Loading…
Challenging Cohesion
Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understan...
Saved in:
| Published in: | M/C journal 2010-03, Vol.13 (1) |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | M/C journal |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Hancox, Donna Maree Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong |
| description | Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understand other constituents of society (cf. Varnelis; Castells; Jenkins et al.). Such dis- and inter-connections signify an imminent and immanent epistemological challenge we must confront: how can we understand inherently multi-faceted subjects, components of which are in constant transformation? For researchers, disciplinary complexity is one of the main implications of this situation. While disciplinary integration may be an effective or vital component in pursuit of knowledge (cf. Nicolescu) it may also impart significant conceptual and pragmatic conflicts. What are possible ways to coalesce multiple dimensions of reality that can lead to conceptually cohesive and useful knowledge production? This issue of M/C Journal attempts to answer this question by looking at different perspectives on the notion of cohesion across topical and disciplinary boundaries. Our premise for exploring ‘cohesion’ in this issue is two-fold: first, there is a need to understand the conceptual and experiential significance of social cohesion in the increasingly urbanised and networked contemporary world. In the 1997 OECD report, Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy, Michalski, Miller, and Stevens attribute ‘strains of the fabric of OECD societies’ to global economic and political changes, as well as the rapid technological progress. The World Bank places social cohesion as a metonym for social capital; they argue that social cohesion is ‘critical for societies to prosper economically and develop sustainably,’ and that it is ‘the glue’ that holds constituents of the society together. While it is true that the need to build bonds between human beings, and to bring together otherwise disparate experiences and aspirations is evermore crucial to a sustainable future for the world, we doubt that the current pervasive view of cohesion as a measurable parameter for ideal harmony and unity. Rather, in this uncertainty we see opportunities for re-examining the existing definitions of cohesion and further shaping different versions of social/community strengthening. If social cohesion is inherent in the relationships between and amongst entities, ideologies or experiences disagreement and di |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5204/mcj.233 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_5204_mcj_233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_5204_mcj_233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c653-c300548bfdcb218a70cef55953e035d20c8b785296288da5b3f7982b3dc0e993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNzzFvwjAUBGALFQkEiIUfwNYp8OyX59hjFbUFKRID7Jbt2BAUEhRP_fdN1Q695W466WNszWFHAvL9w993AnHC5jzPeSYkly__9oytUrrDGNRSSzlnm_Jm2zZ016a7bsv-FlLTd0s2jbZNYfXXC3b-eL-Uh6w6fR7LtyrzkjDzCEC5crH2TnBlC_AhEmnCAEi1AK9coUhoKZSqLTmMhVbCYe0haI0L9vr76oc-pSFE8xyahx2-DAfzozGjxowa_AabZjpu</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Challenging Cohesion</title><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Hancox, Donna Maree ; Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</creator><creatorcontrib>Hancox, Donna Maree ; Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</creatorcontrib><description>Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understand other constituents of society (cf. Varnelis; Castells; Jenkins et al.). Such dis- and inter-connections signify an imminent and immanent epistemological challenge we must confront: how can we understand inherently multi-faceted subjects, components of which are in constant transformation? For researchers, disciplinary complexity is one of the main implications of this situation. While disciplinary integration may be an effective or vital component in pursuit of knowledge (cf. Nicolescu) it may also impart significant conceptual and pragmatic conflicts. What are possible ways to coalesce multiple dimensions of reality that can lead to conceptually cohesive and useful knowledge production? This issue of M/C Journal attempts to answer this question by looking at different perspectives on the notion of cohesion across topical and disciplinary boundaries. Our premise for exploring ‘cohesion’ in this issue is two-fold: first, there is a need to understand the conceptual and experiential significance of social cohesion in the increasingly urbanised and networked contemporary world. In the 1997 OECD report, Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy, Michalski, Miller, and Stevens attribute ‘strains of the fabric of OECD societies’ to global economic and political changes, as well as the rapid technological progress. The World Bank places social cohesion as a metonym for social capital; they argue that social cohesion is ‘critical for societies to prosper economically and develop sustainably,’ and that it is ‘the glue’ that holds constituents of the society together. While it is true that the need to build bonds between human beings, and to bring together otherwise disparate experiences and aspirations is evermore crucial to a sustainable future for the world, we doubt that the current pervasive view of cohesion as a measurable parameter for ideal harmony and unity. Rather, in this uncertainty we see opportunities for re-examining the existing definitions of cohesion and further shaping different versions of social/community strengthening. If social cohesion is inherent in the relationships between and amongst entities, ideologies or experiences disagreement and difference or transition are as important or integral as shared ideas. Anheier, Gerhards and Romo have re-imagined Bourdieu’s view of positions individuals inhabit within social spaces as a ‘network, or a configuration, of objective relations among positions.’ From this view the merging of individuals or groups into a cohesive whole becomes less important than the coming together, sometimes only briefly, of ideas into a dynamic and complicated matrix – in other words, the shaping of togetherness through temporary adhesive connections amongst individuals managing various such adhesive networks. We are not necessarily questioning the obvious advantages of a unified society. Rather, we are suggesting a need to enquire into new ways of approaching cohesion, and subsequent implications in viewing, governing, and living in society today, and tomorrow. The second reason for considering cohesion is the development of network technologies, which are embedded in everyday life. Network technologies engender and accentuate multiplicities: multifaceted self-identity, multitasking, and multisensorial experience via interactive media, for example. As we transition from the current network era towards that of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp), our social and technological systems and practices become modular-like (Choi, Foth and Hearn), resonating with what Stone calls ‘continuous partial attention.’ Practice of multi-media communication – for example, concurrently watching television while chatting on Skype on the computer and texting on the mobile phone; another example is Habuchi’s notion of ‘telecocoon’ in which a multitude of constant and partial connections with small, insular social relations are maintained through always-on network technologies. The spatio-temporal zone that is made available, created, and extended by network technologies for expression of the self and communication with others is an inherently in-between space bridging what can be generally considered dichotomous. In this environment, it is cohesion that validates a networked entity by giving it a unified form and/or voice amongst its distributed constituents. The scale of such cohesive process varies from small (individual) to large (collective); examples include individual and community, respectively. As Castells (7) notes, while technology is not entirely responsible for social change, it embodies the capacity for change. Cohesion then, is perhaps best understood as inherently transformative. Thus examining cohesion as a phenomenon should not be focused on the ‘connections’ amongst individual entities but should concern what triggers, sustains, and suspends adhesive interactions, and how such processes relates to overall cohesion within the concerned subject. This notion resonates with the connection – access relation in understanding network culture. As Choi asserts, ‘in a network environment where the connection is a primal element, connection itself cannot be the rationale for interaction; rather, it is access – the act of accessing and being accessed – that becomes the prime motive for participation in network interactions’ (104). This issue of M/C Journal brings together diverse articles that explore the dynamic and challenging concept of cohesion in the current era, where technological, cultural, and structural conditions rapidly co-evolve through communicative networks, thereby reshaping the ontological and epistemological dimensions of various societies. The feature article by Holmes Cohesion, Adhesion and Incoherence explores the creation of a cohesive visual identity for a collective via digital and print-media. Her paper illustrates the ways in which Flickr participants communicate with each other, and how it is possible for networks to come together in an organically cohesive way, if only temporarily. Holmes also provides and insight into the process of and obstacles to establishing and maintaining a cohesive group identity. This feature article provides a framework for the issue as whole that shows how cohesive identity is created through ‘negotiation’ confirms our view that it’s in constant transformation. It also serves as a launching pad for the other articles to continue deconstructing cohesion as a cohesive concept. Glover turns the focus to policy making in the cultural sector. In his paper Failed Fantasies of Cohesion he examines the fantasy of cohesion as fundamental to whole-of-government cultural policy-making undertaken within Arts Queensland in the 1990s and 2000s. The emphasis in this paper is the complexity of cohesion as a critical factor in cultural policy making, and also the paradox that cohesion presents. In the quest for cohesion the potential for important and rich dissent can be discouraged. As Glover eloquently argues, when cohesion is lost all is not lost. This embracing of both the flaws in and potential of cohesion is carried in Publish or Perish. Martin puts forward possible strategies for university presses to work as a cohesive force between emerging writers and the writing industry. He examines the inter-relationship between university presses and the broader publishing industry, and asks whether broader access and sustained co-operation between creative writing departments and university publishing houses or presses could result in a new version of cohesion in the Australian literary landscape. He presents a holistic contour of the contemporary literary industry, using the University of Western Australia and the University of Western Sydney as examples of how entities with competing agendas can come together in a mutually beneficial and innovative way. Leder and colleagues bring the focus to the individual techno-social experience, as exemplified in their ToTeM (Tales of Things and Electronic Memory) project. This project addresses social cohesion through combining personal narratives with Web2.0 and tagging technologies to create a network of shared object-related memories. This paper accentuates the pluralistic nature of cohesion