On her FB page, somebody suggested to Kino that "you might want to consider turning off your comments or filtering..." This got me a bit curious, so I went on the actual Youtube page to see the video and its accompanying comments. The top two comments (which, as I understand, are ranked the top two because they have received the greatest number of likes) are a bit inappropriate to reproduce on this blog; suffice to say that they refer to particular biological functions.
Actually, this is not the first time that this video has generated such... interesting comments; a similar incident happened with this video sometime last year. And of course, if you take the couple of minutes it takes to actually watch the video, you will know that those particular biological functions alluded to by these commenters are the last things Kino has in mind when making the video. As the patron saint of home Ashtangis, Kino's intention is to offer the video as a source of instruction and feedback for Ashtangis who are working on this particularly challenging second series pose on their own. How it is possible for these commenters to interpret the video as some kind of sex manual (there, I said it!) is, frankly, quite beyond me. But then again, I think there must be some school of postmodernist textual/video interpretation out there which holds the view that absolutely any interpretation of any media is justified and valid, so long as the interpreter can offer some kind of semi-coherent explanation for the interpretation. Ah well. What do I know?
But since I know nothing about postmodernism, I should maybe talk about something else. Well, let's talk about... democracy and its possible evils. As I mentioned above, the top two comments on the video are the top comments because they have received the greatest number of likes/thumbs-ups thus far. Thus, we can see that the ranking of comments on Youtube is a purely democratic process: That which receives the greatest number of votes receives top ranking.
Most of us, I take it, have been taught/socialized to believe that democracy is a good thing. But it looks like in this particular case, the democratic process is a distorting influence. If the sheer number of likes/thumbs-ups is anything to go by, it would seem that the majority of viewers on Youtube (at least those who have seen this particular video) either agree with or are at least sympathetic to the views of these two commenters. But that also means that the majority of viewers have mistaken or distorted views about what this video is really about, postmodernism notwithstanding. Or maybe they know better, but they simply don't care enough to offer a dissenting opinion. One way or the other, this would seem to suggest that it is not always a good idea to put things to a majority vote, because the majority can be either wrong or not socially responsible enough with their votes.
But maybe I am making too much out of this one case; after all, we do pride ourselves on living in a democracy, and democracy is supposed to be the best thing since, what, sliced bread? After all, if we live in a particular society or community, it is only right that each citizen/inhabitant of this society should have an equal say or vote about anything that might affect his or her life, right? But should each citizen/inhabitant have an equal say about things regarding which she might know very little or nothing about--things such as a particular pose in a particular practice of which you are not a practitioner? It might seem that the answer to this question is a very easy no. After all, how can we responsibly judge things which we have no experience in? But then again, how many of us actually have experience in governing this country? And yet we take it to be unproblematic that we should be entitled to have an equal say or vote in deciding whom we should choose to govern this country.
Ah, big questions these are. I think I am using yoga as an excuse to think about political philosophy. Or maybe it's the other way around: I might be using political philosophy as an excuse to think about yoga. Who knows? Anyway, I guess I'll stop here, before this rambling gets out of hand (it may already have). More later.
To be honest: watching Kino's video I've caught myself sometimes "Oh G, Kino, turn the comments off, they're disgusting and if you're allowing comments, you're enabling this behaviour."
ReplyDeleteWhat a horrible sort. It's like victim-blaming, because these comments are basically nothing more than sexual harassment. And as such it's not Kino's fault and I think she shouldn't turn off the comments (or wear a burka or something)...
But I still try to flag these comments as spam or something similar every time, because it's really disgusting.
I'm trying to picture Kino demo-ing Yoganidrasana while wearing a burka; the picture simply won't form...
DeleteThe comments are indeed disgusting. On one level, that is simply a reflection of the fact that there are disgusting people in the world.
On another level, I think your observation that this is sexual harassment is a very insightful one. While there is something to be said for developing equanimity/growing a thick skin that is impervious to such disgusting comments, there is also something to the notion that we have a right to be in a non-hostile environment. After all, if such remarks or comments are not acceptable in the workplace and in many public settings, why should they be acceptable in a public online setting? Actually, I even wonder if Kino might be able to argue that this constitutes some form of workplace harassment, since a lot of her professional life is spent on Youtube. Just wondering.
How is tuning out an inappropriate or disrespectful comment on a video clip I happen to be watching any different from working on nurturing the ability to quiet the vritis in my own mind which is what brought me to the practice in the first place? A rambling reverse logic perspective might actually argue in favor of the inappropriate comments being more instructive towards the goal of silencing vritis than the actually video itself which is concerned with posture and alignment.
ReplyDeleteI like your rambling reverse logic perspective on nurturing the ability to quiet the vrttis, Vince. Actually, this is why I don't ever delete comments, even if they are dumb or downright offensive (although I might ignore them or shoot them down if I feel like it :-)). But then again, I am not Kino, and I don't post Yoganidrasana videos on Youtube (trust me, you don't want to see me in that pose...).
