Learning Race and Ethnicity, in the MacArthur Foundation/MIT Press Series

Learning, Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media is the fourth book I’ve read in the MacArthur/MIT Press Series on Digital Media and Learning. This volume, edited by Anna Everett, is the furthest from my own field — law — and, for me, the most challenging.

Prof. Everett’s opening essay, (which follows the excellent foreword by the series authors, as with each volume in the series), is an effective overview of what follows in the volume. She takes up the familiar debate about the term “digital divide” and why it now rankles more than it helps. She also reminds us that the old joke about how online nobody knows you’re a dog is no longer true, with the advent of rich media and other “advances” in digital technology and how it’s used. I was left, from her chapter, with one line resonating in particular: “the color of the dog counts.” (p. 5)

The rest of the volume consists of three clusters. Future Visions and Excavated Pasts is the first. Dara Byrne leads off with a piece on the future of race. She pulls in and incorporates a series of great quotes from message boards and other online public spaces; takes up (and takes on) John Rawls on the public/private question that runs through so many of our discussions of online life, (p. 22); and digs deep on the future of whether there will be dedicated sites for different races as we look ahead. The punchline is that yes, “minority youth must have access to dedicated online spaces, not just mainstream or ‘race neutral’ ones.” (p. 33)

Tyrone Taborn’s “Separating Race from Technology” is the other essay in this first cluster. Tayborn compares the likelihood of any group of students (“majority white or minority, rich or poor”) knowing Kobe Bryant and Dr. Mark Dean, the African-American engineer involved in IBM’s development of the first PC. His point is clear. As one of a series of possible solutions to the problem of too few minority youth having mentors and heroes in the technology world, Tayborn calls for Digital Media Cultural Mentoring (p. 56).

The second cluster of essays take up art and culture in the digital domain. Raiford Guins guides the reader through a tour of the ways that hip-hop culture, art, and use of technology come together online in the form of “black cultural production in the form of hip-hop 2.0.” (p. 78) It’s a must-read essay; heplful to read with a browser open and a fast broadband connection on tap. Guins has an intriguing segment on the future of the music label, among other take-aways (p. 69 – 70).

Guins’ essay is well-paired with Chela Sandoval and Guisela Latorre’s celebration and contextualization of Judy Baca’s work at the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) in LA. (One wonders why LA gets more than its fair share of intriguing digital media production experiments and narratives?) Among other things, Sandoval and Latorre challenge the notion of “digital youth” and the challenges of overly delimiting based just on age — a helpful reminder of a point too easily forgotten. (p. 85) In the final essay of the cluster, Antonio Lopez offers insights into (and concerns about) digital media literacy with respect to Native American populations, told largely in the first person.

Jessie Daniels opens the third cluster with a jarring piece on hate, racism, and white supremacy online. Daniels picks up on themes about the fallacy of colorblindness established in Anna Everett’s introduction. With a link to Henry Jenkins‘ work, Daniels argues for a “multiple literacies” approach to shaping our shared cultural future online and offline. (p. 148 – 50)

Yet more jarring, to me anyway, is Douglas Thomas’s piece on online gaming cultures, called “KPK, Inc.: Race, Nation, and Emergent Culture in Onling Games.” Thomas draws us into gaming environments only to reveal a culture of wild adventure, first-person shooter games, acquisition, treasure, money, and hate all rolled together. The crux of his argument centers on the “Korean problem,” (p. 163-4), a blend of bigotry, nationalism, and competitiveness. The racists that Thomas exposes “are usually Americans / Canadians and white” — and gamers. (p. 164) Along the way, Thomas distinguishes his approach from that of our Berkman colleague Beth Kolko. (p. 155-6)

The final essay, by Mohan Dutta, Graham Bodie, and Ambar Basus takes us in a new direction, further afield, toward the intersection of race, youth, Internet, health, and information. The authors synthesize a great deal of disparate information in unexpected ways. The essay left with an expanded frame of vision, and a frame that I never would have come up with on my own. Their punchline: “disparities in technology uses and health information seeking reflect broader structural disparaties in society that adversely affect communities of color.” (p. 192)

On balance, this collection of essays hangs together very well. Each essay takes a on strong point of view. Overall, the collection both informed my thinking and provoked more by raising hard issues about the impact of growing up online for race, ethnicity, identity, and health.

