fishers, surfers and casters

At CMRC, David Michel, from Dalhousie University (Canada), told his story of a small conservative Christian community on the Atlantic side of Canada, who wanted to go live online, by video-streaming their services.

One of the big questions affronting the small congregation was what could be in the view of the camera, and what would be shielded from the eyes of viewers online. Some people believed there were parts of the inside of the church that shouldn’t be seen by people who weren’t in the building. Others believed their were sections of the service where private information about members were shared, and also shouldn’t be seen by those participating through computer screens. For David, but more so for me who listened to his story, it raised questions about how people negotiate private and public in a church community, and how people consider the internet as a public space.

It seems, by the small introduction to the church community that I was given, that the notion of the church service as a public event had been eroded away among its members by its recent history. In the years where the congregation’s numbers dwindled, and where one-time visitors were seen increasingly seldom, the church service was conducted among people who “knew” each other to the point where being together was a private event. Even if there were people present at a service whom congregants did not “know”, at least congregants were fully aware in the space of who their audience was, to the point of better control over how to present information and themselves in a setting that appeared private.

Yet for the congregants, the Internet was seen as the opposite. Going live through video-streaming was, for them, like placing themselves in a panopticon, a Big Brother House where *everyone* could see them, and they could see nobody in return. Going live online for them was a test where the search for new and distant friends and fellow congregants required the relinquishment of control over their own church environment.

Somewhere in this dichotomy of “landline church = private” versus “online church = public” is the reality, which deserves further exploration and requires time and experimentation. I wish them luck.

At CMRC Joyce Smith offered a discussion of the struggle between church and media as meaning-making insitutions in the conext of her favourite television program, Rescue Me. Not aired in Australia (yet), the drama series focusses on one character, a fire-figher in New York City who comes from Irish-Catholic heritage and struggles to find meaning in his life after the breakdown of his marriage and the loss of family members in the 9-11 disaster.

The show has received negative reviews and protests from the American Catholic Defence League, in its portrayals of Jesus and other biblical characters and in the presentation of other characters, such as a laicised priest and another priest who is arrested for peadophilia.

Smith offers the show as an alternative space where audiences reconsider the Christian story, and as an example of television’s power to reinterpret and portray the biblical story. She sets it alongside other examples such as The Passion of the Christ.

My first reaction to these statements was “No, they aren’t bad because they challenge the Church’s authority to present the Christian story. They are bad because their interpretation is just wrong.” Immediately I saw myself doing exactly what Smith was saying the Church was doing: I see them as bad because they don’t interpret the story and its characters my way. And this, I think, is exactly what the Church and its bodies, like the American Catholic Defence League, is going through. The Church is on trial in this show, and the Christian story is set above and outide its context, and therefore control.

Can’t wait for the show to come to our shores. Thanks, Joyce, for your presentation and for identifying the struggle that I’m also having.

At CMRC this week I saw two presentations on religious videos and personalities. The first was by Rianne Subijanto and Nabil Echchaibi from the University of Colorado (US) and explored the rise of the “TV Muslim preacher” in Egypt and Indonesia. The second was by Denis Bekkering from the University of Waterloo (Canada) and focussed on the rise, fall and slow rise again of a US web-based Christian evagelist.

Echchaibi and Subijanto’s presentation started with the question “How do Muslims relate to their religion daily through mass media?” and used examples from YouTube, religious channels, and even a reality TV show called Imam Muda, where contestants battle it out to be the best rookie Imam, and the winner is ordained. They made the following conclusions:

1. That Islam on TV exists in struggles between modern/moderate and orthodox/islamist struggles on the political level and in the public sphere
2. That the television personality acts as a religious brand with which viewers/users find a connection and through which they can express and work on their religious identity
3. Television allows for the rethinking of religious imagery and symbolism, including even the way the Imam dresses
4. It appeared to me that the videos borrowed much from prosperity model of (tele-)evangelism. The presenters noted that the producers of these videos and channels borrowed business models from American televangelists, however the new “messages” found in the videos also reflected local preaching styles and some traditions.

Bekkering’s presentation focussed on the struggle to maintain authority in the face of protest in YouTube. Focussing on recent videos of an American evangelist, who a few years ago lost much popularity after his extra-marital affair was exposed, Bekkering discusses how the evangelist’s ministry endeavours to prevent and block protest on his site through the active moderation of comments on his youTube page, and the editing of videos where protestation appears in the filming of his ministry events.

I found in both presentations a great comparison between “viewers” and “users” in the negotiation of religious text, meaning and authority in videos in both platforms. I also saw a great potential, which was touched upon, in the examination of aesthetic approaches to the construction of religious authority (how scenery is used to promote the authority of the presenters in the videos, and how an “image” is created for the promotion of religious branding). I would like to talk with them more about it.

Cyberculture theorists: Manuel Castells and Donna Haraway

I’ve read a lot of Castells’ works, and I’ve written a lot about him in my thesis, but every once in a while I’m in a conversation where he is mentioned and I wonder if I read him correctly. So I’m thinking David Bell’s book will help. I also think this will be a good intriduction to the writings of Donna Haraway, who was one of the first to explore the concept of cyborg in contemporary culture, before I get stuck into what she’s written herself. I bought the Kindle version of Bell’s book, so it’d be a good way to start a new reading regime.

How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics

I came across N Katherine Hayles’ Kindle book while looking for David Bell’s Kindle book, and after reading a couple of the “Look inside” pages I thought it was what I was looking for. I expect it to be a great read throughout.