44
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
Jenkins likewise explicates the notion of convergence culture in terms
of complexity or network theory, without explicitly using these terms.
Convergence is considered a dynamic process of interaction between different agents in the (co)production of media, determined by shifting flows,
which emerge through distributed agencies and reciprocal feedback loops.
It is this particular focus on contingency which determines what he calls a
move “toward the increased interdependence of communications systems,
toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more
complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up
participatory culture.” 47
Networks have both an ontological and epistemological dimension. They
are present in our material reality, for example in transportation, economic,
cultural, or social configurations of exchange, but they also constitute
heuristic models of understanding, visualizing, and ultimately reducing
complexity. 48 According to Mark Taylor, complex systems are “comprised of
many different parts which are connected in multiple ways.” These components can “interact both serially and in parallel to generate sequential
as well as simultaneous effects and events,” they “display spontaneous selforganization” which results in emergent structures that are “not necessarily
reducible to the interactivity of the components or elements in the system.”
Furthermore, complex systems are “neither fixed nor static but develop or
evolve. Such evolution presupposes that complex systems are both open and
adaptive.” Finally, because of their emergent properties, complex systems
are situated in a space between order and chaos, at “the edge of chaos.” 49
Although networks can be understood as examples of complex figurations,
they are primarily models, metaphors, and abstract mappings of complexity. Networks suggest a sense of coherence and consistency in relation to
the ungraspable complexity of such diverse phenomena as globalization,
cognition, communication, climate change, or media convergence. Or, as
Wendy Chun puts it, “networks allow us to trace if not see – to spatialize –
unvisualizable interactions as flows” and “they enable of a form of cognitive
mapping that links the local to the global.” The “force of networks,” says
47 Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 254.
48 Cf. Hartmut Böhme, “Einführung: Netzwerke. Zur Theorie und Geschichte einer Konstruktion.” In Netzwerke: Eine Kulturtechnik der Moderne, ed. by Jürgen Barkhoff, Hartmut Böhme,
and Jeanne Riou (Köln: Böhlau, 2004), 17–36.; Ulfried Reichardt, “The Network as a Category in
Cultural Studies and as a Model for Conceptualizing America.” In Network Theory and American
Studies, special issue of Amerikastudien/American Studies, ed. by Ulfried Reichardt, Heike
Schäfer, and Regina Schober, 60.1 (2015), 17–35.
49 Taylor, The Moment of Complexity, 142–143.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
Jenkins likewise explicates the notion of convergence culture in terms
of complexity or network theory, without explicitly using these terms.
Convergence is considered a dynamic process of interaction between different agents in the (co)production of media, determined by shifting flows,
which emerge through distributed agencies and reciprocal feedback loops.
It is this particular focus on contingency which determines what he calls a
move “toward the increased interdependence of communications systems,
toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more
complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up
participatory culture.” 47
Networks have both an ontological and epistemological dimension. They
are present in our material reality, for example in transportation, economic,
cultural, or social configurations of exchange, but they also constitute
heuristic models of understanding, visualizing, and ultimately reducing
complexity. 48 According to Mark Taylor, complex systems are “comprised of
many different parts which are connected in multiple ways.” These components can “interact both serially and in parallel to generate sequential
as well as simultaneous effects and events,” they “display spontaneous selforganization” which results in emergent structures that are “not necessarily
reducible to the interactivity of the components or elements in the system.”
Furthermore, complex systems are “neither fixed nor static but develop or
evolve. Such evolution presupposes that complex systems are both open and
adaptive.” Finally, because of their emergent properties, complex systems
are situated in a space between order and chaos, at “the edge of chaos.” 49
Although networks can be understood as examples of complex figurations,
they are primarily models, metaphors, and abstract mappings of complexity. Networks suggest a sense of coherence and consistency in relation to
the ungraspable complexity of such diverse phenomena as globalization,
cognition, communication, climate change, or media convergence. Or, as
Wendy Chun puts it, “networks allow us to trace if not see – to spatialize –
unvisualizable interactions as flows” and “they enable of a form of cognitive
mapping that links the local to the global.” The “force of networks,” says
47 Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 254.
48 Cf. Hartmut Böhme, “Einführung: Netzwerke. Zur Theorie und Geschichte einer Konstruktion.” In Netzwerke: Eine Kulturtechnik der Moderne, ed. by Jürgen Barkhoff, Hartmut Böhme,
and Jeanne Riou (Köln: Böhlau, 2004), 17–36.; Ulfried Reichardt, “The Network as a Category in
Cultural Studies and as a Model for Conceptualizing America.” In Network Theory and American
Studies, special issue of Amerikastudien/American Studies, ed. by Ulfried Reichardt, Heike
Schäfer, and Regina Schober, 60.1 (2015), 17–35.
49 Taylor, The Moment of Complexity, 142–143.