090526_chapter4_section-nomadism-draft.pdf (PDF, 136 KB)

The post consists of the usual little snippets of well-worn wisdom about play and game (play is informal and open-ended, games are formal and rule-based; game are competitive, play is more about spontaneity and shared fun). As also noted on another blog, this largely coincides with James P. Carse’s distinction between finite and infinite games (1986). Or even the paidia vs ludus distinction which we find with Roger Caillois (1958), and which has been extended and adapted by many contemporary game researchers. But what makes this useful, I guess, is that DeKoven connects the game/play distinction with ‘community’. Thus, games and play become prime organizing principles of technologically mediated communities:

It is no coincidence that the Internet, though it serves both kinds of community (play and game), is so easily characterized as a play community, dependent on openness and trust shared by its players, succeeding to the degree in which it can respond to their constantly evolving, individual and collective interests.

People are increasingly active on various online/mobile/hybrid social networks. See my earlier post on online social networking as a game, in particular this quote: “Social networks offer a revolutionary way for people to play with friends and communities that have meaningful value to them in their real life”. Such a communal view on identity-formation is a nice addition to the more individualistic view, in which identity as a project of choosing and building a self involves ‘playful’ experiments and (re)configurations on a personal level (‘playing oneself’).

The question remains: does sharing the same play experiences with other people logically lead to self-understanding in terms of ‘play’? Metaphors (play/game) become ‘real’ when they account for people’s sense of similarity and belonging. The metaphor then becomes a medium. It seems such a powerful line of reasoning in favor of the ‘playful identities’ thesis: when former fixed essences and circumscribed narratives of identity are debunked, unmasked, or simply no longer believable, playing together is a very powerful way of reconnecting (‘re-ligare’) to a larger body of people.

Starting this academic year Jeroen Timmermans, Jos de Mul and I are teaching a new course called “Homo Mobilis: mobility, media & identity” at the Erasmus University Rotterdam as an international masters. The aim of the course is to acquire a deeper understanding of some of the main theories of mobility, and its place in modern history, and to critically rethink the influence of transportation- and (digital) communication mobilities on human identity. The 15-week course schedule looks like this:

Introductory classes

1. First meeting, introduction, practical matters, course outline, syllabus, etc. Thematic overview of the course.

2. From movement to mobility: the concept of mobility.

3. Mobility systems and the mobilities paradigm.

4. A short history of media.

5. Philosophical overview of time/space by Jos de Mul.

Mobility systems

6. Public transport and the time schedule.

7. Airplanes, airports and non-places.

8. Car mobility.

9. Mobile media and smart mobs.

10. ICTs: spaces of flow.

Thematic & critical classes

11. Guest lecture by Lucas Harms (SCP)

12. ‘Liquid identity’ and ‘The corrosion of character’

13. ‘Identity under siege’ and ‘the saturated self’

14. Overshoot: critical perspectives on mobility.

15. Closing session. Presentation of assignments and discussion.

The researchers also looked at the practice of mobile sharing:

“There is a growing trend of sharing with teenagers. Phones are more and more objects that circulate within a group, in particular when they have lost their own phone, when it is broken or stolen. The Gripic researchers were surprised to find that a fair number of teenagers didn’t even have their own mobile phone, but just a “replacement mobile”: an object that was ephemeral, non-sacred, cheap and aimed at circulation. The only thing that matters is that it works.” [...]

“In fact, for adults the mobile is a hyper-personal device, an intimate black box with data that absolutely need to be protected. For teenagers on the other hand, the mobile is often as little confidential and intimate as their blogs. They are instead identity and exhibition spaces of oneself, with “museum galleries” of photos, ringtones, videos, and music to share with a community of peers: archiving makes only sense if it can be shared.”

Gripic sees teenager usage of the mobile no longer as “emblematic of an individualistic society”, but rather as “a reflection of collective and collaborative behaviours”.

(English translation from Putting People First)

This supports the idea of gift exchange through the mobile phone, written about by amongst others Taylor & Harper (and by me).

Another interesting finding is that young people learn to use the phone by experimenting, and that they deal with glitches in a “non-dramatic” way.

(Via Small Surfaces)

The claim is made that online social networking is a type of game (not really a new idea). Impicitly it is suggested that gaming is the form of contemporary social bonding. Additionally, the relevance of online gaming for “real life” is underlined. This further undermines the old dichotomy between an isolated cyberspace versus real life as two separate domains. Interesting as well to me is the fact that there are reputation systems built into these social networking games. These become mechanisms to enforce reciprocity, which is an important term in theories about gift exchange (Mauss).

