Participatory culture, according to Fuchs (2014), refers to the “involvement of users, audiences, consumers and fans in the creation of culture and content” (p.52). This runs counter to the typical mass media and broadcasting model, which involves a sole sender and many recipients. Jenkins (2008) offers another definition of participatory culture, defining it as “culture in which fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content” (Fuchs, 2014, p.54). He argues that people who engage in participatory culture combine resources and skills, resulting in a collective intelligence which may serve as an alternative source of media power. Fuchs is critical of Jenkins’ claims and beliefs of participatory culture due to several reasons.

Fuchs criticizes Jenkins’ ignorance of participatory democracy and its consequences for the Internet. He argues that Jenkins does not take ownership, class and capitalism into account when considering the notion of participation. For instance, he points out that users and employees of corporations such as Facebook and Google have no participatory power or say in the companies’ economic decision-making, which Jenkins fails to consider. Furthermore, he highlights that both Jenkins and Nico Carpentier (2011) exclude the aspect of ownership in their notions of participation, resulting in reductionist concepts of media participation. In other words, their notions of participatory culture are solely based on one dimension, while ignoring others. In the case of Jenkins, he is largely optimistic about user participation and fails to consider the negative aspects of this participatory culture, such as the exploitation and commodification of users by corporations, the violation of users’ privacy, and so on.

Moreover, Fuchs argues that Jenkins tends to idealize the political potential of fan communities. Jenkins immediately associates fandom in popular culture with political protest, and he also incorrectly equates politics to popular culture (Fuchs, 2014, p.58). Fuchs is critical of this as Jenkins is seemingly portraying the consumption of popular culture as a form of political resistance, which results in actual riskier political movements being side-lined. In addition, Fuchs criticizes Jenkins for not taking into consideration the potential negative implications of online and cultural communities, as cultural communities cannot be presumed to be politically progressive. Fuchs illustrates this with the example of Norwegian right-wing extremists utilizing Facebook as a platform for online meetings, which eventually resulted in the Norwegian terror attacks in 2011.

Fuchs puts forth that Jenkins emphasizes on consumer empowerment in his concept of participatory culture and neglects corporate dominance and power relations. Jenkins is naïve to claim that participatory culture promotes cultural diversity as media corporations ultimately wield the power to decide whose voices are heard online. Hence, Jenkins leaves out the issue of exploitation which is very much prevalent. Furthermore, Fuchs believes that Jenkins overstates the creativity and activity of users on the web (2014, p.61), without considering how creativity is the basis for which the exploitation of users is carried out. For example, Jenkins hails YouTube as a participatory website; yet, YouTube is owned by Google and its video advertising contributes to revenue earned by Google’s shareholders.

Lastly, Fuchs rejects Jenkins’ argument that one should be less critical of users’ exploitations if the users themselves reap benefits from their activities on web 2.0, or if they do not feel exploited. Fuchs elucidates that even if users’ online activities are not motivated by personal interests, but for the benefit of the online community, they are still subjected to exploitation by corporations.

Van Dijck and Nieborg (2009) agree with Fuchs’ criticism of users’ creativity and activity being overstated. They criticize the authors of Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’, as well as Jenkins, for assuming that contributing users have an equal amount of creativity and that they are motivated by self-expression (p.860), and point out that only a small minority of web 2.0 users are content creators, while the majority are inactive or passive users. They also put forth that most users participate online due to their self-interests, such as the wish to be entertained.

Like Fuchs, Van Dijck and Nieborg pay detailed attention to the ownership aspect in participatory culture or the culture of “co-creation” (Van Dijck & Nieborg, 2009, p.864), which is overlooked by the authors they criticize. Van Dijck and Nieborg highlight that users who contribute content are indirectly sending personal information to corporations who have the ability to extract and use this information, often for advertising and marketing purposes. This fact is overlooked by the authors of Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’, who only focus on the positive aspects of co-creation. This is largely similar to how Jenkins neglects the ownership aspect and potential user exploitation in his celebration of participatory culture.

Ultimately, it is evident that Fuchs, Van Dijck and Nieborg advocate the importance of approaching the concept of participatory culture with a critical lens. They stress the need to consider all aspects – positive and negative – of this concept, and its larger implications.

Reference List

Fuchs, C. (2014) Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage. (chapter 3)

Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Business Manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855- 874.