{"id":227,"date":"2025-11-26T22:36:28","date_gmt":"2025-11-27T03:36:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ccdw\/?post_type=chapter&p=227"},"modified":"2025-11-30T16:55:24","modified_gmt":"2025-11-30T21:55:24","slug":"digital-cultures","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ccdw\/chapter\/digital-cultures\/","title":{"raw":"Contemporary perspectives on digital cultures","rendered":"Contemporary perspectives on digital cultures"},"content":{"raw":"We have now investigated key themes in more recent work, focussing on the formation, characteristics, and implications of digital cultures.\r\n

\u00a0i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The formation and nature of digital cultures<\/h1>\r\nOnline spaces are fostering the creation and nurturing of entirely new digital cultures<\/strong> (see for example Driessens, 2014; Jin, 2021; Kim et al., 2009; Mihelj & Jim\u00e9nez\u2010Mart\u00ednez, 2021). These environments serve as primary settings for construction and curation of identity<\/strong> through textual and multimodal expression (Pennington, 2017; Thorne et al., 2015). Mahiri and Kim (2016) further argue that identity markers are shifting, as new digital cultures continue to emerge. Cultural practices and perspectives reflect distinct personal identities and elective group affinities, indicating a shift away from traditional core identifications<\/strong> like race and ethnicity<\/strong>. Continuing exploration of cultural formations in [pb_glossary id=\"519\"]virtual learning environments[\/pb_glossary], Kumi-Yeboah et al. (2022) report that online learning environments can contain '[pb_glossary id=\"395\"]hidden cultures[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>' that are not immediately apparent to their members, influenced by regional differences, upbringing, and age.\r\n\r\nAuthors of the post-2004 literature seem to have been less driven to try to detail specific values of digital culture (though see Rudnev et al., 2018), but they do offer insights into the conceptual structure, development goals, and desired outcomes associated with digital cultures. These perspectives often highlight the potential for digital culture to foster certain societal values and address ethical concerns related to technology (Ess, 2020). Some have argued that digital environments could lead to a postmodern network of diverse and non-hierarchical cultures<\/strong>, moving away from formerly agreed upon high culture standards. Pennington (2017), for example, makes the case that digital affordances both \u2018level\u2019 access and \u2018delevel\u2019 by spawning new hybrid forms (here, we use affordances<\/em> to mean the action possibilities structured by platform design, social norms, and algorithms, rather than fixed \u2018features\u2019). Similarly, \u017duvela-Bu\u0161nja et al. (2008) emphasize their belief that digital culture influences changes in traditional cultural patterns, fields, and communication, embodying a '[pb_glossary id=\"398\"]horizontal and simultaneous form of transmission[\/pb_glossary]' implying values of adaptation and integration of historical context within new digital forms.\r\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Persistent paradoxes and tensions<\/h1>\r\nCounterbalancing the opportunities outlined above, recent work also surfaces tensions and harms that accompany everyday digital participation (Barendregt, 2012). Digital culture is presented as demanding contradictory roles <\/strong>from users, for example, making them individually and collectively responsible for both including and excluding others from the network. This occurs not necessarily through explicit intention, but through their participation and the language they validate, which aligns with their chosen ideology (Funes & Mackness, 2018). Fabr\u00edcio (2014) notes that digital spaces continue to offer platforms where individuals may engage in retaliatory criticism<\/strong>. In other words: greater contact and awareness does not necessarily lead to constructive engagement. Moreover, stereotypes <\/strong>and biased representations<\/strong> continue to be scripted into digital environments, highlighting the reality that although \u2018open\u2019, digital spaces and cultures retain the potential to reinforce, amplify and perpetuate negative cultural perceptions rather than dismantle them (Barendregt, 2012; Fabr\u00edcio, 2014).\r\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cultural content and digital transformation<\/h1>\r\nOnline cultures or cultures online? Offering an alternate perspective on digital cultures, \u017duvela-Bu\u0161nja et al. (2008) investigate representations of culture in digital spaces. They define culture as encompassing the output of the [pb_glossary id=\"479\"]public cultural sector[\/pb_glossary], [pb_glossary id=\"334\"]civil society[\/pb_glossary] initiatives, and creative industries, including [pb_glossary id=\"499\"]symbolic goods[\/pb_glossary] like books, films, music, and the activities of cultural institutions such as museums, libraries, and archives. Optimistically making the case that digital transformation is necessary for cultural development and global engagement, they argue that digitization is a critical precursor to authentic intercultural communication and cooperation.\r\n\r\nScholarship in this area continues to demonstrate that digital cultures are dynamic spaces for identity formation, group affiliation, and the evolution of cultural practices, moving beyond traditional demographic markers. While more recent works tend not to explicitly aim to frame digital cultural values they speculate on the\u00a0desired outcomes<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0strategic aims<\/em>\u00a0of digital cultures. These include fostering [pb_glossary id=\"348\"]cultural democracy[\/pb_glossary], diversity, intercultural communication, <\/strong>and contributing to a [pb_glossary id=\"418\"]knowledge society[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, often in response to ethical considerations and a recognition of digital culture's transformative power.\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