DeleteThat said, I do like and agree with your perspective. The social media world is very much like the "real" world, except with fewer inhibitions. And just like the "real" world, there will always be the loud folks in the crowd (see Nathan's comment below).
comments are in the eye of the beholder....I don't usually read many comments on u tube,,,,,,,,,,I'm watching the video to help myself. I am happy that there are people like Kino who share.
ReplyDeleteHave a wonderful day,
Diana
Actually, I don't usually read many comments, either. It's just that this time around, my attention has been brought to them.
DeleteYou have a wonderful day too.
1. Internet commenting is not democracy, it is expression.
ReplyDelete2. Democracy is the process that defines and protects the right to certain kinds of expression.
3. Youtube and Facebook content (videos, pictures, comments, etc) are not protected - take a look at their "terms of service" agreements. This very blog could be arbitrarily deleted in an instant: http://www.blogger.com/content.g
Democracy is not supposed to be elegant, or even effective. It is supposed to prevent the consolidation and abuse of political power. Hence the long history of the failures of democracy, going all the way back to Socrates' apology.
There is a populist sentiment that every opinion has value and deserves a platform to be expressed, and it feeds the infinite stream of internet commentary - some insightful, most not. But that populism should not be confused with the universal rights which are intended to be protected by our democratic institutions. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Facebook and Youtube are democratic institutions.
I am in agreement with much of what you say.
Delete"...populism should not be confused with the universal rights which are intended to be protected by our democratic institutions."
This is probably right. But in order for populism--the idea that every opinion, no matter how absurd or seemingly dumb or against the status quo, has value in the free marketplace of ideas--to be practiced to the fullest extent, don't we need a democratic process?
Yes, but what is a free marketplace of ideas?
DeleteIf the interpretation of "free" is zero cost and nearly zero effort, "free" is indeed the appropriate value of that marketplace's product. Talk is cheap, as they say, and most of the discourse on social media bears out that assertion.
However, social media content is not "free" in the Constitutionally guaranteed sense. Content on Facebook exists as long as Facebook is willing to provide its service, and Facebook has made it clear that Facebook is the owner of all content uploaded to its service, and that Facebook can do what they want with it. Note that on Facebook there is always a button to "like" something, but there is never a button to "dislike" something - is this free speech?
Another example of how your data is not "free." Take yesterday's news about the Harvard dean being dismissed for searching through faculty email accounts. This was an administrative action of Harvard, not a legal action. Why? Because Harvard owns their email systems, and there is no Constitutionally protected expression on such private systems for their users.
The intended meaning of "free" speech lies in the right of the owner of a press or computer, or the person(s) occupying a public space, to express themselves, free of governmental interference, and subject to exclusions such as sedition, defamation or obscenity. Thus, the only Constitutionally guaranteed "free" speech on Facebook is that of its shareholders, or at Harvard, that of its board of trustees.
'If the interpretation of "free" is zero cost and nearly zero effort...'
DeleteBut is this the only or even the most significant interpretation of "free"? Right now, I am putting forth effort in responding to your comment, and I certainly believe that I am doing so freely. I am doing so freely because (1) I am choosing to respond out of my free will, without undue constraint or coercion, and (2) in responding to you, I am using words that represent and express certain ideas that I have freely chosen to endorse.
If this is not freedom, what is? It is true that blogger may choose to delete this blog tomorrow, or that FB can do what it wants with its content. But then they are simply exercising their property rights (I am not saying I agree with their particular ways of exercising their property right, I'm just saying they could choose to do so if they so desire); after all, we are in a sense using their property as the space within which to express ourselves. But whatever they choose to do, it does not change the fact that I am now expressing myself in a way that is both free of constraint and that is in accordance with ideas that I have freely endorsed. Again, if this is not freedom, what is?
Free speech would be as you described, except published on your own system, or shouted from atop a soapbox at the town square. Your right to that expression would be legally protected. That's democracy in action.
DeleteTo go back to the title of your post which equated unmoderated commenting with democracy -- my point is that internet content sometimes resembles the free speech that is a necessary function of democracy, but it is not free if its existence depends on the permission of a publisher. And while I agree much of it is questionable, it still remains that the questionable stuff is also only a simulacrum of free speech.
Another example - in the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt a couple years ago, there was a Facebook page that was instrumental in organizing the first demonstrations. But within a few days all internet connectivity inside Egypt was suspended. Democracy in Egypt ultimately came from the spoken and printed word and the determination of those who favored it.
