Flickr, Affinity Spaces, Links, Visual, Academics, Blogging, GeeSeptember 15, 2005 5:05 pm

I was just wondering …
Concentration

But I wanted to comment that I have noticed that people interact with me over different things in different spaces. The observation is this:
When I post pictures on my blog, people do not comment much or interact about them. So for example, on this post here I had only one comment - and that was received after a few days of the post being there. It is significant who commented - Mary Plain - she has asked me about photoshop several times and is also thinking of getting a camera. But in fact, I think she was just being polite in commenting - I had just commented on her blog.
Comparing this post (and there are other examples) with ones where the content is about areas of my research, people are much more keen to comment, like here.

Conversely, photos get lots of comments on Flickr. Now this might be an obvious point but lets move to some analysis.

Gee says that affinity spaces are about CONTENT. And people ARE selective over what content they want to interact about. There is a degree to which the stuff is just social. There is a lot of reciprocity that goes on, in terms of comments to and fro, but it has to be more than just social. There has to be a content PULL.

But this is just about comments. I wish we knew more about the silent lurkers - or blurkers - as Jackie would have it.

But also … why do you think hardly anyone reads this blog?

Flickr, Communities of Practice, Affinity Spaces, learning, Blogging, Gee, FoucaultMay 26, 2005 8:56 am

I discussed Bourdieu’s Forms of Capital with Jackie and Anne-Marie.
I am thinking about a model for online learning communities which takes appropriate bits from Communities of Practice and Affinity Spaces but which also includes the dimension of power dynamics.
Bourdieu talks about social alliances like this: ‘Each member of the group is thus instituted as a custodian of the limits of the group: because the definition of the criteria of entry is at stake in each new entry, he can modify the group by modifying the limits of legitimate exchange through some form of misalliance.’ which is highly resonant of Flickr groups, in the way people set up new themes but these then develop and there is some kind of negotiation going on through the comments system, which reflect what things are valued and what are not. I believe that certain discourses become highly valued on Flickr; for examle the discourses of gratitude, of appreciation etc. People praise each other’s work, their houses, their babies, their belongings even. On Star not Star this is exemplified very well here, where the photographer tells so much of her life in describing the ciircumstances by which she took the photo. She reveals lots about her family life, her lack of expertise, here gratitude for praise and also for receiving useful critique to help her understand something about her photo she had taken. The way she received the comments from others seemed to facilitate more teeming in. I have seen this elsewhere on the site. This is all about being a member of the group who can use the right discourses. This does not have to be calculated at all, I am not suggesting that . I am saying that some discourses are very powerful and that people who are popular in the groups are able to interact in these ways.

Another interesting group is Pirates. TT set up a Pirates group where he intended to invite pictures not of literal pirates but of transgressive people in urban settings- a kind of intellectual pirate, a pirate who challenges social norms. The group is now filled with loads of pictures of real pirates; TT was not actually in control of what pictures went on. The power is illusory sometimes. This does not mean that social capital has not been acquired where it is apparent, for I think in these spaces where the right discourses are used, (discourses of gratitude of admiration, etc) powere is sustained. I.e. power is embedded in the discourses and the modes of the space. So ther is power also in images and people’s critique of what makes a good picture helps to shape what is valued in the shared images!!

Anyway there is lots there; I want to describe the way Flickr uses the space of the web to help me make a stab at describing an online community which draws on the notion of affinities, of learning, of valuing different types of knowledge, etc etc but which also acknowledges those elements of power which are undermined by other models. Gee talks about leadership in affinity spaces being ‘porous’; I certainly feel that there is more opportunity for leadership in online groups, (and that is probably part of the attraction - to feel empowered in a safe (ish) space) ; but I also think groups are subject to hierarchies. We cannot forget for example, that it is Yahoo that supports a system of ‘favourites’ which help confer status. Or that the system of picking people as contacts is seen as acquisitive in some way; the discourses of mutuality are perhaps a little bit misleading over in the Flickr camp.
If I can try to draw up a model for Flickr I can then think about testing it in other groups.

I am feeling quite excited about all this. Multi modal forms of capital, yeah.