I wrote this 5 years ago after my husband and I had just moved into our house. It is, unfortunately, all too relevant today.
--------
The other day I returned home from work to find a bright yellow note taped to the front door of my Grand Rapids house on the corner of Hall and Philadelphia, the contents of which my husband and I found terribly offensive – and not just because of the opening run-on sentence.
The note, delivered by an anonymous "neighbor," contained warnings from both the GRPD and the Ottawa Hills Neighborhood Watch about a recent rash of break-ins in the area enclosed by Hall, Giddings, Franklin and Plymouth streets. This part of SE Grand Rapids, while it is bordered by more economically and racially diverse neighborhoods, is made up of predominantly white upper-class citizens with large houses and expensive cars.
The first warning, from the GRPD, described two recent break-ins. In the first, nothing was reported stolen, nor were there any suspects indicated. In the second, some electronic equipment was reported stolen with suspects indicated as “four B/M’s (late teens/early twenties).” It was the third described incident that first gave me pause. It read,
"At about midnight on 9/2 a neighbor in the 800 block of Cadillac observed 3 suspicious B/M teenagers walking through the neighborhood ‘casing’ houses. The subjects were contacted by police at Alexander and Giddings. The subjects were not from the neighborhood."
It went on to explain that the victim of the earlier break-in was called in for possible identification, but could not say whether they were involved. So why does the incident bear reporting? It appears as if the only thing the subjects were guilty of was ‘walking in a white neighborhood while black.' My husband and I, both white, walk through the mansion-laden neighborhoods of EGR on a regular basis. We will often pause for minutes at a time to observe architectural details of the houses and point out features of the landscaping we like. We’re not ‘from the neighborhood’ either. But, unlike the black male subjects from the third reported incident, never once has anyone accused us of ‘casing’ houses. The end of the GRPD warning urges residents of these neighborhoods to call the police if they see “suspicious persons” or anything “out of the ordinary.” Of course, they don’t specifically say to call the police any time they see a black male wandering around, but my guess is that no one will be calling the police when they see me or my husband passing by. My husband and I have the privilege of not looking ‘out of the ordinary’ in a white neighborhood.
The second warning in the note was from the Ottawa Hills Neighborhood Watch. It contained the following suggestions:
Any time you see kids you don’t recognize cruising around on bikes or wandering down the street with no apparent purpose, call the police to report suspicious activity. Tell them there have been several B&E’s in the area lately and these kids don’t belong here. Do the same if you see kids riding more than one to a bike – they’re not being cute, they’re looking for a bike to steal.
Once again, the note does not specifically say to watch out for black kids cruising around on bikes, but it certainly implies it in every possible way. After all, would white kids riding bikes be considered ‘suspicious’ in a mostly-white neighborhood? White kids have the privilege of looking like they ‘belong’ in white neighborhoods. My husband and I don’t have children, but if we did, I don’t think either of us would have to be nervous that allowing them to ride their bikes through the neighborhood across the street would cause them to get arrested or even questioned by police. And, as for the ‘two kids per bike’ comment… Though, again, they did not specify to watch out for two black kids on the same bike, I would venture a guess that two white kids on the same bike in EGR would be more likely considered ‘cute’ than criminals. Never mind the fact that a more likely reason for any two kids to be riding the same bike is simply because it's fun.
The note needed only to contain a suggestion for people to lock their cars and homes and keep an eye on their neighbor’s houses for suspicious activity. Instead, and in a not-so-subtle way, the perpetrators of this note have encouraged an entire neighborhood of white people to be suspicious of literally anyone in their vicinity who doesn’t look like them.
The beginning of the Ottawa Hills Neighborhood Watch warning starts out with this statement, “Some helpful, if nasty sounding hints:” Yes, racism is nasty, isn't it? But it’s for a good purpose, they claim. The note concludes by assuring neighbors that they will, “feel mean making the call, but they could very well be saving a neighbor’s property and peace of mind.” A final piece of white privilege: the ability to justify making generalizations about an entire race of people based on the actions of a few and just feel a little ‘mean’ about it. I think it is time we start feeling a bit more than that.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Comprehensive Sex Education… A Moral Imperative.
If you have been following the news or reading blogs (or anything on the internet) lately, you have probably heard people talking about ‘rape culture.’ The tragic incident in Steubenville (and other stories like it that have been surfacing ever since) brought some painful truths about society to light, specifically our tendency to create and participate in cultures that both condone and encourage rape. These cultures are sometimes blatant (like violent and misogynistic lyrics in popular music or images in video games) and other times subtle and insidious (like gender stereotypes that identify women as naturally submissive and passive). In a country where a woman’s chance of getting raped is 1 in 5, rape culture is not something to be taken lightly.
Neither is the issue of bullying. Unlike rape culture, bullying has been getting press and Internet attention for a while now. However, despite most people believing it is a tragic problem, things don’t seem to be getting much better. While no student is immune to the stinging effects of bullying, it does tend to most negatively affect LGBT youth. The continuing stigma that society places on people with a non-heterosexual identity has powerful, painful and far-reaching consequences.
