Me and Malcolm McLaren

This is the story behind that photograph. Malcolm McLaren was notorious for a variety of reasons. He was in a relationship with the avant garde fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, introduced fetish-wear, managed various punk rock bands including the Sex Pistols, and was agent provocateur and innovator in the art and music scenes for decades. It could be claimed that he was not only the originator of punk rock, but also one of the prime movers in the New Wave and Hip Hop music genres. He earned the nickname 'The Godfather of Punk' during this period, but in his later years, he seemed to have mellowed out to a more avuncular version of his younger restless self.

When I heard that he was to speak at the 2009 Handheld Learning Festival in London, I made sure I had a front row seat. I wanted to hear what McLaren would say about learning and about technology. Further, what would be his take on education and its place in society? Would he be controversial, caustic, conciliatory? Predictably, McLaren did not disappoint, polarising the audience with a very personal, sardonic and provocative account of his own learning journey. His reference to Karoake culture resonated - where anyone through the medium of technology, especially the reality TV shows, can become famous ... for simply being in the public eye for long enough. His key message was that failure and messiness are the key to the best kinds of learning. None of us at the time were to know that he had very little time left to live. A few days after this public appearance, he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer, and died 6 months later, in a hospital in Switzerland.

I took several photographs of Malcolm during his speech. The one I considered to be the best was posted up onto my Flickr account, and I labelled it for free reuse as I always do, under Creative Commons licencing. I also used the image in my subsequent blog post entitled Karaoke Culture. It turned out to be one of the last photographs ever taken of him. Later, someone saw my photograph on Flickr and uploaded it for use on his Wikipedia page. It was thereafter mirrored on all the other foreign language versions of Wikipedia. When Malcolm McLaren died, guess where many of the journals and newspapers went to find copyright free images of him?

This is why newspapers such as the Caledonian Mercury and the London Daily News, websites such as Shapers of the 80's and Compas, and Goldmine all carried the image when they reported on McLaren's funeral. It appears that my name (credited with the photograph) will forever be linked to that of Malcolm McLaren. What have I learnt from this experience? Just being in the right place at the right time is not always enough. Posting your content on social media sites and making them available for free use and reuse is not only an equitable way of sharing the love. It is often a precursor for widespread amplification of that content. Whether or not something goes viral is left to the whims of the social web, but giving your content away for free can give it an excellent chance. 


Me and Malcolm McLaren by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Identity in a digital age

Much of my understanding of digital identity was founded in my studies into personal identity, whilst a student of social psychology. The work of William James and George Herbert Mead influenced my thinking, as did the study of sociologist Charles Cooley into 'the Looking Glass Self.' Essentially, in this hybrid early school of social psychology, known as symbolic interactionism, theorists tried to explain the influence of audiences/other people on the behaviour of individuals. It was a fluid theory that allowed for behavioural adjustments on the fly, as people saw themselves 'reflected in the eyes of the other' - the impact of what they were saying - as they conversed. Therefore, 'in order to develop and shape behavior, interactions with others must exist. People gain their identity and form their habits by looking at themselves through the perception of society and other people they interact with.' (New World Encyclopedia)

I did some research of my own back in the 90s based on the presentation of self in everyday life. Those who are familiar with the work of the social anthropologist Erving Goffman will recognise this as the title of one of his seminal works. Goffman saw social interaction as a drama performance, in which the actor's behaviour was framed by front stage and back stage roles, scripts, props and costumes. One of the most important, but often ignored features of Goffman's Dramaturgical Model is the presence of an audience, to which the actor consciously (or unconsciously) performs. This has great import in our understanding of how we perform to audiences in social media (of which more later in this post).

The research I conducted in 1994 involved a small team of psychology students and one of my friends, the actor and TV personality Matthew Kelly. Now a successful actor of stage and film, during the 1990s Matthew appeared on everyone's TV screens several times a week and was instantly recognisable. He was ideal for the study and when invited, he agreed to take part. We wanted to test out our ideas on the 'celebrity effect' in which people change their behaviour when they meet face to face with a famous person. In today's celebrity soaked society, where in Andy Warhol's terms 'anyone can be famous for 15 minutes', we are perhaps living in what Malcolm MacLaren dubbed 'the Karoake culture.' This means that just about anywhere, at any time, without warning, anyone can bump into a celebrity - there are enough of them about. Although it's possible, it's not probable, but there are occasions when this happens with no warning and no preparation, and you find yourself looking at a well known face. In such situations, people behave differently. They stare. Or they deliberately avoid staring. Either way, they know that they are sharing a space with a famous person, and can't help behaving differently. I was intrigued as to why this should be.