Five Years of Keeping Culture Free

Hip-hip-hooray for Creative Commons on its fifth birthday today! Thanks to Larry, Joichi, and all the heroes of a free culture who have worked so hard on CC, around the world, for the past half-decade. If you want to help, there’s still time to pitch in: CC is $470,000 of the way toward $500,000 in individual contributions. Click here to be part of that last $30,000.

Benkler mini-lecture at HLS

Prof. Yochai Benkler is making the argument(s) of his new book, The Wealth of Networks, (500+ pages; buy it or write about it),
in 30 minutes here in Hauser 102 at HLS.  Whew — a lot of big
ideas, and big words, in a short space.  He is considering two
large problems.

1) What are the stable changes in the production of human knowledge and information?

– Commons-based production: the key is production without exclusion.

– Peer-production: large-scale cooperation among human contributors
without price signals or managerial commands.  Free and open
source software is hard to argue with, because it’s succeeded in the
marketplace.  But the phenomenon of peer production is in fact
ubiquitous.

– Most critical shift in terms of new opportunities: new platforms for
self-expression and collaboration.  People are trying to make
money from getting the point that platforms for self-expression can be
powerful: that’s what Web 2.0 is.

– IBM makes more in revenues from Linux-related activities than from patent revenues.

– These changes are a challenge to incumbent business models. 
These changes are threatened by IP laws and other funky new technology
laws.

2) And on to the politics: why should we care about the outcome of these political debates?

– Three reasons to care: autonomy (more we can do ourselves, or in
loose collaboration with others — see David Weinberger, Project Gutenberg), justice and
development, and democracy.

– There is no major democratic state that doesn’t post-date the rise of
mass media.  What does democracy look like when we introduce
social production?  Pentagon Paper is an early and important
example.  Diebold is a new one, in the lead-up to the 2004
election is
another, with Bev Harris and her distributed friends.  (Read the
book!)

David Weinberger, inspired by Yochai Benkler's book tour visit

Yale Law School Prof. Yochai Benkler is here at Berkman for the day as
part of his book tour for The Wealth of Networks.  At fellows’
hour, prompted by a back-and-forth about whether Cass Sunstein was
right in his famous Republic.com argument (about the Daily Me), David
Weinberger
took issue with the idea that we should read or listen to
those with whom we disagree.  “I do not,” he said, “have an open
mind.  It would take the Rapture to convince me that Bush was
right.”  One for the quote wall.

John Clippinger says that it’s really about structuring different kinds
of conversations, not necessarily about eating our spinach and
listening to
[fill-in-the-blank-radio-shock-jock] with whom one disagrees.

Yochai Benkler talk and book party, Tuesday, 4/18/06

This semester, our class on Internet, Law and Politics has been led
through the power of new networks to affect politics by a new book, the
Wealth of Networks, by Yochai Benkler.  This book is bound to be
one of the most important statements on technology and politics of this
generation.  It’s our great pleasure to
welcome Prof. Benkler to HLS tomorrow night in person.  We hope
you
will join us.

Festivities begin on Tuesday late afternoon, April 18, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. for a
short talk by Yochai Benkler
in Hauser Hall room 102 at Harvard Law School, and then a party in
honor and in celebration of his new book at the Berkman Center
immediately thereafter (at 1587 Mass Ave, Cambridge).  Prof. Benkler
has recently published his book, “*The Wealth of Networks: How Social
Production Transforms Markets and Freedom*,” through the Yale
University Press.

Prof. Benkler’s research at Yale Law School focuses on the effects of
laws that regulate information production and exchange on the
distribution of control over information flows, knowledge, and culture
in the digital environment. His particular focus has been the neglected
role of commons-based approaches toward management of resources in the
digitally networked environment, the increasing importance of nonmarket
production in general and collaborative peer production in particular,
and the significance of these phenomena in both economic and political
terms. “The Wealth of Networks” is a comprehensive social theory of the
Internet and the networked information economy. In it, Benkler describes
how patterns of information, knowledge, and cultural production are
changing—and shows that the way information and knowledge are made
available can either limit or enlarge the ways people can create and
express themselves.

