Added Both Light and Heat

¶ … added both light and heat to the experience of the first field-coding experience. I find myself both attracted to the idea and process of coding and yet also doubtful about its efficacy. Or, rather, doubtful about its objectivity. It seems to me clear that two different people coding the same event, or even one person coding the same event at two different points in time, will come up with different coding. This may or may not be a problem, depending on what one believes to be the goal of the process.

I believe that it is not helpful to consider this process as being one that is appropriate to think of in either objective or static terms. Each time that one observes an event (such as when one is present at an event and then views it later on video) one's understanding of the interpersonal, linguistic, and cultural dynamics involved will have shifted. As I understand it, the purpose of coding as a research (or analytic) tool is to reduce the complexity of real-time exchanges. Coding is a process of simplification, of choosing only a few possible interpretations of what the subtext of any exchange is (or perhaps the back story of the event might be a better way of thinking about it).

Looking back on my experience of coding so far, it seems to me that it is very difficult to determine in the most precise way how well one's codes match with the actual event that one is coding and how much they simply reflect the basic concepts that one has internalized and that one tends to apply regardless. This is the primary lesson that I have learned and that I have attempted to address in the process of coding this event.

The first code that I apply to this event (that was also relevant to the past event) is that of social capital. This concept is, of course, borrowed in some measure from Marx's understanding of capitalism in its more traditional sense. Capital is something that a person can exchange to receive something desired. Social capital is not, however, perfectly analogous to other forms of capital because social capital is not used up in any given exchange. Social capital, which can also be looked at as analogous to social standing, comprises education, class, demographic aspects such as age, gender, and race, beauty, expertise, and talent, among other attributes, attracts people to each other and can be used to acquire many types of goods.

The second coding category that I use in this project is that of collective identity. This coding concept is to some extent analogous to culture: It is the sum of the ways in which members of a group feel connected to each other as related to their membership in a group. This code is an obvious one given that the dynamics that are being explored here are (at least in part) the ways in which Chinese and Americans (and Chinese and American culture) interact with each other. China is still considered to be an essentially collective culture while America is still considered to be an essentially individualist culture. These are certainly simplifications, but they have sufficient validity to be useful.