and thus calls for a multiplicity of approaches to cohesion. This issue closes with an artistic piece by Kari Gislason. His personal essay Independent People provides an exploration of Iceland’s financial collapse and its disconnection with the European Union, and calls into question whether a cohesive relationship with its neighbours is possible for or even desired by the Icelandic people. This discussion is played out against the backdrop of competing national identities in his own life and the search for unity. It is in this problematising and challenging of cohesion as a static or permanent state of agreement that this issue found its own cohesive thread. References Anheier, Helmut, Jurgen Gerhards, and P. Romo. “Forms of capital and social structure in cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s Social Topography.” The American Journal of Sociology 100.4 (1995) 859-903. Bordieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Review 7.1 (1989) 14-25. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong. "The City, Self, and Connections: Transyouth and Urban Social Networking in Seoul." Youth, Society and Mobile Media in Asia. Eds. Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, Theresa Anderson and Damien Spry. London, New York: Routledge, 2010. 88-107. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong, Marcus Foth, and Greg Hearn. "Site Specific Mobility and Connection in Korea: Bangs (R</description><identifier>ISSN: 1441-2616</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1441-2616</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5204/mcj.233</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>M/C journal, 2010-03, Vol.13 (1)</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27900,27901</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hancox, Donna Maree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</creatorcontrib><title>Challenging Cohesion</title><title>M/C journal</title><description>Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understand other constituents of society (cf. Varnelis; Castells; Jenkins et al.). Such dis- and inter-connections signify an imminent and immanent epistemological challenge we must confront: how can we understand inherently multi-faceted subjects, components of which are in constant transformation? For researchers, disciplinary complexity is one of the main implications of this situation. While disciplinary integration may be an effective or vital component in pursuit of knowledge (cf. Nicolescu) it may also impart significant conceptual and pragmatic conflicts. What are possible ways to coalesce multiple dimensions of reality that can lead to conceptually cohesive and useful knowledge production? This issue of M/C Journal attempts to answer this question by looking at different perspectives on the notion of cohesion across topical and disciplinary boundaries. Our premise for exploring ‘cohesion’ in this issue is two-fold: first, there is a need to understand the conceptual and experiential significance of social cohesion in the increasingly urbanised and networked contemporary world. In the 1997 OECD report, Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy, Michalski, Miller, and Stevens attribute ‘strains of the fabric of OECD societies’ to global economic and political changes, as well as the rapid technological progress. The World Bank places social cohesion as a metonym for social capital; they argue that social cohesion is ‘critical for societies to prosper economically and develop sustainably,’ and that it is ‘the glue’ that holds constituents of the society together. While it is true that the need to build bonds between human beings, and to bring together otherwise disparate experiences and aspirations is evermore crucial to a sustainable future for the world, we doubt that the current pervasive view of cohesion as a measurable parameter for ideal harmony and unity. Rather, in this uncertainty we see opportunities for re-examining the existing definitions of cohesion and further shaping different versions of social/community strengthening. If social cohesion is inherent in the relationships between and amongst entities, ideologies or experiences disagreement and difference or transition are as important or integral as shared ideas. Anheier, Gerhards and Romo have re-imagined Bourdieu’s view of positions individuals inhabit within social spaces as a ‘network, or a configuration, of objective relations among positions.’ From this view the merging of individuals or groups into a cohesive whole becomes less important than the coming together, sometimes only briefly, of ideas into a dynamic and complicated matrix – in other words, the shaping of togetherness through temporary adhesive connections amongst individuals managing various such adhesive networks. We are not necessarily questioning the obvious advantages of a unified society. Rather, we are suggesting a need to enquire into new ways of approaching cohesion, and subsequent implications in viewing, governing, and living in society today, and tomorrow. The second reason for considering cohesion is the development of network technologies, which are embedded in everyday life. Network technologies engender and accentuate multiplicities: multifaceted self-identity, multitasking, and multisensorial experience via interactive media, for example. As we transition from the current network era towards that of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp), our social and technological systems and practices become modular-like (Choi, Foth and Hearn), resonating with what Stone calls ‘continuous partial attention.’ Practice of multi-media communication – for example, concurrently watching television while chatting on Skype on the computer and texting on the mobile phone; another example is Habuchi’s notion of ‘telecocoon’ in which a multitude of constant and partial connections with small, insular social relations are maintained through always-on network technologies. The spatio-temporal zone that is made available, created, and extended by network technologies for expression of the self and communication with others is an inherently in-between space bridging what can be generally considered dichotomous. In this environment, it is cohesion that validates a networked entity by giving it a unified form and/or voice amongst its distributed constituents. The scale of such cohesive process varies from small (individual) to large (collective); examples include individual and community, respectively. As Castells (7) notes, while technology is not entirely responsible for social change, it embodies the capacity for change. Cohesion then, is perhaps best understood as inherently transformative. Thus examining cohesion as a phenomenon should not be focused on the ‘connections’ amongst individual entities but should concern what triggers, sustains, and suspends adhesive interactions, and how such processes relates to overall cohesion within the concerned subject. This notion resonates with the connection – access relation in understanding network culture. As Choi asserts, ‘in a network environment where the connection is a primal element, connection itself cannot be the rationale for interaction; rather, it is access – the act of accessing and being accessed – that becomes the prime motive for participation in network interactions’ (104). This issue of M/C Journal brings together diverse articles that explore the dynamic and challenging concept of cohesion in the current era, where technological, cultural, and structural conditions rapidly co-evolve through communicative networks, thereby reshaping the ontological and epistemological dimensions of various societies. The feature article by Holmes Cohesion, Adhesion and Incoherence explores the creation of a cohesive visual identity for a collective via digital and print-media. Her paper illustrates the ways in which Flickr participants communicate with each other, and how it is possible for networks to come together in an organically cohesive way, if only temporarily. Holmes also provides and insight into the process of and obstacles to establishing and maintaining a cohesive group identity. This feature article provides a framework for the issue as whole that shows how cohesive identity is created through ‘negotiation’ confirms our view that it’s in constant transformation. It also serves as a launching pad for the other articles to continue deconstructing cohesion as a cohesive concept. Glover turns the focus to policy making in the cultural sector. In his paper Failed Fantasies of Cohesion he examines the fantasy of cohesion as fundamental to whole-of-government cultural policy-making undertaken within Arts Queensland in the 1990s and 2000s. The emphasis in this paper is the complexity of cohesion as a critical factor in cultural policy making, and also the paradox that cohesion presents. In the quest for cohesion the potential for important and rich dissent can be discouraged. As Glover eloquently argues, when cohesion is lost all is not lost. This embracing of both the flaws in and potential of cohesion is carried in Publish or Perish. Martin puts forward possible strategies for university presses to work as a cohesive force between emerging writers and the writing industry. He examines the inter-relationship between university presses and the broader publishing industry, and asks whether broader access and sustained co-operation between creative writing departments and university publishing houses or presses could result in a new version of cohesion in the Australian literary landscape. He presents a holistic contour of the contemporary literary industry, using the University of Western Australia and the University of Western Sydney as examples of how entities with competing agendas can come together in a mutually beneficial and innovative way. Leder and colleagues bring the focus to the individual techno-social experience, as exemplified in their ToTeM (Tales of Things and Electronic Memory) project. This project addresses social cohesion through combining personal narratives with Web2.0 and tagging technologies to create a network of shared object-related memories. This paper accentuates the pluralistic nature of cohesion and thus calls for a multiplicity of approaches to cohesion. This issue closes with an artistic piece by Kari Gislason. His personal essay Independent People provides an exploration of Iceland’s financial collapse and its disconnection with the European Union, and calls into question whether a cohesive relationship with its neighbours is possible for or even desired by the Icelandic people. This discussion is played out against the backdrop of competing national identities in his own life and the search for unity. It is in this problematising and challenging of cohesion as a static or permanent state of agreement that this issue found its own cohesive thread. References Anheier, Helmut, Jurgen Gerhards, and P. Romo. “Forms of capital and social structure in cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s Social Topography.” The American Journal of Sociology 100.4 (1995) 859-903. Bordieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Review 7.1 (1989) 14-25. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong. "The City, Self, and Connections: Transyouth and Urban Social Networking in Seoul." Youth, Society and Mobile Media in Asia. Eds. Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, Theresa Anderson and Damien Spry. London, New York: Routledge, 2010. 88-107. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong, Marcus Foth, and Greg Hearn. "Site Specific Mobility and Connection in Korea: Bangs (R</description><issn>1441-2616</issn><issn>1441-2616</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNzzFvwjAUBGALFQkEiIUfwNYp8OyX59hjFbUFKRID7Jbt2BAUEhRP_fdN1Q695W466WNszWFHAvL9w993AnHC5jzPeSYkly__9oytUrrDGNRSSzlnm_Jm2zZ016a7bsv-FlLTd0s2jbZNYfXXC3b-eL-Uh6w6fR7LtyrzkjDzCEC5crH2TnBlC_AhEmnCAEi1AK9coUhoKZSqLTmMhVbCYe0haI0L9vr76oc-pSFE8xyahx2-DAfzozGjxowa_AabZjpu</recordid><startdate>20100322</startdate><enddate>20100322</enddate><creator>Hancox, Donna Maree</creator><creator>Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100322</creationdate><title>Challenging Cohesion</title><author>Hancox, Donna Maree ; Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c653-c300548bfdcb218a70cef55953e035d20c8b785296288da5b3f7982b3dc0e993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hancox, Donna Maree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>M/C journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hancox, Donna Maree</au><au>Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Challenging Cohesion</atitle><jtitle>M/C journal</jtitle><date>2010-03-22</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>1441-2616</issn><eissn>1441-2616</eissn><abstract>Cohesion as a term connotes attraction, unity, and commonness amongst discrete entities. Considering cohesion as a concept is timely with the recent rise of network culture, which comes with both subtle and radical changes in how people connect with, position themselves in relation to, and understand other constituents of society (cf. Varnelis; Castells; Jenkins et al.). Such dis- and inter-connections signify an imminent and immanent epistemological challenge we must confront: how can we understand inherently multi-faceted subjects, components of which are in constant transformation? For researchers, disciplinary complexity is one of the main implications of this situation. While disciplinary integration may be an effective or vital component in pursuit of knowledge (cf. Nicolescu) it may also impart significant conceptual and pragmatic conflicts. What are possible ways to coalesce multiple dimensions of reality that can lead to conceptually cohesive and useful knowledge production? This issue of M/C Journal attempts to answer this question by looking at different perspectives on the notion of cohesion across topical and disciplinary boundaries. Our premise for exploring ‘cohesion’ in this issue is two-fold: first, there is a need to understand the conceptual and experiential significance of social cohesion in the increasingly urbanised and networked contemporary world. In the 1997 OECD report, Societal Cohesion and the Globalising Economy, Michalski, Miller, and Stevens attribute ‘strains of the fabric of OECD societies’ to global economic and political changes, as well as the rapid technological progress. The World Bank places social cohesion as a metonym for social capital; they argue that social cohesion is ‘critical for societies to prosper economically and develop sustainably,’ and that it is ‘the glue’ that holds constituents of the society together. While it is true that the need to build bonds between human beings, and to bring together otherwise disparate experiences and aspirations is evermore crucial to a sustainable future for the world, we doubt that the current pervasive view of cohesion as a measurable parameter for ideal harmony and unity. Rather, in this uncertainty we see opportunities for re-examining the existing definitions of cohesion and further shaping different versions of social/community strengthening. If social cohesion is inherent in the relationships between and amongst entities, ideologies or experiences disagreement and difference or transition are as important or integral as shared ideas. Anheier, Gerhards and Romo have re-imagined Bourdieu’s view of positions individuals inhabit within social spaces as a ‘network, or a configuration, of objective relations among positions.’ From this view the merging of individuals or groups into a cohesive whole becomes less important than the coming together, sometimes only briefly, of ideas into a dynamic and complicated matrix – in other words, the shaping of togetherness through temporary adhesive connections amongst individuals managing various such adhesive networks. We are not necessarily questioning the obvious advantages of a unified society. Rather, we are suggesting a need to enquire into new ways of approaching cohesion, and subsequent implications in viewing, governing, and living in society today, and tomorrow. The second reason for considering cohesion is the development of network technologies, which are embedded in everyday life. Network technologies engender and accentuate multiplicities: multifaceted self-identity, multitasking, and multisensorial experience via interactive media, for example. As we transition from the current network era towards that of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp), our social and technological systems and practices become modular-like (Choi, Foth and Hearn), resonating with what Stone calls ‘continuous partial attention.’ Practice of multi-media communication – for example, concurrently watching television while chatting on Skype on the computer and texting on the mobile phone; another example is Habuchi’s notion of ‘telecocoon’ in which a multitude of constant and partial connections with small, insular social relations are maintained through always-on network technologies. The spatio-temporal zone that is made available, created, and extended by network technologies for expression of the self and communication with others is an inherently in-between space bridging what can be generally considered dichotomous. In this environment, it is cohesion that validates a networked entity by giving it a unified form and/or voice amongst its distributed constituents. The scale of such cohesive process varies from small (individual) to large (collective); examples include individual and community, respectively. As Castells (7) notes, while technology is not entirely responsible for social change, it embodies the capacity for change. Cohesion then, is