to meet, to get involved, and to recruit their peers to participate—to the world. Without such connections, these lonely but open spaces in the virtual world would probably be like some unattractive small stores outshined by the fancy, appealing, and well-known supermarkets nearby.

I believe that the concept of public sphere can be realized in the virtual world, but in a transformed, evolved manner—maybe more fragmented and more diverse. There won’t be a sole, unified public sphere but many open spheres of rather lower scale. These open spheres are accessible and connected to the public. Then the spheres build bridges among one another from different directions, in different levels, and for different purposes, according to their shared interests, similar focuses, or overlapping concerns, forming a variety of public spheres where prosperous communication is taking place, dispute and negotiation are ongoing, and opinions are examined, challenged, and reformed.

what I am not so sure about Twitter

- things that I don't like so much

*no editing function

One thing about Twitter bothers me, that it's not possible to edit tweets after posting. So typos, or inappropriate word choice, or wrong links will always be there; no chance to correct it. (well, replacing the old one with a new, revised one is certainly possible, but troublesome.) But given the fact that the concept of Twitter is strongly related with text messages, I can understand why they don't provide such function. No one would complain about not being able to edit the text message after sending it.

*authenticity

The authenticity of information being circulated on Twitter is something worth noticing. Like all the other information or resources we find on the Internet, or even in real life, it is rather important to tell their truthfulness. Being quick, or close to real time is the biggest feature of Twitter. Yet its quick pace also, inevitably, increases the odds that the messages being sent might be wrong or flawed. People post the tweets as if doing live news reporting; they throw something out first--whatever they got, and then they correct the errors or give more details as the thing--a public demonstration, an earthquake, a plane crash--progresses or develops.