c0/\/\m|_|N1C4710n

A blog post was added to the OAC sometime last week by M. Izabel introducing "Jejemon", an evolving Filipino web/hybrid linguistic phenomenon that has been causing quite a stir among linguistic elitists and traditionalists:

The current hot cultural issue in my country is the "jejenese" of the "jejemons". Jejenese is the electronic language or sociolect used in sending electronic texts by jejemons, who are usually teens who share unique language codes, virtual experience, and unconventional worldview influenced by their use of technology such as cellphone and computer. Jejemon is a combination of "jeje" from "hehe", an expression when someone laughs, and "mon" from the video game, "pokemon" … [rest of post no longer available]

The Jejemon movement has attracted a strong following of "Jejenese" as well as a backlash against them by so-called "Jejebusters". A quick search on Google pulls up Facebook groups for and against, as well as various sites extolling, bemoaning and analyzing this interesting script.

As shown by M. Izabel in her post and according to Wikipedia, Jejenese has its own alphabet (jejebet), which is rendered in these examples:

Filipino: "3ow ph0w, mUsZtAh nA?" translated into Filipino as "Hello po, kamusta na?, translated into English as "Hello, how are you?"
English: "i wuD LLyK tO knOw moR3 bOut u. crE 2 t3ll mE yur N@me? jejejejeje!" translated into English as "I would like to know more about you, care to tell me your name? Hehehehe!"
aQcKuHh- means me/ako
lAbqCkyOuHh- means I love you
yuHh- means you
jAjaJa- garbled words conveying laughter
jeJejE- a variation of jAjaJa; conveys sly laughter
iMiszqcKyuH- means I miss you
eEoWpFhUeEhsxz - means hi/hello

I couldn't help but immediately associate this Jejenese/Jejemon with elite hacks. My response to the post and subsequent exchanges no longer appears on the OAC, so I would like ro recreate them here to keep a record, as well as to add additional items which I intended to include in a later reply before the post (and M. Izabel, temporarily) disappeared. (This post is therefore not a detailed analysis, but a point of departure.)

My original response:

Jejenese looks somewhat like 1337 h4x (elite hacks or “leetspeak”, a hybridized ASCII English substitute borne of online gamer exchanges), crossed with text message shorthand used on mobile phones/instant messaging platforms and a smattering of Lolcat.

In these and similar cases, hyper-conservative and hyper-liberal interpretations of any detrimental or enriching impact on standardized language are overstated and misguided. It’s people using linguistic codes. Technological influence notwithstanding, it’s nothing new. Some of the created forms will stick; others will drop away or not catch on because they are too confusing, time-consuming or incompatible with existing modes of transcription (e.g. keyboards at present are not suited to touch-typing many symbols interspersed with text).

I agree about the dynamic nature of culture and language. The evolution of written language – even given technological influences – is notably less dramatic and considerably more gradual. Jejenese and leetspeak evolve parallel to, and as part of, the other spoken and written languages that we use in informal and formal communication. (I think it’s a stretch to call all web-based substitute alphabets “languages”, although I recognize that the distinct grammars and syntax in more elaborate cases might justify this among linguists.)

So, for example, many non-leetspeakers on the web (an increasingly off the web) recognize the term “pwned” without requiring an in-depth knowledge of leetspeak and its quirks. “Pwned” becomes part of gamer English, then web English, then offline English, etc, and is also absorbed into other languages via its web presence, rendering leetspeak dictionaries redundant. It’s no longer “just” leetspeak. In short, what we are witnessing is not an evolution of a new web language, but an unavoidable expansion of whatever language(s) the newly “hacked” alphabet is based on (English, Chinese, Spanish, French, etc, or a mixture of slangs and dialects).

The resulting linguistic hybrids are also usually subject to considerable codeswitching, even in the online chat environment: when and with whom is it appropriate to converse using this alternative script? At some point, all practitioners are required to drop into more formal (universal, shared, recognized) scripts to be understood within a given speech act. Even committed 1337 h4xx0rz will drop out of 1337 (leetspeak) to talk about serious things. Not to mention that these “languages” incorporate numbers and symbols (&|/\@#$^) that are notoriously difficult to “speak” aloud. Spoken conversations take a lot of effort to sustain.

