Participatory culture is defined as users having a significant role in the distribution and spreading of online media. Jenkins sees this sharing and producing of content to be positive because it is bringing humanity closer together, and enabling networks. Jenkins (2012; 2006) argues that media users are a positive aspect of an increasingly ‘participatory culture’. However, this has been criticised by Fuchs (2014) or Van Dijk and Nieborg (2013) because Jenkins ignores issues of participatory culture, such as user exploitation, free labour, collective decision making, and commercial data utilisation.
Fuchs (2014) states that participatory culture is a term that is often used for designating the involvement of users, audiences, consumers and fans in the creation of culture and content. For him, participatory culture is defined by him as; consumers are invited actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content. This makes it distinct from consumer culture because participatory culture does not involve consumption of content made by others, but instead allows the public and private individuals to become contributors and producers of content. Participatory culture relates to spreadable culture as consumers play an active role in spreading content. Jenkins is seen as a utopian in Fuchs’ eyes, because Jenkins’ definition of participatory culture ignores aspects of participatory democracy, and ignores questions about the ownership of platforms. Whereas Fuchs’ takes a post-Marxist approach and goals back to Marxist ideals about ownership and crediting those involved in the means of production. He states that humans should have the right and reality to be part of decisions and to be able to govern and control the structures that affect them. Finally, Fuchs questions the definition of participation, as he claims that there doesn’t necessarily have to be active participation to be participatory culture (pg..).
Van Dijk and Neiborg (2009) also take a critical stance towards Jenkins’ participatory culture. Their main point of argument is with the definition of participation in a participatory culture, because according to van Dijk and Nieborg (2009) only 13% of online users are actually creators, so they doubt that a participatory culture is 100% participatory. They argue that Jenkins overlooks the role of passive spectators and the small number of active creators. Therefore Jenkins’ statement that all users are contributors is a wrong assumption, and it ignores individuality of the users. In their work they critically analyse the ‘web 2.0’ and its business manifestos. Web 2.0 is typically social media sites, such as youtube or facebook which are characterised through user-generated content. The content is ‘spreadable’ and created by members of the community in order to share between themselves in a meaningful social environment. Due to the spreadable nature of the content it can be adapted to different environments. They are critical of the manifestos because they portray a utopian world, and celebrate co-creationism and communal creativity.
Fuchs, van Dijk and Nieborg are critical of Jenkin’s participatory culture, but they do not see participatory culture as a negative thing. They are critical on the subject because they aim to warn us against the blind acceptance of the manifestos that praise participatory culture and state that certain aspects of Web 2.0 need to be scrutinised and not taken for granted, as what we see from Jenkins is far from reality.
References:
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.