We have now investigated key themes in more recent work, focussing on the formation, characteristics, and implications of digital cultures.<\/p>\n

\u00a0i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The formation and nature of digital cultures<\/h1>\n

Online spaces are fostering the creation and nurturing of entirely new digital cultures<\/strong> (see for example Driessens, 2014; Jin, 2021; Kim et al., 2009; Mihelj & Jim\u00e9nez\u2010Mart\u00ednez, 2021). These environments serve as primary settings for construction and curation of identity<\/strong> through textual and multimodal expression (Pennington, 2017; Thorne et al., 2015). Mahiri and Kim (2016) further argue that identity markers are shifting, as new digital cultures continue to emerge. Cultural practices and perspectives reflect distinct personal identities and elective group affinities, indicating a shift away from traditional core identifications<\/strong> like race and ethnicity<\/strong>. Continuing exploration of cultural formations in virtual learning environments<\/a>, Kumi-Yeboah et al. (2022) report that online learning environments can contain ‘hidden cultures<\/a><\/strong>‘ that are not immediately apparent to their members, influenced by regional differences, upbringing, and age.<\/p>\n

Authors of the post-2004 literature seem to have been less driven to try to detail specific values of digital culture (though see Rudnev et al., 2018), but they do offer insights into the conceptual structure, development goals, and desired outcomes associated with digital cultures. These perspectives often highlight the potential for digital culture to foster certain societal values and address ethical concerns related to technology (Ess, 2020). Some have argued that digital environments could lead to a postmodern network of diverse and non-hierarchical cultures<\/strong>, moving away from formerly agreed upon high culture standards. Pennington (2017), for example, makes the case that digital affordances both \u2018level\u2019 access and \u2018delevel\u2019 by spawning new hybrid forms (here, we use affordances<\/em> to mean the action possibilities structured by platform design, social norms, and algorithms, rather than fixed \u2018features\u2019). Similarly, \u017duvela-Bu\u0161nja et al. (2008) emphasize their belief that digital culture influences changes in traditional cultural patterns, fields, and communication, embodying a ‘horizontal and simultaneous form of transmission<\/a>‘ implying values of adaptation and integration of historical context within new digital forms.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Persistent paradoxes and tensions<\/h1>\n

Counterbalancing the opportunities outlined above, recent work also surfaces tensions and harms that accompany everyday digital participation (Barendregt, 2012). Digital culture is presented as demanding contradictory roles <\/strong>from users, for example, making them individually and collectively responsible for both including and excluding others from the network. This occurs not necessarily through explicit intention, but through their participation and the language they validate, which aligns with their chosen ideology (Funes & Mackness, 2018). Fabr\u00edcio (2014) notes that digital spaces continue to offer platforms where individuals may engage in retaliatory criticism<\/strong>. In other words: greater contact and awareness does not necessarily lead to constructive engagement. Moreover, stereotypes <\/strong>and biased representations<\/strong> continue to be scripted into digital environments, highlighting the reality that although \u2018open\u2019, digital spaces and cultures retain the potential to reinforce, amplify and perpetuate negative cultural perceptions rather than dismantle them (Barendregt, 2012; Fabr\u00edcio, 2014).<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cultural content and digital transformation<\/h1>\n

Online cultures or cultures online? Offering an alternate perspective on digital cultures, \u017duvela-Bu\u0161nja et al. (2008) investigate representations of culture in digital spaces. They define culture as encompassing the output of the public cultural sector<\/a>, civil society<\/a> initiatives, and creative industries, including symbolic goods<\/a> like books, films, music, and the activities of cultural institutions such as museums, libraries, and archives. Optimistically making the case that digital transformation is necessary for cultural development and global engagement, they argue that digitization is a critical precursor to authentic intercultural communication and cooperation.<\/p>\n

Scholarship in this area continues to demonstrate that digital cultures are dynamic spaces for identity formation, group affiliation, and the evolution of cultural practices, moving beyond traditional demographic markers. While more recent works tend not to explicitly aim to frame digital cultural values they speculate on the\u00a0desired outcomes<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0strategic aims<\/em>\u00a0of digital cultures. These include fostering cultural democracy<\/a>, diversity, intercultural communication, <\/strong>and contributing to a knowledge society<\/a><\/strong>, often in response to ethical considerations and a recognition of digital culture’s transformative power.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

definition<\/span>