Because they are based upon hacking existing (contemporaneous) languages, the ability to read/decipher web substitute alphabets/scripts like leetspeak and jejemon is more widespread than actual fluency or inclination to write in it all the time. Casual use is not entirely organic, but a product of calculated, direct transcription. Eventually, fluent “speakers” are able to make unique expressions and styles beyond simple substitution. The resulting dynamic script is not entirely “new”, but is dependent upon existing linguistic and grammatical forms (even if just to adjust and contest them). One can therefore not wholly replace the other, not least of all because English and jejemon and leetspeak are all evolving simultaneously and borrowing from each other.

I wouldn’t say that any of this is equivalent to cave paintings [as M. had indicated in her original blog post] because while the use of these codes is a type of symbolic representation of a shared concept, much like a drawing, it is firstly an alternative representation of a “word” (or its component phonetic parts) which then signifies the concept. So there is that double-layer processing which depends upon literacy, not just imagery.

Not all sectors of society embrace/understand new slang or symbolic language at the same rate. What I find most interesting as an anthropologist is how some people find slang, texting and other informal speech so severely repugnant, while others embrace it as liberating for humanity. People love inventing exclusive codes and jargons, but we naturally dislike being excluded. Playing with language is probably what humans do best. It makes us feel free, but the flipside is that it disturbs us immensely at the same time.

M. had replied something to the effect that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) leetspeak and Jejenese are actually very different, because leetspeak is used to provide both secrecy and brevity, while Jejenese is more playful and not about abbreviation at all. She also indicated that Jejenese is never spoken, only written, and it is therefore based on imagery and audio-visual representation that is somehow analogous to cave drawings. I'm still not convinced on these points.

Although it is a product of Filipino culture, Jejemon shares many features with older and current web slangs and codes. I suspect there are fewer differences in the uses and purposes of both leetspeak and Jejenese, and that they share more than just numerical substitution. "3110" could be hello in either script, but number-for-letter substitution is nothing new in technologically mediated human communication. It has been popularly utilized at the very least since numerical beepers (pre-dating the text-capable pager) were the trendiest form of communication when I was a kid.

The leetspeakers I've encountered are mostly not "hackers" per se, in the sense of having the required skillset to perform actual "hacks" on other computers or networks, although they do subscribe to a symbolic techno-culture of hacking as an ethos (much more on this to come in future posts). In this respect, they do not often use leetspeak to convey secrecy or brevity, but the opposite: to perform and widely convey specialist knowledge, a badge of belonging to what is actually a fairly varied subculture of tech geeks. Leetspeakers are often young tech and web fans who therefore use it playfully and intermittently.

Furthermore, writing things out in 1337 is more laborious than quick abbreviation and its cumbersome grammar makes lengthening simple statements part of the "fun". For instance, "You win" may be lengthened and transcribed as "y0u 4r3 t3h w1nZ0rz!1!!1", or more elaborately, "Y0|_| ar3 73|-| winz0Rz!1!1". The grammar and syntax is inventive and unique, but there are rules. So there is more going on here than brevity or secrecy alone, as I imagine is the case with Jejemon.

Jejemon is a web/mobile technology phenomenon for sure, but one that has quickly crossed between public and personal domains, traversed domestic and political fields, and stirred up a mini-storm of generational confusion and class controversy (especially surrounding the "proper" use of English). Markers of identity which are borne of online media rarely stay locked into a single communication channel, but spread, mix and continue morphing into new configurations.

Despite reflecting a confluence of many media types and channels, its simple and mundane use as a personal shorthand for communicating with friends shines through for Jejemon "speakers". At some level, then, both 1337 and Jejemon are equally about secrecy and brevity and the creation of in- and out-groups. Fluent speakers can keep their conversations free from undesirables like adults, parents or authorities. But creating secret languages to keep parents in the dark predates computer-mediated communication.

More significantly, Jejemon appears to be directly related to class relations in the Philippines. There are definitely culture-specific online-offline contrasts that the above comparison is overlooking and I'd like to learn more about the (on-the-ground and on-the-web) class dynamics behind it. Is leetspeak also subject to "class" differentiation, and do these classes come from offline social structures or are they generated online?