More information on the book (and ordering information) is available at here, and you
may download it (and much more) on his wiki.  For directions
and maps, please see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact.  Erica George at the Berkman Center is in charge — phone is 617-495-7547.  Hope to see you there.

Yochai Benkler talk and book party, Tuesday, 4/18/06

This semester, our class on Internet, Law and Politics has been led
through the power of new networks to affect politics by a new book, the
Wealth of Networks, by Yochai Benkler.  I am certain that this
book will be one of the most important statements on technology and
politics of this generation.  It’s our great pleasure to welcome
Prof. Benkler to HLS tomorrow night in person.  We hope you will
join us.

Festivities begin on Tuesday late afternoon, April 18, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. for a
short talk by *Yochai Benkler*
in Hauser Hall room 102 at Harvard Law School, and then a party in
honor and in celebration of his new book at the Berkman Center
immediately thereafter (at 1587 Mass Ave, Cambridge).  Prof.
Benkler has recently published his book, “*The Wealth of Networks: How
Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom*,” through the Yale
University Press.

Prof. Benkler’s research at Yale Law School focuses on the effects of
laws that regulate information production and exchange on the
distribution of control over information flows, knowledge, and culture
in the digital environment. His particular focus has been the neglected
role of commons-based approaches toward management of resources in the
digitally networked environment, the increasing importance of nonmarket
production in general and collaborative peer production in particular,
and the significance of these phenomena in both economic and political
terms. “The Wealth of Networks” is a comprehensive social theory of the
Internet and the networked information economy. In it, Benkler describes
how patterns of information, knowledge, and cultural production are
changing—and shows that the way information and knowledge are made
available can either limit or enlarge the ways people can create and
express themselves.

More information on the book (and ordering information) is available at here, and you
may download it (and much more) on his wiki.  For directions
and maps, please see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact.  Erica George at the Berkman Center is in charge — phone is 617-495-7547.  Hope to see you there.

Provocation from Peter Beinart, via the Shorenstein Center

I just received in the mail the hard-copy edition of the Sixteenth Annual Theodore H. White Lecture, hosted by the Joan Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School at Harvard.  Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic gave the lecture on October 27, 2005.  The full text is worth reading.  (It is available online
as a video file, but I can’t find the text online yet; looks like
previous iterations have been posted in PDF.)  Since it is not
easily in text form yet, I thought I’d excerpt a bit from the end of
his lecture, right before Q&A (at which point Alex Jones, the
distinguished director of Shorenstein, steps back in to moderate).

“The achievement, I think, of the Clinton and the DLC generation was,
in fact, to think about first principles, to think about the
relationships between state and civil society, to think about the
ability of the market to achieve traditional, liberal ends.  I
think that’s fundamentally what distinguished them from the
neo-liberals like Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis, who had emerged in the
1970s and ’80s.”

(FWIW, I am with him up to here, for certain.)

“My fear is that the new blogosphere generation, the one that’s
emerging today, the children of Howard Dean, is so focused on
organizational and tactical questions about how the Democratic Party
can frame its message, they’re not focused nearly enough on what the
Democratic Party and what liberals believe.  That they are so tied
into the party structure itself that they don’t spend nearly enough
time thinking about what Democrats believe. …

“Let me just end with a word about what this means for liberal
journalism, because one of the striking things about the bloggers is
that they are not only activists, but they are journalists, too. 
The blogs blur that division.  Their stress on tactics, on winning
elections rather than on first principle, I think, is bad for liberal
opinion writing.

“The bloggers are helping to create a journalistic culture with too
much focus on what will help Democrats win, too much interest in the
short-term.  And it’s producing cramped, small-bore, predictable
and, perhaps worst of all, dull political writing.  It’s not what
liberals need today.  It’s not what opinion journalism needs
today.  It’s not even what the Democratic Party needs today, and I
don’t think Teddy White would have approved.”

The right call to arms, missing the point, or some of both?