In the history of democracy in America, plenty of majorities have been on the wrong side of the fence. It took war, in many cases, to "correct" the viewpoint to the minority's vision of a better world. Democracy isn't fair in terms of what it decides, it's fair in terms of HOW it decides. That being said, those against the popular view are often slammed, no matter how truly inspired they may be to have come up with the better idea.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Youtube is a choice: Kino chooses to upload her (wonderful) demonstrations there. Nobody is forcing her. If she wanted to put them up where no-one can comment, she could start a subscription blog. The comments simply point to the general gross ignorance of any lunatic who has access to a keyboard and a wireless. You could find the same set of lunatics harassing me in Starbucks on any given afternoon, while I'm minding my own business and reading a book. However, there's something about the Internet that brings out the masturbating adolescents in people.
"Democracy isn't fair in terms of what it decides, it's fair in terms of HOW it decides."
DeleteGood point. If nothing else, democracy offers a process/arena through which a minority with a better vision can make itself heard, and hopefully change the minds of the majority through persuasion and rational argument.
That said, however, there is also the question of just how much harassment a member of the minority can fairly be expected to endure in the course of such persuasion. Should everybody be expected to develop the equanimity/thick skin necessary to function effectively as a disseminator of useful information on Youtube, or as an effective reader of books at Starbucks? Or do people have a right to be in a non-hostile public environment, just as people now have a right to work in a non-hostile workplace?
I don't really have any answers here. Just thinking aloud.
There has never been a true democracy in the U.S. It's not really a popular form anywhere, actually, despite the widespread use of the word. We have a constitutional or federal republic in the U.S., and one where there's never been an equal distribution of power or choice.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'd actually argue that the garbage comments the internet generates represent those loud folks in every crowd that try and steal the spotlight. They rarely are interested in making shared decisions or actually debating the merits of something. They only want to be right, in control, or be at the center of attention in some manner or another. They definitely aren't interested in democracy, nor do they represent it.
I think the freedom to comment behind a screen just represents a highly amplified extension of the spotlight hogs, power thugs, and public clowns that populate our everyday lives.
Hello Nathan,
Deleteinteresting points you bring up here.
"There has never been a true democracy in the U.S... We have a constitutional or federal republic in the U.S., and one where there's never been an equal distribution of power or choice."
To be fair, I don't think there has ever been a society where there is true or pure democracy, if by that we mean a system in which every single inhabitant has an equal say or vote in how things are run. Perhaps the ancient Greeks came pretty close to it, but then they didn't consider women to be citizens, and they had tons of slaves who didn't have a say in the running of things either.
As for your point about the U.S. being a constitutional or federal republic... well, being a constitutional/federal republic is a political arrangement in which political power is distributed in a particular way. There is no reason in principle why such an arrangement cannot be conducive to the practice of democracy, which is a process that protects the right of every citizen to political participation and expression. Actually, if you knew nothing about the former Soviet Union (say, if you had just landed on earth from another planet) and all you knew about the Soviet Union was from reading its constitution, you might think that the Soviet Union was a perfectly democratic state.
My point is that democracy is compatible in principle with many diverse political arrangements. But of course, all of this is *in principle*. I'm sure you know how things work in practice :-)
"They rarely are interested in making shared decisions or actually debating the merits of something."
But one doesn't need to be interested in making shared decisions or in seriously debating the merits of anything in order to participate in democracy. One just needs to, well, participate. Which, incidentally, is probably why Plato thinks so lowly of democracy.
Oh I don't know if this is just as much about commerce/business/publicity as it is about democracy. Like the comments/reviews on Amazon you know? Some are just awful, some are crazy, some are even untrue. a youtube channel, as much as it is educational in this instance, it is predominantly a promotional tool. As a resident of a large metro area, I get to see what gets done to the promotional posters on the trains and subways. And as a resident of this planet who cannot successfully hide from the cult of celebrity, I think it is obvious even to people with very little desire for introspection how consuming images of something popular has a certain cannibalistic and objectifying quality for lack of a better word. I think that's why we hear very well known figures sometimes grumble that "Fame's a bitch".
ReplyDelete'I think that's why we hear very well known figures sometimes grumble that "Fame's a bitch".'
DeleteAh, how true. I guess I don't have this problem, because I'm not famous :-)
coming from a VERY 'democratic' country (switzerland) i figure i should say something, but i am amazed by all the productive, clever comments above! there's not much left to say, but there's a little analogy that occurred to me when looking at the crass contrast of the quality of our comments and the quality of youtube comments:
ReplyDeleteit feels like we, the commentators on this post, are sitting in a seminar at uni, discussing important(?) matters of the world, while outside (youtube) people are just living away and not a lot of what they say is productive or matters at all, they communicate for the sake of communicating and some are louder and more inappropriate than others. --> the online world is just as real as the offline world, we're humans after all.
"it feels like we, the commentators on this post, are sitting in a seminar at uni, discussing important(?) matters of the world..."