Tweet

Don't twitter on my Internet and call it lifestreaming

Some time ago now, I ran across Twitter and blogged briefly about the potentiality of "microblogging" or, for more grandiose terminology, "lifestreaming". Since then, I (like anyone else with one ear to mainstream tech-news headlines) have naturally been aware of its expansion into all corners of the web world, lending itself to so many offshoots and modifications personified in an impressive array of homemade widgetry. I lumped it together with the whole Web 2.0 trend, which, it is evident, not only saw the advent of blogs, but the simultaneously and rapid desubstantification* of the written word to bite-sized morsels of gooey, self-absorbed blandness streamed tidily to your handset in RSS.

Granted, this process had long since begun (read: countless and all-pervasive social networking sites). But I feel like it has gone hand in hand with the Web 1.0->2.0 bait-and-switch of adding comment tags and community answer boards to every place on the Internet where they'll stick, with the instant gratification you'd expect from a pile of scribbled post-it notes in place of reference books. You've got to love user-generated content. Instead of knowledge, we get home-grown nonsense. Information is the web-based world's cheapest commodity, while meaning is the rarest.

As a researcher observing interpersonal communication and how it is mediated or mitigated by the Internet and its many facets, I expected to venture back to Twitter quite often. Like Facebook and Myspace, I presumed that I would be led there by participants and respondents - that there would be something of significance for me to engage with or follow up on; that, by sheer force of impact, I would be resigned to the revolutionary omniscience that is Web 2.0. This "new generation" of website has so much potential to change the way that we live and to alter our understanding of modern human society and socialization. Uh, right? Doesn't it? Wait ...

After 15 months of participant observation, I'm not so sure. Yes, I sought to explore Web 2.0 in all its reverent glory. I wanted to understand this community-building force of a previously unforeseen potential. I wanted to be shocked and awed by the construction of elaborate and intricate social networks, keeping us all in perpetual contact from our living rooms to the backs of buses to the insides of cafes, through geohashing and tweeting and vlogging and tagging, via Twitter and MySpace and Facebook and YouTube and Flickr and Blogger. I wanted evidence of exponentially increasing participation levels; of grassroots bombardment of free media at unprecedented rates; of the universal exchange of knowledge for public good; and the opening of doors through open source. I wanted to get stuck in the digital social glue binding together our global society.

Hm, not so much, it turns out.

As an aside, the probable reason for my not finding these utopian ideals (other than their not existing, of course), is that when I set out to engage in participant observation of the Internet, I did what appears to be counterintuitive these days, and set my field location to a place I could point to on a map (not this map). In the end, I find that this perspective has been a refreshing and far less, well, viscous approach to understanding the impact that computers and the Internet have on people (as opposed to users).

Above all, through web-based research I have found that the content readily available on the Internet makes the enterprise feel, more often than not, helplessly futile. On occasion, what I find is enlightening and enriching, but, alas, I fear that will never outweigh the instances when it is hopeless and uninspiring. Anthropologically à propos.

In my current fieldwork, it was a pleasure to get away from the mindboggling amount of meaninglessness which assaults me at every turn in my own daily forays into the depths of the web (not to mention in academia...). The more I try to understand about people through online content, the less I want to keep digging and trawling through a muddy jungle of misinformation, aggression and frivolity that is of Amazonian proportions and just as venomously charged.

Like Wikipedia^, then, it is for this reason that Twitter gets under my skin in a most uncomfortable way. It doesn't mean anything. It is genuinely uninformative, ego-centric and self-obsessed drivel. The audience is no one and everyone; the subject is nothing and everything. I don't need to know when someone brushes their teeth or takes out the trash or picks their nose. I really don't. Humanity is exceptionally ridiculous. We seek out freedom of expression as our one and only avenue to universal truth, then we turn it into a free-for-all reality televisionification** of daily banality. A like mind explains it well.

But still, in all my inherent negativity ... I am saddened by the initial hopes that the "idea" of Twitter (though not only Twitter) stirred in me upon discovering it. Its romantic potentiality still calls to me from beyond its disappointing reality. As a quirky tool for relaying to oneself and their friends or strangers some spur-of-the-moment lucidity or lack thereof, it remains (at least) generally amusing, and (at best) even cathartic. I foresaw the temptation of running to Twitter when I coined some spectacularly funny turn of phrase, clever insight or revelation which could so easily be lost among the 50,000 processes running off my mental CPU at any moment. (It never actually happened.)

But what about the fleeting thoughts which lead to some much-needed invention, a solution for world hunger, the first step to the eradification of stupidity as social doctrine ... or any other great idea otherwise lost and without audience? Similarly singular lines of thought have launched revolutions and have defined whole eras in human existence. After all, if we stopped engaging in the silly and pointless for the sake of intellectuality, it would be counterproductive. Much of what is worth knowing and doing in life is found in the absense of forethought or any explicit search for meaning.

So in insulting Twitter, am I scoffing over the potential for quality because my academic mind resents minimalized quantity? Perhaps. But the truth is that the McNuggetization*** of thought is not the same as literacy. Still, that doesn't mean that Twitter can't be a genuine tool for the betterment of humankind. After all, I learned through Twitter that I really don't care as much about what other people do and think as I thought I did (or should).

Call me a snob, but I draw the line when people start microblogging about their underpants.

* Man, I've just googled it and it turns out that this word isn't my own invention.

** Wow, this either ...

*** I give up.

^Edit: Those not familiar with my rants on Wikipedia may not agree with my analogy here. I find Wikipedia to be a source of knowledge as potentially useless as it is helpful. I like wikis in general and think that they can be extremely beneficial collaborative research tools and repositories of information when implemented correctly. Like most people, my Google searches and inevitable Wikipedia trawling probably make up more of my common (non-specialist) knowledge than I'd like to admit. But it remains unreliable as a source of factual data and for as long as the content remains disputed, everything it contains needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This is something I have difficulty conveying to people. The same people who agree that you can't trust anything you read on the Internet will cite Wikipedia with glee. Maybe it's the suffix. I have problems accepting assignments from my students which cite Wikipedia as an authority, because it is authorless, unaccountable and open to being edited at a whim. The extent to which its reliability compares to that of peer-reviewed academic writing is another blog post entirely. In short, I see Wikipedia as gap filler in my knowledge on certain subject areas where I have little to no awareness, but the bits of information I glean from it are partial and almost inevitably biased. I use it out of laziness to truly investigate a subject or ignorance as to how to go about it. In this way, it it feels rather like empty calories, and is therefore analogous to my view of Twitter.


Add to del.icio.us

Tweet

Coca-Cola sets up mobile social network

Coca-Cola Co. is creating a virtual teenager hangout like MySpace and Facebook, only on cell phones, to lure more youngsters to its sodas and flavored drinks, starting in the United States and China. Eyeing the success of mostly desktop computer-bound teen social sites run by media companies, like News Corp's MySpace, the world biggest soft drink maker said on Wednesday it was creating a cell-phone network under its Sprite brand where members can set up profiles, post pictures and meet new friends.

Coke, part of a growing group of advertisers putting ad campaigns on cell phones, will make the U.S. site available to Web-ready phones on June 22. It launched in China last week and is eyeing other markets in regions like Latin America.

"The Coca-Cola Company needs to continue to recruit future generations of consumers," said Mark Greatrex, senior vice president of marketing for Coca-Cola. "Mobile marketing is absolutely where it's at for us going forward." [more]


.
Add to del.icio.us

Tweet

Campus nightmare recounted in blogs, photos, videos

Everyone - especially those who are in any way associated with universities and academia - will be thinking about the recent events at Virginia Tech. I found this article useful in revealing the varied reactions of students, classmates and others to such a tragedy. It is interesting how blogs become a source of news, a means of communication, a symbol of friendship and a tactic for profit all at the same time. A sign of the times?

BLACKSBURG, United States (AFP) - Until Monday, when a gunman shot dead at least 30 Virginia Tech students and professors, Bryce's Journal on the blogosphere was all pictures of friends and fun. The latest chilling entry, dated Tuesday, April 17 at 8:35 am, says: "The list has begun. I read it and reread it, double-checking each name on Facebook to see if I could recognize any of them. I probably have seen them in a class, in a dining hall, crossing campus -- I saw the German teacher and immediately and desperately looked up a friend who is taking German class as my eyes began to water in anticipation. She was all right." "Rest in peace," reads LJ blog before going on to list the names of the dead.

As soon as news of the massacre broke, students turned to the web to communicate and journalists flocked to their weblogs in search of eyewitness accounts and cellphone and video reports. The medium too enabled The New York Times to point readers to its The Lede blog for quick updates while CNN ran amateur photos and videos from I-Reports, its recently launched citizen journalism initiative. Fox News ran user-generated photos and video reports while the local newspaper The Roanoke Times ran constantly updated online news items from hospitals, police, university officials and the students themselves.

"I never imagined that this is the way Virginia Tech would likely go down in history," said a former student and current MSNBC correspondent on the television network's website in an article titled "Not At My Alma Mater." The university itself, under the title "Tragedy at Virginia Tech," updated its page every few minutes, canceling classes for the week and at 9:15 am Tuesday identifying the South Korean gunman responsible for the Norris Hall fatalities -- Cho Seung-Hui, 23. In film shot with a cellphone by Jamal Albarghouti, a student near the hall at the time of the massacre, the sound of around 20 gunshots can be clearly heard in the 70 seconds of blurred images and sound.

Speculators eager to grab cash after the killings snatched up Internet domain names that could be searched for information about the shootings, The Roanoke Times reported. One man registered the killer's name, chosenghui.com, and was offering it for one million dollars, as well as offering vtmurders.com and vtmurders.info for 250,000 dollars each, the newspaper said.

Surfing across the blogosphere, BickLickU shows footage of students deserting both the campus and the town itself, while collegiatetimes.com offers students countrywide information on their friends and a guest book to the dead titled "Be Still." LiveJournal user Paul recounts how his friend was hit by a bullet to the hand, but on Tuesday asked reporters not to use his latest accounts. "There are way too many emotions flying around at this point." A day earlier, underlining the tension as the drama unfolded, he wrote: "Because of what's transpiring, my phone cannot connect to the network, it's constantly busy."

In a likewise eerie reminder of the events that took place, Bryce's Journal reported shortly before noon on Monday: "Safe and rather scared. My friends and I got out of class at about 9:50. Walked across campus. The wind blew with flurries about. Sirens were in the distance and I saw an undercover cop car go about 80 (miles per hour) down one of the drives. That was odd. In front one of the dorms, West AJ, were several police cars, lights off and parked. We started talking about how there are always situations that cops rush across campus for and we never hear about. Then several people walked by and told us there was a shooting and campus was closed. No one is allowed to cross the drillfield. Hmm. We went ahead to eat some food as cops were stationed in front, checking ID for everyone. I walked with my friend to his dorm to get his stuff as an omniscient announcement echoed across campus: 'This is an emergency. This is an emergency. Take shelter indoors immediately. Stay away from windows and remain inside.''' [source]

Add to del.icio.us

Tweet

Brazil Offers Internet Access to Indians

I know that this does not pertain ethnographically to Spain, but I think its essential to a discussion of Internet technology and anthropology.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- Brazil's government said it will provide free Internet access to native Indian tribes in the Amazon in an effort to help protect the world's biggest rain forest. ... Francisco Ashaninka, a native Indian from the Ashaninka tribe who works for the western Acre state government, said the arrival of Internet was a success for the Forest People's Network, created in 2003. He said there are currently a few telecenters on the outskirts of cities, but that the new ones will be built deep in the forest and will allow Indians easy access to public officials so that they can alert them of illegal miners, loggers and ranchers." It will be a real chance for the indigenous communities to acquire, share and provide information to public officials," Ashaninka said. He added the Internet would "strengthen indigenous culture by linking them and providing environmental education." [source]

I am genuinely interested to see how this one turns out. My own research has led me to be more than skeptical about the amazing potentialities provided by the Internet when it is introduced to a society. As we know, it is never quite as awe-inspiring and revolutionary as its proponents so hope, or claim, at the outset. The Internet was hailed as a ubiquitous and 'free' source to promote universal democracy and virtual utopia around the world. While much of this new technology can be said to have improved some aspects of communication and social organization in some locations, and according to particular conditions, the Internet revolution did not quite have the impact that we all - pretty naively - expected.