Some interesting quotes from the article:

Game design and social networks are merging into one of the most persuasive forces on the net. That assertion was made by a string of speakers at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.

“Social networking is a game in and of itself,” explained Jennifer Pahlka, co-chair of the conference.

….

“Social networks offer a revolutionary way for people to play with friends and communities that have meaningful value to them in their real life,”

….

“Logging in and playing with strangers was exciting when the internet was new but the modern web is personal and social and it is clear that the internet is being used for social purposes to connect people rather than isolate them.”

….

“We build up these reputation systems with levels and rankings just as you would if it was a game and by applying these gaming principles it helps build these thriving successful communities.”

The film is a mixture of documentary following a number of ‘Rotterdammers’ an their mobile cam use as well and interviewing the, as well as a showcase of the mobile phone movies and photographs itself that are made by them. This is done quite ingeniously, by blending the two together in such a way that you get a good view both from the ‘real life’ perspective and the ‘virtual media-perspective.

So what kind of people are portrayed in the film? The first are Thom and Osama, two young guys (both 16) who film their daily movements in the city, go to weird places and shoot themselves fooling around a bit, and upload their material to Youtube. See the following Youtube accounts: Osama (osama015); Thom (jump266) ; and together they operate under the nick osamathom1991.

Then there is a young mother Annemarie (24 years old) and her daughter. The mother makes little clips of for instance her daughter and her singing and dancing together, and shares these with friends and family online.

There is Hans, a guy of about 30 years old who mainly takes photos of things he sees in the city in an artistic fashion.

And finally an older man, Cor Been, age 75, who has filmed the entire process of the construction of his new apartment building to which he is moving.

There are a couple of things I found really interesting about this film:

Different age, different use
First of all, the film shows how people from different ages do very different things with their mobile phone camera. Osama and Tom went for the kicks and sought out the ‘dangerous’ and exiting urban places they normally wouldn’t go or weren’t suppose to be. The young mother did it in a very social way to share her life with her daughter with other; the 30 year old guy made all kinds of photographs of the city in a very aesthetic way; the old man used film to get accustomed to his new habitat, as a kind of narrative medium to incorporate the new into his life.

Mobile film as an emerging genre
What kind of new pictorial language is emerging through the use of the mobile phone for photo and film? It is a radical first person perspective; a 3D view of the world, the camera does not only pan from left to right but also up and down (one’s feet!); movement while shooting instead of stills; no cuts; position of the filmer in his own film; enactment in front of camera: it’s is not acting as if it is real but made absolutely clear that it is acting in full awareness of the presence of a camera.

Experience of multiple places at the same time (moving in hybrid space)
The two young guys were making a film while sneaking into a building (hotel?) they clearly weren’t supposed to be. While prowling through the corridors and pushing elevator buttons in a seemingly spontaneous way, all of a sudden one of them yelled: “This is certainly going to be on Youtube!”. This seems to indicate that these kids are adding an extra dimension to their physical world, namely concurrently imagining a digital world. They interweave their here and now experience of what they are doing in physical space with an added dimension of presenting it later elsewhere on a digital platform.

Social aspects of sharing: niche vs. platform
The young mother was sharing films and photos of her and her daughter with friends via online platforms (Youtube, Hyves). There is something very social about creating content. A new sociality? Or sharing as age-old ritual (gifting)? Only within small circle? But interestingly she chooses a platform that is accesible to everyone. This raises questions about how people want to express themselves, either to small niches vs. sharing broadly.

Experiencing city space through the mobile phone camera
Filming the city while being on the move adds an extra reflexive dimension to this mobility. First it adds another lense in front of you, a layer of mediatrion in a (new) visual movie language. And second it enables you to look back almost immediately on what you have just experienced and how you have captured this. The experience of a city may change through this additional reflexive layer. It enables you to distrance yourself from your own immediate experience by viewing it again through the eyes of a bystander, like an being an audience to your own captured experience.

(thanks Bieke for the pictures, additional info, and small corrections!)

The general impression I got was that this festival was an experiment to create a setting in which new modern urban identities can be explored, partly influenced by global culture, partly localized and typically Indonesian. I enjoyed it a lot!

Many people used their cameras, DV cams, and handphones to capture a sense of ‘being there’.