DeleteI am very happy that you think this feels like a seminar at uni. Maybe this means that my professional and non-professional selves aren't that different from each other...
I can't even imagine how these people (i'm guessing 'men') even get on to such videos. It's not like they are searching 'yoga nidrasana' and I'd be surprised that Ashtanga yoga is that popular it is coming up as a You Tube homepage feature. It is a pity, as I love her videos, but hate having to read all of *those* types of comments, and especially from the many feet/toe fetish people that seem to be out there!
ReplyDelete"I can't even imagine how these people (i'm guessing 'men') even get on to such videos."
DeleteI can't either. And yes, there does seem to be many feet/toe fetishers out there...
I think you are confusing the "problem of democracy" with the "problem of patriarchy"
ReplyDeleteHeather!!!! Blogger needs a like button for comments.
Delete'I think you are confusing the "problem of democracy" with the "problem of patriarchy"'
DeleteHow am I doing that?
It's a matter of framing. From what I read, you are saying that in posting this video and allowing for comments (your definition of democracy), Kino is getting set up for unsavory interactions. You invoke political theory to understand the possible evils of democratic forums.
DeleteMy point is that you're drawing from the wrong literature for your philosophical (political, sociological) frame. The problem *isn't* that youtube allows for "democratic" input. The problem *is* that women's bodies are objectified.
take a look at this Rodney Yee video in which he is ostensibly doing yoga in a speedo. 3 comments. All of which are complaining about the commercials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pO_hrQV_ds
I will, however, concede that youtube and frankly every other place that allows for comments invites idiocy.
DeleteAh, Rodney Yee, the patron saint of yoga videos... he must have, like, 10,000 videos by now? :-)
DeleteWell, I'm not so much saying that Kino per se is getting set up for unsavory interactions; what I'm saying is that in any forum in which interactions are purely controlled or "ruled" by the masses ("demos": the masses or the people, "cratos": rule or control), it is almost inevitable that the content of the interaction will veer from what the creator of the content originally intended. Sometimes, as in this particular, the interaction veers towards the direction of objectifying women. And this is probably because a significant portion of the masses favor or are at least indifferent towards objectification of women.
So I'm not convinced that I am drawing from the "wrong" literature (who defines right or wrong here, anyway?). My point is that in and of itself, democracy is a neutral process. But in the wrong hands, the process can lead to such undesirable outcomes as the objectification of women.
If we're using the Greeks as our foundation point for "modern democracy," it was built upon patriarchy. And classism. Male landowners got to participate; everyone else was out of luck. It's really never been neutral. The ideals might be neutral in some senses, but even the philosophical constructions were mostly built by the elite, with the sense that they could be "extended" to the masses. As opposed to members of the masses actively creating systems from their own understandings/desires.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there's something democratic about being able to vote and comment on something like a Kino video. But how much of it is just dogpiling (folks just leaping on to a particular position), or a collection of tangents (everything from the fetish types to spammers to bored people trying to stir things up)?
It just feels a lot more wide open and directionless than say an election for a President or Congress. Certainly, there's plenty of dogpiling and voting randomness in elections, but they also have structures and aims built in. Much of what happens online has the appearance of democratic institutions, but not the actual forms needed to function decently well.
Hello Nathan,
Deleteinteresting comments, as always. First, at the risk of coming across as being pedantic, I would like to bring your attention to the fact that you are conflating two different meanings of the word "neutral".
A process might be neutral either (1) because it is "class/gender/race-neutral", i.e. it is a process that is open to participation by all rational human beings, without exclusion on the basis of class, gender, race, etc., or (2) because it is "value-neutral", i.e. a process that is free of influence by the values of any particular group of persons in society.
These two kinds of neutrality are related but nevertheless distinct. I am aware that ancient Greek democracy was very much a patriarchal and classist system (see my reply to your earlier comment above). In this sense, we can say that ancient Greek democracy was not class/gender/race-neutral; it was probably also not value-neutral, since the process was almost certainly dominated by the values of the male landowner class.
We can mitigate the lack of class/gender/race neutrality in the democratic process by extending suffrage to more and more groups in society. However, the problem of lack of value-neutrality--which, I believe, is the problem that you are actually concerned with when you say that the process has "never really been neutral"--is more difficult to resolve. This is so, because even if voting or commenting is open to absolutely anybody and everybody in society, the people with the loudest voices or the people who are most able to initiate a dogpile will most likely be the ones who will have the most influence in swaying others to uncritically adopt their values.
But this is not a new problem with democracy; Plato warned against it, and John Stuart Mill was probably referring to the same problem when he spoke about the tyranny of the majority.
So... I guess I'm just not sure where you are going with your comment. I mean, surely you are not advocating that we do away with the democratic process just because it can almost never be value-neutral? Wouldn't that be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath-water?