Küng-Shankleman, L. (2000) What is Organisation Culture?

I’ve heard people talk about an Internet culture. The three level schema, created by Shein, intendeds to approach cultures. Would this three level schema be usable on every culture,; can it approach the Internet as a culture?

When you look at the top level, the artefacts, what would they look like when you look at the Internet? I guess the way you behave yourself in cyberspace. Or better yet, the way people see you behaving on the Internet. I guess, not the physical way you hold the mouse and browse and surf, but the way you look when you are in cyberspace. For instance, when you play the Coca-cola games, you can choose the way you dress. In that way you express yourself towards other people. Just like when you are chatting or mailing or when you use with online message boards or when you design your own web pages. In those manners you create your artifacts others can interpret and that part is the explicit part.

The next level is the espoused values level, witch consists how you should behave or react. That means that certain hearsay wouldn’t be appreciated and when you act certain ways, for instance send unwanted images, there is a change you get banned from further participation. There are also hackers who share there own opinions and mostly get away with their actions although not everyone would fully agree with their behavior if only they know. All these examples contribute on the way one should behave in cyberspace.

Last but not least, the basic assumptions level. This probably is the reason why Internet exists. Reasons could that people want an instrument that allows global communication. People want to interact with each other and Internet provides the easiest way. Also the need for documentation could be a good reason because Internet is the biggest library thinkable.

So yes, I’d say Internet is a culture and the three level schema is a very usable way to find out.

De Mooij, M. (1998) Dimensions of Culture

In this article De Mooij writes about different cultures and their way of communication. De Mooij issues that for instance the American people use ‘low-context’ ways of communication; it is very explicit and uses direct messages. Numbers and statistics are more often used to help expressing these messages. This way of communicating is different from example the Japanese ways of communicating. The Japanese communication culture would be called a ‘high-context’ culture, the opposite of ‘low-context’ and prefers the use of symbols and indirect ways of communication. These ways of communication exist due to cultural fundaments. My question is: Would the ‘low-’ and ‘high-context’ ways of communication differ when using the Internet?

Though Western cultures use direct ways of communication, when you look at the Internet usages, wouldn’t people prefer symbols instead of texts and indirect ways of communication than direct? When I am browsing through the World Wide Web, I prefer symbols than whole sentences. I always look for symbols than reading the whole site. It takes longer and you recognize icons and symbols earlier, at least that’s what books about Memory keep telling me. It says that pictures and icons are recognized better than words. People think in symbols, not in words.

Not only this, but I believe when you’re communicating with people through the web, you are less explicit than you would be in real life. Of course not always, you van send people a very direct messages through e-mail and nowadays with a mobile phone, but one thing is for sure; people lie a lot more when they’re chatting than they would lie in real life. I meet more pretty girls on the Internet than in real life, though I don’t know many pretty girls who like the Internet, if you catch my drift. When you’re chatting you can say what you want, though you have to type and express yourself and the time you have is very limited which result in symbols, metaphors and the use of icons.

In other words the Internet users are less direct and the use of symbols and icons is more common, so though in real life the Western culture would be called ‘low-context’, on the web Western people tend to be more on a ‘high-context’ level.

Nixon, S. (2003) Advertising and Commercial Culture

In this article, advertising is seen as a part of encouraging the freedom of the individual (and their place of society). This is because you can reflex on the advertisements and then make your own choices. That means you choose towards your own preferable standards (and therefore start the process of culturalizatoin). But laying out choices like companies do in this fashion, isn’t advertising still a manipulative way of culturalization, while still having the option to reflect on advertisements?

Though you can reflect on advertisements and still make the decision that you don’t need the commodity, advertisement still had an influence on you and you culture. First of all while thinking and reflecting on the advertisement, you unconscious do something that companies want you to do. You think about their commodity, therefore it occupies you and that is just part of branding. Sooner or later you will use the name of the commodity or the name of the brand is familiar with you, anyway, the company has made an impact, how small it may be. Secondly by choosing not to purchase a certain commodity you also made a chose not to be a part of a social or cultural group. You though it over and when you decided not purchase it, you also decided where you stand in society, again, how small that impact may be. Combining these two arguments, advertisements do culturalize and manipulate. The so-called ‘freedom’ is just a reflection of an illusion, an illusion companies occupy you with.

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy

This article states that in the cultural sector, with all the creative work, especially with computers and other new media platforms, the workers are mostly of a younger age. But couldn’t that change?

It’s a very logic thing that with all these new media types, young employees find work in this branch easier than of older folks. Young people grew up in an electronical world, so they don’t have to adapt as hard as older people might have to these changing times. But couldn’t there become a climate change, a shift or a tendency that more and more old people get into the new media worlds as well? Younger people might be seeing harder times than older people in the distant or maybe near future. For instance, if I keep on using the computer like a year ago, I would have real RSI problem, much worse than the small setbacks I face now. And I know, that there will be more or different problems to come with the new electronical devices. Maybe the youngsters become too dependent on digital utilities and when a problem occurs outside their world, you need an independent help source. That might just be a person twice your age.