So we set up and conducted a naturalistic series of experiments in the high street of an English City. We wanted to know if, as Isen and Levin (1972) predicted, people would be more likely to help others if they felt good themselves. There was also research to suggest that helping behaviour increased depending on the status and influence of those present (Latane & Harkins, 1976). My study went something like this: In the experimental condition, two of us walked into a shop and posed as customers. A minute later, one of our team, an unknown person, walked into the shop accompanied by Matthew Kelly, and made straight for the counter. The unknown person showed the shop assistant a £10 note and asked if s/he could help by giving him some change from the till so he could make an urgent call home (this was in the days before mobile phones). We observed the interactions and timed the conversation. In a control condition, we also performed the same situation where two unknown people walked into similar matched stores and acted out the same scene. This same scenario was acted out 11 times for each of the conditions. We analysed the data from the 22 shops and saw immediately that there was a marked difference between the experimental (famous) and control (unknown) conditions.

In the control condition, our team was refused help (told they could not have change unless they purchased something) on 6 out of 11 occasions, and minimal interaction was observed between the unknown people and the shop assistant. In the experimental condition, on every occasion, the famous person and his partner were helped. If the shop assistants couldn't open the till, they found the change from their own pockets/purses or those of their colleagues'. Another interesting effect was that on each occasion, although the only speaking person was the unknown person, the shop assistants were observed answering Matthew Kelly, and maintained eye contact with him rather than the speaker. The unknown person was virtually ignored, even though he had initiated the conversation and was doing all the talking. Non verbal interactions such as smiling and nodding were also more numerous in the experimental condition than in the control condition, where minimal or no eye contact was observed between the shop assistant and the two unknown people.

From these statistically significant results (p<.005), I theorised that (in Goffman's terms) shop assistants who were in their rule bound front stage roles (e.g. I must not open my till to give change unless someone has made a purchase, because the note may be a forgery), were forced into back stage (relaxed and informal) roles prompted by a pleasant surprise. They broke their own rules, because they recognised the famous person (someone who perhaps they had seen often in their back stage informal roles in their own living rooms) and behaved in a way that was incompatible with the rules they would follow in their front stage, official and formal roles.

In my conclusions I noted: "The celebrity effect has obvious consequences for the promotion of pro-social behaviour. Front stage roles (rules) are subjugated by the desire of the actor (shop assistant) to appear helpful and pleasant to the well-known person. However, this helping behaviour occurs at the expense of anyone else who happens to be nearby. Attention is focused on the famous person, while the requests from others, although not ignored, become marginalised".

Applying this research in today's digital world, I wonder what the presentation of self in a social media world would entail. Applying Goffman's theory to the performance spaces of social media, we could cast a spotlight on videosharing services such as Youtube and text based performace spaces such as traditional blogs. Do bloggers see themselves as interacting with their audiences in a front stage context? If they do, then they will possibly be more guarded and less personable, avoiding as much self-disclosure as they can? On the other hand, if bloggers see themselves as performing in a less formal space, in a more relaxed style, are they then back-stage? Do they then feel licensed to self-disclose more personal information about themselves, or share their emotions, their beliefs? Perhaps the questions should be framed the other way around? Does self disclosure and informal sharing of personal information push bloggers into a back stage role, and what is it that enables some to do this? Is it the pleasant experience of having a large appreciative audience? One more question springs to mind - are bloggers who disclose information about themselves of a personal nature more readable (and more personable) than those who write whilst remaining in a front stage, formal role? These and other related research questions are of course, up for grabs for someone to investigate.

References

Cooley, C. H. (1918) Social Process. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Isen, A. M. and Levin, P. F. (1972) Effects of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 381-8.

Latane, B. and Harkins, S. G. (1976) A multiplicative power function of audience size and status. In R. L. Atkinson, R. C. Atkinson, Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J. and Hilgard, E. R. (1990) Introduction to Psychology, 10th Edition. San Fransciso, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Image source by Ocadotony

Identity in a digital age by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Our viral web

We are all Big Brother now. Not in the Orwellian dystopic sense of course. But we all have access to the power of social media, and with appropriate use, and with enough of us involved, we are all watchers - and we can all make a difference. Reading a blog post by Jonathan MacDonald today got me thinking about the vast, untapped potential of the social web to inform, challenge, educate and motivate. MacDonald witnessed a tube train guard threatening and verbally abusing a passenger. He reported it online, sharing his outrage with his social network. The story went viral, spreading rapidly across other networks. YouTube, Twitter and the rest of the social media family were quickly unundated with comments and views. Within 24 hours, the story (and others of a similar nature) had made it into the mainstream on traditional mass media, where it was covered by the likes of BBC TV News and Sky TV News, The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. Even the Mayor of London joined in with the discussion. The guard was subsequently suspended and is under investigation.