Some interesting quotes from an article in Jakarta Post:

“As youth, we present something new, something different from the mainstream. That’s what people call the indie spirit. Now a group is considered indie, maybe later it’s not indie,” Jimmy, a member of The Upstairs [one of the bands playing], told a press conference Wednesday [that must have been August 22, 2007].
…
IKJ Rector [Jakarta Arts Institute, one of the organizing parties] and noted dance choreographer Sardono W. Kusumo said the festival was part of efforts to give young artists space to display urban cultures far removed from those found in the nation’s countryside.

“We are open to and ready for even “the craziest” ideas,” Sardono told the conference.

Sardono said there were no “genuine” Indonesian cultures, since the nation’s history has long been open to foreign influences.
…
Organizers said the festival, carrying the slogan “All You Can Act!!!”, are aimed at promoting freedom of expression in the face of rising conservatism in much of the country.

Some of the grafitti art at Urbanfest ‘07.

Guys doing motorbike stunts

East meets west when a hiphop group from Yogyakarta invites a dangdut singer on stage for a jam at Urbanfest ‘07.

Japanese cultural influences: harajuku & cosplay competition at Urbanfest ‘07.

On his scooter, Ramon covers all of Jakarta. He even goes to neighboring towns like Bekasi, Tangerang and Bogor (1 1/2 hours). Ramon regularly uses the handphone to communicate whether he has found any new hair, where he has to drop off, or where he can pick up. In easy times he gets about 3 calls every week. In busy times everyday.

Ramon owns his handphone since 2 years. It is not really advanced, he admits, but it does have a handsfree/audio set, and a camera. Ramon makes a lot of snapshots of all the special places he visits. He prints them out and puts them on his wall, for “kebanggaan sendiri” (personal pride). With a broad weave of the arm Ramon explains he has whole wall full of pictures. He feels he has become a kind of artist since he has got a handphone.

Together with Lisa & Dini, two girls from my rumah kos, I went to Monas (national monument) in the morning. Under a blistering sun we walked to the Istana Negara (state palace), just north of Taman Merdeka (freedom square). Along the road we saw military units parading. At the palace, young people from all current 33 provinces were present, wearing regional ethnic costumes, featuring on pictures, and busy taking pictures themselves.





Ethnic and national identities at Istana Negara. Mobile devices all over the place to capture “unity in diversity” (Indonesia’s national motto). Tradition and modernity go hand in hand.

After that, Lisa and I went to kampung Melayu, one of the poorer areas in Jakarta. Some friends of her organize a three-day series of festivities in the neighborhood of bukit duri, as part of an effort to make freedom day a real people’s festival. All kinds of traditional games here, vaguely reminding me of the kind of ludic activities that take place on Dutch “koninginnedag” (queen’s day). These kids compete to run three slippery eels from one bucket into the other as quick as possible.



Eel race in kampung Melayu. In the background an activist painting claiming the rights of poor people in Indonesia. The proclamation in the painting reads “Children of poor families are the responsibility of the state. Children at the edge [referring also literally to bukit duri’s location near the Ciliwung riverside] are not sewer rats!”. The painting is part of a campaign in the neighborhood to voice social and economic awareness and identity, as the slums are planned to be cleared due to recurrent floodings.


Pre-paid card infrastructure has penetrated deep into the kampung!

Meanwhile, a bit further uphill, young guys try to climb the greasy pole, in the hope of getting one of the handphones dangling from the top as a reward! I somehow got the sense that in this image, some central notions in my research (identity, play and the mobile phone) come together and lose some of their slipperiness…



Play in front of the quarter’s main Mesjid (mosque) on national freedom day: who wins the mobile phone?

In talking about identity, I feel like adding a more personal note. Today has also been a day to consider my own history and relation to Indonesia. A week back or so I was in a book shop at Taman Ismael Marzuki, and picked up a Soekarno (Indonesia’s first president) biography by Bob Hering. Paging through the book, I noticed my great grandfather figures as one of the prime informants. He apparently was very well-acquainted with many of the key figures who founded Indonesia, and who are commemorated today. From the scarce stories, I know he spoke several indigenous languages fluently and was part of the so called ‘ethical’ movement which tried to reform colonial rule. Yet still part of Dutch colonial system… 62 Years after Indonesian independence, I cannot help but feel both continuity, by temporarily living here and becoming close to this country, as well as rupture, for I am here in a completely different situation and role, as the paths of Holland and Indonesia have split.

