Though Jenkins defines convergence culture as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want,” (2) we contend that convergence culture is increasingly becoming established through the merging of previously separated media into a single device or platform (or what Jenkins would refer to as the “black box”) (13). However, we are not arguing that convergence culture is reducible to technological devices; it does involve “technological, industrial, cultural and social changes in the way media circulates” (282). These media facilitate new kinds of social interaction through altering the processes of production and consumption, which now rely on participatory culture and collective intelligence (2). Although participation in a middle class economy in the first world requires being in a convergence culture, some aspects of our lives may not have been completely dominated by convergence, and our experiences are not necessarily representative of other groups’. 

We are involved in a convergence culture, though that “we” is limited to mostly people in privileged positions. For instance, first world individuals in the middle and upper classes who have access to mobile devices and PCs are undoubtedly involved in convergence culture. However, we cannot claim that all individuals around the world, or even in the United States, are part of convergence culture because this culture depends upon a certain physical infrastructure that does not exist in many rural and remote locations. Like the telegraph that made the communal culture of the 19th century possible (Henkin 6), our contemporary convergence culture still relies on physically laid cable, wire, electricity, telephone poles, and even satellites in space. Though people in convergence culture certainly aren’t confronted with these spaces on a day to day basis, these spaces do exist and so indicate the contingency of the culture that has perhaps become too naturalized for many of us to notice.

The “we” who are involved in convergence culture is also non-representative in that those of us who work in university systems cannot be said to be typical users. Within the university community, we use blackboard and other digital platforms, assign digital and multi-modal texts, and have 24 hour access to one another through e-mail. Furthermore, in our field we make it a point to study and reflect upon the impact of these technologies and media on our lives and communication, so our involvement in convergence culture differs from people whose work may utilize but not necessarily emphasize the aspects of convergence in which we are involved.