Though at first glance rape culture and bullying may seem like disparate issues, they have more in common than you might think. Both involve issues of power and sex(uality). Both are fueled by ignorance and fear. And, I believe, both of these issues could be mitigated by a commitment to more comprehensive sex education in schools.
My experience both as a learner and a teacher took place almost exclusively in Christian schools. While I believe most of the points I will outline below could apply to public and private schools alike, I want to focus specifically on these issues in a Christian school context for two reasons. First, I believe there are things that currently characterize Christian efforts at sex education that are particularly problematic in terms of bullying and rape culture. Second, I believe Christian schools ought to see combating the issues of rape culture and bullying as a moral imperative.
What are you doing?
Since most Christians believe the Bible to be clear about postponing sex until marriage, it is likely that if Christian schools are doing any sex education at all, they are promoting abstinence only. Perhaps they talk about how sex is wonderful and God designed it to be fun and pleasurable, but then they firmly pronounce this wonderful, fun, pleasurable thing ‘off limits’ to students. Sex is great; don’t do it. To say this is a confusing message for young people would be an understatement.
Why is this a problem?
The short answer is, of course, it doesn’t work. The research tells us this. Despite numerous studies, there is very little evidence that abstinence-only sex education delays sexual activity among young people. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that young people who have participated in comprehensive sex education programs are less likely to get pregnant, have abortions and transmit disease.
In addition being ineffective, abstinence only programs are much more likely to propagate rape culture and bullying in schools and society. Abstinence only programs can produce young people who are uneducated about their sexual rights and uninformed about sexual differences. This kind of ignorance can be dangerous as young people go in search of information on their own and find lots of negative and harmful influences along the way.
What should you be doing?
It’s time for a new narrative in Christian sex education, one that acknowledges reality for starters. Somewhere along the line we mistook talking with young people about good sex and safe sex for encouraging young people to go out and have sex. But since when does information = promotion? Can we have a little bit more faith in both our educators and our students that they can engage in frank discussions about sex, talk about safety and protection and even pleasure, without giving/receiving the impression that this information equals a free pass to go have sex with the next person they see?
Comprehensive sex education certainly includes teaching the value of abstinence. Delaying sexual activity has numerous benefits for both the health and well being of young people. But simply saying, ‘don’t do it’ is irresponsible, given what we know about the percentage of young people (including, gasp, Christians) who will engage in sexual behavior before they say ‘I do.’ We are failing them by not giving them the tools they need to make healthy decisions about sex and relationships.
What are you doing?
It is likely that if a Christian school promotes abstinence only sex education, they also talk a lot about the importance of purity. Simply stated, to remain ‘pure’ is to be absent from sexual sin, or virginal. The pressure to remain pure falls overwhelmingly on young girls who are often told in both subtle and overt ways that once they give in to sexual temptation, they have become ‘damaged goods.’ Boys, on the other hand, may be scolded for giving in to temptation, but their reputations tend to remain untarnished… after all, ‘boys will be boys.‘
The pressure on girls to remain pure and virginal and the tendency to place the responsibility for resisting sexual temptation on girls more than boys manifests itself in different ways in sex education programs. For example, it is very common in Christian schools to place a high value on modesty, especially when it comes to girls’ dress codes. Girls are told that they should cover up their bodies and avoid tight clothing lest they become a ‘stumbling block’ to the boys, causing their eyes to wander and lustful thoughts to overtake them. Boys are more visual creatures, girls are told, and so they can’t be trusted not to sexualize your bare shoulders, thighs or midriffs.
Why is this a problem?
This is where Christian programs for sex education (as well as related modesty codes for girls) do the most damage in contributing to rape culture. Rape culture is propagated in any context in which men have more power than women over their sexual choices. In the context of purity and modesty culture, women are expected to bear most of the burden for remaining virgins until married. They are also held responsible for men’s sexual deviance. Telling middle school girls not to wear leggings to school because the boys might be too distracted to do their algebra is just one step down the road to victim blaming in rape culture. How many times have you heard someone respond to rape allegations with, “well what was she wearing?” as if men should be let off the hook for sexual assault if too much of the victim’s thigh was showing. Not to mention the burden this puts on rape survivors, who, if they ascribe to the hallmarks of purity culture, must believe they are broken or dirty if they have been sexually assaulted.
We are doing just as terrible a disservice to boys with these kinds of harmful purity and modesty expectations as we are to girls. We are sending boys the message that they are weak and can’t help themselves. We are letting them off the hook for bad behavior rather than holding them accountable. We are lowering our expectations rather than raising them.
In addition, as several intelligent bloggers have pointed out, idolizing virginity and purity has a way of objectifying women and girls. It ties their worth to their sexual (or fashion) choices. It reduces their identity to whether or not they have been touched or looked at sexually by a man. This kind of objectification of women is the hallmark of rape culture.
What should you be doing?
First of all, sex education in Christian schools needs to communicate the same high standards about sexual behavior to both girls and boys alike. Boys need to be told, in no uncertain terms (And, yes, out loud. Let’s stop pretending the statistics don’t exist), that preventing sexual assault against women is entirely their responsibility and that they shouldn’t rape. We seem quite comfortable preaching other Biblical commands to our students, so the directive not to rape should be no exception.