New technologies like the mobile phone lead to new discussions:

from the {belajar-islam} [= "study Islam"] mailinglist: http://www.mail-archive.com/belajar-islam@yahoogroups.com/msg00092.html

Antoniobandalem wonders whether muslims are allowed to use products that are made by non-muslims (kafir), such as the handphone. He gets a reply from Chandraleka, an independent IT writer, who says something like (freely translated & abbreviated):

20 May 2006

“Wah! Don’t be too extreme! As long as the product itself is halal, it doesn’t matter who produces it. Extreme ideas like these are caused by ignorance about Islam. This idea would make modern life nearly impossible: you cannot drive a car, cannot use a computer, cannot use light bulbs, cannot use a mobile phone… Muslims are allowed to use ‘kafir’ products, thank God! It makes life much easier!”

This really unclear picture is from Telset Magazine (edisi 74 July 2007, p.16), one of the many handphone magazines in Indonesia. It shows a queue of thousands of people waiting in front of the Ballroom Hotel Grand Melia in Jakarta on 13 June 2007. What are they waiting for? Is Michael Jackson making an appearance in Jakarta? Is someone giving away free stuff? Nope, these people are awaiting the launch of the new Nokia E90 Communicator. Indonesia is the first country in the world where this device was launched. This device really harbours all the functions that a mobile device nowadays possibly can have aboard. About 1100 invitees could buy the phone on the spot for around 11.000.000 Rp (almost € 900).
In an editorial, Magazine Telset does not fail to notice how ironic it is that so many people are queuing up for a device which costs 1 1/2 times the average Indonesian yearly income. In this country, thousands of people voluntary queue up for hours to be the first to have the E90, while still at this time many more people involuntarily queue up each day to get cooking oil. According to Telset editor, it can happen here because people feel it is prestigious (gengsi) to have such a device, which in turn increases the tendency to see handphones like this Communicator as a symbol of status and success.

The first day of his visit, Tuesday June 12, he will give a public lecture called:

Playland – Transformations in Technology, Identity and Culture

Kenneth Gergen will speak about the influence of modern communication technologies on human identities. He will specifically focus on the rise of play elements in digital culture en the transition in thinking about identity as monolithic entities

After the lecture there will be time for questions from the audience.

The lecture is in English.

Date: June 12 juni 2007

Time: 15:15 – 17:00.

Location: Room B2, Campus Woudestein, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Directions: http://www.eur.nl/adressen/plattegronden/

More information about Kenneth Gergen: http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1

Entrance is free.

(click to enlarge)

Also, Nokia can be added to the long list of corporations who think we should “be yourself, and do it in style”. The imperative to be yourself paradoxically is a pressure nowadays from which there is no escape…

Source – via Textually.org.

A study by Nielsen Media Research suggests that the type of phone you wear says something about your personality:

What your mobile phone says about you:

Nokia

• Family-minded
• Middle aged managers
• Balance seekers
• Health conscious

Motorola

• Fashion conscious
• Under 24
• Fun seekers
• Individualistic

Sony Ericsson

• Ambitious young men
• Professionals
• Success driven
• Individualistic

LG

• Favourite of mums
• Stay-at-home parents
• Success driven
• Harmony seekers

Samsung

• Young women
• Career focused
• Success driven
• Fun seekers

Whatever your opinion about such research (what do you mean LG is both for “stay at home parents” and “success driven”?), most telling are the comments by readers. The majority of commenters think it is utter crap to see a communications device as part of your identity. They think it is rather sad to judge someone based on what he uses for calling.

They seem to miss the point of the article, however, that your mobile says something about you, even if you do not choose them consciously. These kinds of articles do raise the interesting view that even though we all despise being easily identifiable by the brands we use, we nevertheless are continuously making choices (yes, also subliminally) and rationalize them as ‘functional’ (like the guy who says he always buys Nokia so that he doesn’t have to relearn navigation from scratch). The interplay of brands and identities, of marketing/production and consumption, is far too complicated to just push research like this aside as nonsense…

“Surviving dependants often think those items really belong to the deceased. But they don’t think about the materials in the devices which are bad for the environment”.

What will our great-great grandchildren think about those strange ‘ritual items’ found scattered everywhere in the earth, and dated with great precision to a definite period in the beginning of the third Millennium?

via: nu.nl

This is an older pic shot in Jos. I was out on Ahmadu Bello way talking to some people selling all kinds of addon items for mobile phones. Joe here was very fond of his very small handset. Before this one he owned 2 earlier models.

Anybody can upload a short mobile phone clip to the website 15×15.org which is then displayed on the homepage for 15 seconds as one of 15 clips being shown simultaneously.

