Mass amateurization

Credit: Mediabistro

Mass amateurization, according to Clay Shirky, is "a result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities" (p. 66). In other words, mass amateurization happens after a means of communication rises. For example, shortly after the printing press was invented, literacy spread as a result. Reading and writing were once skills limited to scribes; now these skills have spread amongst the general public. 


Mass amateurization, essentially, takes the skills that were once only entitled to professionals and gives the general public access to those skills. It's like the decentralization of the feudal system. Of course, this does not mean that the general public becomes professionals. It's just that the skills that were once limited to professionals are no longer limited to professionals. 

With the creation of the Internet, a lot of professions have been mass amateurized. For example, YouTube gave amateur video makers a platform to show off their videos, whether they were professionally done or not. Another example are computer programs that gives users the tools that professionals use to do their work. I made a picture slideshow with Windows Movie Maker. That was very easy, I didn't need to go to Rite Aid or Walgreen to have a professional do that for me. Last year, I had to renew my passport so I went to professionals at CVS to get my passport picture taken. They wanted to charge me $10 for 2 small passport pictures while they charged 20 cents for a one 4X6 photo. I decided to take my own passport photo with my digital camera. I printed it at Target for only 25 cents for 6 copies. I wasn't a professional photographer but I was still able to take my own passport picture. 

The outcome of mass amateurization, according to Shirky, is "the loss of professional control [which can be] bad for many of society's core institutions" (p73). Because of mass amateurization, there is less demand for the professionals. Because there's less demand, the profession will start to fade out. The professions, however, won't necessarily fade away completely. It will depend on if that profession is still valuable. For example, in the case of the scribes, scribes are no longer a profession, instead they sort of morphed into calligraphers. Professions that get ousted by mass amateurization often become valuable hobbies like telegraph operators. Although they are no longer a profession, Morse code reading skills are still valued hobbies. 

I don't think mass amateurization will kill the media professions. Even though, the average Joe or Sally today, can be a journalist, photographer, or video maker, they are not professionals. They are amateurs. Well, most of them are amateurs. Some may be talented enough to become professionals. The difference between professionals and amateurs in in quality and credibility. Professionals tend to produce high quality material while amateurs may not necessary have the professional equipments to do so but that is changing quickly. The one place where amateurs might win over professionals is in creativity. Professionals also tend to be more credible than amateurs because professionals are seen as experts in their fields. 

Source: 

Shirky, Clay. "Everyone Is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print.