perhaps best understood as inherently transformative. Thus examining cohesion as a phenomenon should not be focused on the ‘connections’ amongst individual entities but should concern what triggers, sustains, and suspends adhesive interactions, and how such processes relates to overall cohesion within the concerned subject. This notion resonates with the connection – access relation in understanding network culture. As Choi asserts, ‘in a network environment where the connection is a primal element, connection itself cannot be the rationale for interaction; rather, it is access – the act of accessing and being accessed – that becomes the prime motive for participation in network interactions’ (104). This issue of M/C Journal brings together diverse articles that explore the dynamic and challenging concept of cohesion in the current era, where technological, cultural, and structural conditions rapidly co-evolve through communicative networks, thereby reshaping the ontological and epistemological dimensions of various societies. The feature article by Holmes Cohesion, Adhesion and Incoherence explores the creation of a cohesive visual identity for a collective via digital and print-media. Her paper illustrates the ways in which Flickr participants communicate with each other, and how it is possible for networks to come together in an organically cohesive way, if only temporarily. Holmes also provides and insight into the process of and obstacles to establishing and maintaining a cohesive group identity. This feature article provides a framework for the issue as whole that shows how cohesive identity is created through ‘negotiation’ confirms our view that it’s in constant transformation. It also serves as a launching pad for the other articles to continue deconstructing cohesion as a cohesive concept. Glover turns the focus to policy making in the cultural sector. In his paper Failed Fantasies of Cohesion he examines the fantasy of cohesion as fundamental to whole-of-government cultural policy-making undertaken within Arts Queensland in the 1990s and 2000s. The emphasis in this paper is the complexity of cohesion as a critical factor in cultural policy making, and also the paradox that cohesion presents. In the quest for cohesion the potential for important and rich dissent can be discouraged. As Glover eloquently argues, when cohesion is lost all is not lost. This embracing of both the flaws in and potential of cohesion is carried in Publish or Perish. Martin puts forward possible strategies for university presses to work as a cohesive force between emerging writers and the writing industry. He examines the inter-relationship between university presses and the broader publishing industry, and asks whether broader access and sustained co-operation between creative writing departments and university publishing houses or presses could result in a new version of cohesion in the Australian literary landscape. He presents a holistic contour of the contemporary literary industry, using the University of Western Australia and the University of Western Sydney as examples of how entities with competing agendas can come together in a mutually beneficial and innovative way. Leder and colleagues bring the focus to the individual techno-social experience, as exemplified in their ToTeM (Tales of Things and Electronic Memory) project. This project addresses social cohesion through combining personal narratives with Web2.0 and tagging technologies to create a network of shared object-related memories. This paper accentuates the pluralistic nature of cohesion and thus calls for a multiplicity of approaches to cohesion. This issue closes with an artistic piece by Kari Gislason. His personal essay Independent People provides an exploration of Iceland’s financial collapse and its disconnection with the European Union, and calls into question whether a cohesive relationship with its neighbours is possible for or even desired by the Icelandic people. This discussion is played out against the backdrop of competing national identities in his own life and the search for unity. It is in this problematising and challenging of cohesion as a static or permanent state of agreement that this issue found its own cohesive thread. References Anheier, Helmut, Jurgen Gerhards, and P. Romo. “Forms of capital and social structure in cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s Social Topography.” The American Journal of Sociology 100.4 (1995) 859-903. Bordieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Review 7.1 (1989) 14-25. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong. "The City, Self, and Connections: Transyouth and Urban Social Networking in Seoul." Youth, Society and Mobile Media in Asia. Eds. Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, Theresa Anderson and Damien Spry. London, New York: Routledge, 2010. 88-107. Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong, Marcus Foth, and Greg Hearn. "Site Specific Mobility and Connection in Korea: Bangs (R</abstract><doi>10.5204/mcj.233</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1441-2616 |
| ispartof | M/C journal, 2010-03, Vol.13 (1) |
| issn | 1441-2616 1441-2616 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_5204_mcj_233 |
| source | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| title | Challenging Cohesion |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-24T04%3A09%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Challenging%20Cohesion&rft.jtitle=M/C%20journal&rft.au=Hancox,%20Donna%20Maree&rft.date=2010-03-22&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=1441-2616&rft.eissn=1441-2616&rft_id=info:doi/10.5204/mcj.233&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_5204_mcj_233%3C/crossref%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c653-c300548bfdcb218a70cef55953e035d20c8b785296288da5b3f7982b3dc0e993%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |