Joshua Kelley

5/2/05

In his “Principles of New Media,” Lev Manovich predicts, “as computerization affects deeper and deeper layers of culture, these tendencies will increasingly manifest themselves” (27). The tendencies he refers to are the onset of new paradigms in the very organization of the human mind, brought about by the progressively more crucial use of digital information. According to Manovich, new media “can be thought of as consisting of two distinct layers – the ‘cultural layer’ and the ‘computer layer’” (46). For people in their late teens, the social layer of lifestyle has become intertwined with computerization, and there is no better example of this phenomena than the vast assortment of blogs, or web logs, and “online communities,” both of which allow users access to a gigantic database of personal information. Though their interfaces do operate within rather limited boundaries, the spirit of Manovich’s “new media,” is readily apparent in every bit of data contained in these websites. But in considering the interaction between these two layers, which side is gravitating towards the other? Or, are both layers working together to bring human beings towards some ultimate information destination?

The online community Myspace.com, a database in which users maintain a personal profile that can be viewed by the other 14.5 million members (Myspace 2005), is for social interaction what the interchangeable part was for the factory. Granting users the ability to create, update, modify, and delete their profiles on a whim allows a remarkably flexible collection of information. Manovich’s principle of variability is well reflected in this sense. At any given moment, a user can completely overhaul whatever depiction of themselves they see fit, meaning that entire identities are as fluid as they are in real life. On many websites, such as thefacebook.com, users can regulate the flow of their information to other browsers based on friendship status or membership in certain groups. Thus, what passes for one’s identity on such a website one day can become completely false the next. Consequently, the way users discern substantial information from erratic bursts becomes both more computerized in the sense that the user is forced to be constantly aware of this fluidity, but also more intuitively human in that the user’s understandings of each other become as dynamic as their profile-depicted identities. The principle of transcoding, the ultimate culmination of what Manovich believes new media is leading culture towards, can explain this dichotomy of digital skepticism with more intimate perceptions humans have for each other. Essentially, Manovich’s idea of transcoding suggests that new media reforms culture to make it organized in a more computer-like way, a “blend of human and computer meanings, of traditional ways in which human culture modeled the world and the computer’s own means of representing it” (46). Perhaps this is what makes media “new,” that the way we think may parallel the growth of newer and newer technologies.

As Manovich puts it, “to ‘transcode’ something is to translate it into another format. The computerization of culture gradually accomplishes similar transcoding in relation to all cultural categories and concepts” (47). However, Manovich does not explore for the notion that people at the same time can be drawn closer together by this new thought pattern towards increasingly humane perspectives – or even that the so-called computerization of culture is actually the catalyst in leading humans towards where they were always meant to go in communication. Watching the way Myspace and Facebook have grown exponentially in complexity, popularity, availability, and normality does imply a strange kind of virtual evolution for humans: that organizing identities in digital databases that are accessible and dynamic works to fill the gaps in the exchange of human information. In other words, becoming so familiar with other human beings in this way could theoretically be lifting a collective cultural block that has existed because humans were simply too primitive before new media. This is not to say that Manovich did not formulate the concept of transcoding to be inflexible, but to imply that the digital age changes us without touching upon the possibility of a massive cultural awakening or revelation limits the power that this principle can hold.

Unfortunately, people allowing themselves to become integrated with these online communities acknowledge an underlying, dark simplicity to the human identity. Though few would argue that one could fit all the relevant information about a person on a series of webpages, what passes for a healthy profile of identity can be seen as tremendously bare. Myspace does not appear to place a limit on how much information a user can input about themselves, but there is of course a degree at which a profile becomes too comprehensive (or self-indulgent, as the case may be) and interest will fall off rapidly. Most profiles share a similar pattern of information organization and similar amounts of information. What transcoding really could mean is “identity surrender.” Users may feel compelled to conform to standard topics of discussion or, in their blogs, to report on specific types of information. While profiles have the potential to be outlets of independent expression, the obvious “hot” topics tend to dominate user identities.

Sociologist Georg Simmel wrote, “The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and of the technique of life” (409). Though this was meant to explain alienation during the Industrial Revolution, the analogy is not difficult to fit into the context of transcoding. While humans have found it increasingly important to be individual, and websites like Myspace and thefacebook were created for that very purpose, the result seems to be strangely opposite. Is it really possible transcoding causes identity surrender? This question branches out to two possibilities: Either, that the computerization of culture results in better communication to the extent that all people adopt progressively similar dispositions. Or, on the other hand, that society is learning to depict itself most effectively within the parameters of the computer, creating a mass self-advertising culture that uses similar tactics and devices. In either event, one cannot deny that some form of transcoding has taken place.

When scouring the seemingly endless gauntlet of user profiles in online communities, one will inevitably be overcome with a sense of déjà vu. Faces will blend together. Catch phrases and chain emails will rear their heads over and over. Eventually, it appears that all the characteristics that people lay out on their profiles are just variables that fill empty slots, and when one clicks on an interest (“movies,” for example) the website will list all the other profiles that share the interest. It would seem that all personal data is communicated in binary, on or off, yes or no. The scary thing is, this isn’t some fate looming over the horizon. The transcoding takes place whenever any information becomes digitized. Identities, and the people they belong to, have been making the pilgrimage to the digital age for years now. However, it may take decades to really understand if our identities have become more human – or more computer.