In an interesting episode last year, I personally experienced the power of the viral web through Wikipedia Commons. I took several pictures of Punk Godfather Malcolm McLaren when he spoke at Handheld Learning 2009 in London. The next day I posted his picture onto my Flickr account and licenced it under Creative Commons for free sharing and re-use. Subsequently others loaded it up in several versions to Wikimedia Commons. None of us were aware at the time, but Malcolm's speech was to be one of his last public appearances before his untimely death in 2010. The media went into overdrive, and of course, searched around for images they could freely use to illustrate their stories.

Many journals and newspapers found and used my image of McLaren, with me duly credited as the photographer. My photo even graces his Wikipedia page (in all language versions). My name is now forever linked to that of Malcolm McLaren. A simple search on Google using his name and mine together will deliver you hundreds of hits. Try it. It's an example of a picture going viral on the web. There are many other examples of the viral spreading of images, videos, sound bites and ideas - some are legendary. They become memes as people pass them on quickly across the social web from one to another. There are also many examples of citizen journalism, where those who are actually present at the scene of an incident can upload their images quickly, or can tweet their observations instantly, for sharing to a potentially world wide audience on the web. The truth of what is happening becomes common knowledge, even before the press can get there to report it, or in some cases edit, sanitise and filter it.

I don't believe we have even begun to tap into the true potential of social media yet. As more and more people connect with each other in different ways, across a multitude of platforms, through a bewildering array of devices, I think we are going to see some extraordinary things happening, socially, culturally and politically. Communities are going to be transformed and our society forever changed by the use of these tools. Let's hope it will be for the better.

Image source by Ocean Flynn

Our viral web by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Karaoke culture

Handheld Learning 2009 has been special for a number of reasons, some of which I have already blogged about. But the opening keynote speeches this year, and one person in particular, took the proverbial biscuit. Malcolm McLaren is best known for his instigation of the punk movement in the UK in the 70s - the embodiment of anarchy, and is notorious as the manager of the iconic punk band the Sex Pistols. To invite him to speak at an event about mobile technologies in education would seem to be a little anachronistic, but speak he did, and he had a tremendous impact.

McLaren labels himself as an artist, which indeed if you examine his early history, is true. But he would be better labelled here as an agent provocateur - someone brought in to stir up emotion and cause a reaction. And that is exactly what he did. Looking more like an affable granfather than the angry man of punk, he took to the stage dressed in grey slacks, shirt and tie, and a comfortable wooley pullover. Gone were the wild corskscrew red locks, and the outlandish presence - it was almost as though he had assumed his place within the establishment. But nothing could be farther from the truth from the moment he opened his mouth and began to speak.

McLaren talked critically about the culture of Britain today - in his own words, often laced with profanity, it is a mediocre Karaoke culture - one in which there is no responsibility, and one in which reality shows hold sway, and instant success can be had for no real effort. This, he said was how the Blair government had functioned, and his remark about the inanity of Cool Brittania as a failed marketing ploy gained some audience approval. The instant gratification of the Karaoke culture, he suggested, was a huge problem for educators who are trying to instil a sense of achievement (even if it is a failure) into young minds.

His speech was at times rambling and self-absorbed as he reminisced over his time as a trainee wine taster, art student, musician and designer and eventually as instigator of the punk movement through his shop 'Sex', and his formation of the Sex Pistols. McLaren's ventures into the music and movie industries, and more recently, his full circle to return to his roots as an 'artist' have ensured he has been influential in all he has done, even though he is a self confessed educational failure. He has often been influential for the wrong reasons, and he admits that his forays into punk were calculated to destroy the comfortable complacency of middle class England and to challenge and undermine many of its social structures. He is a true anarchist in many ways, but is also perversely a part of the establishment, whether he accepts it or not. He has adopted the conventional, but without him, the present music and fashion industries may never have become what they are. Yes, the education system may have failed him utterly, but within his own account of his formative years, it is easy to spot how he also failed himself. He acknowledges this, but argues that failure in itself is not always a bad thing, and that the journey to discover oneself is sometimes more important. It was only when he became a student of art, he admitted, that he found his true identity.

McLaren had started his speech by admitting he knew very little about learning technologies. His parting comment though was telling, and resonated with many of his audience, even though many had been polarised. 'Don't becomes slaves to technology', he warned, 'see it for what it is. Use it as a tool, but don't become dependent upon it'.

Related posts

Authenticity vs Karaoke (Terry Freedman)

Malcolm McLaren and Education (Nick Kind)

Military-erotic wine-tasting education (mrjorgen Flickr video)

Edupunk won't go away... (Pontydysgu)