Interestingly, most people seem to film themselves and then put it online… Affirmation of the mobile phone as a tool for reflexive creation and expression of personal identity?

BTW: I am being eating by a purple Tyrannosaurus Rex…

(Thanks Tim for reminding me!)

- Young people don’t use their mobile phones ‘just for fun’ but also for serious matters: to say something about themselves and their relationships with other young people (self-expression).

- Branded goods play an important role in this self-expression.

- Texting is “a reaffirmation and a reminder that “I’m with you�?.”

- Many young people feel depressed after a whole day without SMS. Some young people even go to rehab clinics for being “text-addicts”!

- The mobile phone has taken over the former position of cigarettes in offering a private space for unsupervised private communication. (And some studies suggest young people are smoking less and less because their money now goes to phone bills – MdL)

- Texting is attractive because the language can be deformed so that no adult can understand it. (This is also pointed out by Mitzuko Ito in an article (in Ling & Pedersen: 2005) about how traditional institutions like family and the classroom are being challenged by the mobile phone – MdL).

- The phone itself allow for personalization (wallpapers, ringtones, etc.) and enables young people to express themselves and “advertise their identity as part of their peer group.” (> Interesting notion “advertizing identity” – we are all designing and branding ourselves to some extend).

- The basic social needs of young people are: “Social Networking, Communication, Status display, Personalisation and acting as a Behavioural Platform.”

- Mobile operators realize too little of these characteristics of young people’s interaction with the mobile phone.

Read the whole interview here!

Textuality.org reports that many of the English(?) office workers have an infatuation for hightech mini-gadgetry such as mobile phones, Blackberry’s, iPods. They are dubbed G.O.S.S.I.P.S – Gadget Obsessed, Status Symbol Infatuated Professionals. The research was done for recruitment firm Office Angels. From the Reuters press release:

LONDON (Reuters) – An iPod and 2 mobile phones are the latest must-have accessories along with Sushi for the status-conscious office worker, according to a survey released on Wednesday.
The poll, conducted for recruitment firm Office Angels, found 67 percent of 1,500 respondents considered so-called “micro-gadgets” like Blackberrys, laptop memory sticks and small mobile phones to be the ultimate status symbols.

Office Angels branded the people in the survey as GOSSIPS (Gadget Obsessed Status Symbol Infatuated Professionals), a morphed version of the archetypal 1980s Yuppie — Young Urban Professional.

Almost half (45 percent) of those questioned thought any ambitious worker should own at least 2 mobile phones — one for work calls and the other for social chit chat.

The survey also found food such as sushi, organic salads and sashimi — thinly sliced raw seafood — were rated highly by office workers compared with traditional sandwiches or burgers with chips.

Nearly a third of office workers also admitted to spending over 10 pounds a week on coffee, even if they could get the beverage for free at work.

Apparently, the smaller the better, casting doubt on the Goffmanesque idea that it is all about external display, the “presentation of self”. Carrying such items with you as little ritual tokens (fetishes) may be more about highly personal feelings of security and confidence.

The film has many aspects that have to do with identity, visible in the may paradoxes that were evident in Timothy Treadwell:
- Treadwell played with his own image: he developed a story about himself as being from Australia; he was performing outrage & anger in one of the last scenes against the park rangers (the forces that be in the human world), yet could easily switch back to being calm in the next second.
- Treadwell wasn’t always very consequent in his self-construction, e.g. when claiming that he was ‘the only person out there’, while it appeared that he was in company of a woman at least some of the time, which he tried to hide from public eye (camera).
- On the one hand, Treadwell was very vain, constantly fussing about his hair and doing stuff with bandana’s trying to conceal his receding hairline. On the other hand, he didn’t give much about material goods and status.
- He constantly stressed how dangerous it was among the bears, yet when something happened that didn’t coincide with his romantic view of noble, harmonious nature, he couldn’t accept it, as when a young bear got killed and eaten by starving elder bears.
- Treadwell anthropomorphised the animals, ascribing them human behaviour and characteristics.
- Treadwell’s work wasn’t about the bears as much as about himself becoming a new being: he confessed a few times in front of the camera about his troubled youth and told how he had overcome his problems. He shot many sequences of ‘action-takes’ that could later possible be used in a dramatised film about his life.
- Treadwell’s attempt to carve out a life of his own, be unique in what he does (“nobody can do this”), celebration of individualism, escapism from institutional structures, is a very modern thing, typically of this age.

Go see this film!!