Now, in this case, it is clear that the local 'tribes' are already cognizant of the existence of the Internet and its uses, as there are some 'telecenters' in the area. I suppose what first came to mind was, why, when Internet access is offered freely to them, should these people - or anyone, for that matter - decide to use it to contact the local government regarding illegal activities? As I see it, there are mainly two things at play here. Firstly, there are many other uses for the Internet which these people will be well aware of and experienced with. Trying to predict what individuals or groups will use a new technology for is difficult, mostly because it is a subjective activity based on a mix of needs and desires. Secondly, I would be interested to know more about the local social conditions, the proportions of illegal activity, the culprits, and the local 'opinion' of such activity. Why should it be expected that the indigenous communities should want to - or feel able to - provide names and details to the government (of all people!) regarding the activities of individuals who may very well be, in some way, part of their communities? Are these illegal miners, loggers, and ranchers 'foreigners' or 'locals'? It is very difficult for people to voluntarily inform government agencies to the wrong-doing of their neighbors - and not just in the Amazon.

Nonetheless, I would find it very fulfilling if this initiative were successful in eradicating illegal activity to the detriment of the Amazonian rain forest. The rain forest needs saving. (On a more personal note, think of it: Indigenous communities ... saving the rain forests ... through the Internet! If that doesn't justify anthropological attention to technology studies, what will?)

There are, of course, many other development-related benefits to the Amazonian region as a whole. My skeptical comments are therefore not an attempt to belittle the task at hand. It is important and essential. In short, I am extremely supportive of "linking" the communities and "providing environmental education", as long as this is done for the benefit of local communities as well as the environment, with no underlying motive. Why should it have taken a focus on illegal activities to bring the Internet to the local communities solely in order to help hunt down criminals? When will governments decide to provide new services, technologies and sources of communication purely to help people? Idealistic, I know, and quite out of character - but I am an anthropologist, after all.

Add to del.icio.us

Tweet

Digital Ethnography

As some of you will already know judging by its "viral" status, KSU has amassed "a working group of Kansas State University students and faculty dedicated to exploring and extending the possibilities of digital ethnography." I came across their video - an anthropologists' (Prof Wesch) take on Web 2.0 - on YouTube.

(Incidentally, has there been any anthropological examination of the term "viral" and its application to web-based material? Do non-English speakers use a similar term? What connotations does it carry? I'd be interested in finding out...)

But, back to Wesch, et al. They seem to be chasing some intriguing questions. Here's an interesting post on the responses they received to the question, "Why do 'You Tube'?"

61% said they tube to connect with others or to be social
43% said they tube for fun or entertainment
41% said they simply like watching YouTube
33% said they tube to express their opinions
25% said they tube to be creative
19% said they tube because they are bored (”nothing better to do”)
17% said they tube because it is more “real” or authentic than commercial productions
16% said they tube hoping they might become famous
15% said they tube to see what other people think of them
12% said they tube because they are addicted

What do these kinds of responses tell us? There is plenty to follow up on. I find it interesting that the highest ranked response is to 'be social'. What exactly does this mean for people with regard to web-based and user-generated content? How many of these YouTubers create their own content and how many just view other people's content? In which sense, then, can this be said to be 'social' activity? YouTube is also limited in the extent to which it 'connects' people. It allows people to share a singular type of content and to leave comments, but it is not an extended forum for connectivity as, say, instant messaging, telephoning, or even e-mail. Unless, of course, we consider that YouTube-ing or "tubing" is possibly (probably) used in conjuction with another form of mobile or web-based communication, such as instant messaging, where links to videos are shared in real time and commented upon in an open forum, quite aside from that on the actual YouTube website.

The second and third ranking comments I would expect would be among the highest, as would being "bored". Another area of anthropological interest all together might be what appears to be a popular aspiration among YouTubers: "being famous". To what extent does this desire correlate to that of early web designers, I wonder? I don't know that there's enough material on that to make a viable correlation, but I would be equally interested to find out if they are one and the same population; i.e., if those experienced with personal web building in the late 90s and early 2000s are more likely to engage in YouTube-like activities, or if it is a new population entirely which has shown interest.

There are a variety of demographics involved in YT use, of course, and this will vary by geographic location as well. How does one even define a 'user' of YT? Is it one who watches videos? Posts videos? Leaves comments? Leaves video comments? How regularly must one post/watch/comment to be a 'user'? For that matter, how do we categorize users of any type of internet or mobile technology when the userbase can be so temporary and fleeting?

Comments welcome.



Add to del.icio.us

Tweet