Once that is made clear, Christian school sex education programs need to start being real about the fact that young people are engaging in physical, sexual relationships. Even if they don’t have sex, chances are they’re doing (or will be doing) lots of other physically intimate things. And they're experimenting with little or no direction, advice or information from trusted adults. In order to promote mutuality and give girls and boys the same amount of power over their sexual choices, the topic to focus on is ‘consent.’
There was a commercial that aired during this year’s super bowl in which a young high school boy, feeling empowered after being given the keys to his dad’s Audi, walks confidently into the prom and, kisses a tall, thin, pretty girl right on the lips. The boy is shown driving away afterwards with a black eye (presumably from the girl’s date who most likely was defending his property more than her honor) while the girl is shown breathlessly dreaming after him. A lot of people liked this commercial and most people probably thought it was a cute, romantic gesture. But let’s stop and think for a moment how that girl was positioned. She had zero power over her sexual choices in that moment. She was not asked whether or not she would like to be kissed or touched by this boy. She had no opportunity to give her consent. These kinds of messages that pit romance against consent appear all the time in popular culture and they are a big contributor to rape culture. After all, if a girl likes to be swept off her feet with an unexpected and unconsented kiss, what other sexual physical acts might she secretly welcome?
Verbal consent (ie. asking and responding out loud, directly and specifically) is a critical component of healthy sexuality and young people need to understand that. And, let’s remember that talking about the importance of consent in sexual relationships is not the same as encouraging young people to have sex. I’m not suggesting that educators tell young people that as long as they are consensual, they should feel free to pursue any sexual activity they desire. Consent should be a part of any intimate physical contact, even just hand-holding and kissing. Educating about the importance of consent empowers both young men and young women to make positive sexual choices and works to deconstruct rape culture in society.
What are you doing?
In addition to holding boys and girls to different standards about remaining virgins or sexually pure, Christian school sex education programs often fall into the dangerous trap of gender stereotyping and reinforcing a false gender binary. Raise your hand if much of your meager sex education in school happened in same-gender groups. You are not alone. This common practice operates under the assumption that girls and boys have inherently different concerns about sex and sexuality. It also assumes that girls and boys don’t need to know about each other’s sexuality. It is the first of many gestures that reinforce the false idea that girls and boys are wildly different creatures with wildly different kinds of sexualities and desires. For example, think about all the faith-based self-help programs for married (heterosexual) couples that base their entire curriculum on the supposed ‘innate differences’ between men and women. These kinds of narrow perspectives on gender identity and gender roles can breed both rape culture and bullying.
Why is this a problem?
Much of the bullying that happens in schools, particularly to boys, serves as a kind of policing of gender stereotypes. The most common way to insult a boy is to compare him to a girl. Both peers and adults (think of sports coaches) scrutinize boys’ gender identities by policing the way they walk, talk, dress and act. Girl bullying is also becoming increasingly common. Girls tend to police each other for things like body image and sexual behavior. Bullying in schools is a serious problem and I hope I don’t need to say too much to convince you of that. Promoting these rigid and artificial gender stereotypes can have a long and lasting negative impact on young people. And, gender stereotypes play a large role in supporting rape culture, too, as the traditional gender binary categorizes women as submissive, delicate and emotional while men are encouraged to be powerful, strong and decisive.
What should you be doing?
First, Christian schools should teach sex education with girls and boys in the same room and allow students to ask questions freely. Don’t be tempted to claim that all girls or all boys experience certain aspects of sexuality in the same way.
Second, promote gender diversity and use people-first language. Johnny is a human before he is a boy. Susie is a person who is also a girl. People’s sex organs do not define them. There is no ‘one way’ to be a boy-bodied person or a girl-bodied person. Young people need desperately to understand that and be encouraged in that. I read an article recently that contained this sentiment regarding gender diversity,
The God of the universe has not created more than 9 million species of animals, only to create two types of people. He has not created more than 315,000 species of plants, only to create "a man" and "a woman." He has created, instead, billions of wildly unique individuals.
Our sex education programs should reflect this wonderful and wild diversity and not fall into the same old narratives claiming absolute and fundamental differences between boys and girls.
What are you doing?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Christian sex education programs don’t acknowledge the reality of homosexuality. If they aren’t openly decrying it, they are probably ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t exist. Of course, talking and teaching about sex in an authentic way requires a frank discussion of homosexuality. This is especially true because there are surely a good number of students at any Christian school in the country who will (or do already) identify as homosexual. These students need to be acknowledged and supported, not ignored.
Why is this a problem?
The bullying of homosexual kids is a damaging, and often deadly, problem, and Christian schools are not immune to it. In fact, in my experience, blatantly antagonistic behavior towards homosexuals or kids displaying identity markers that might be associated with homosexuality is worse in Christian schools than elsewhere. Christian school kids openly, and often without being corrected, use ‘gay’ as a derogatory term for anything they don’t like and express disgust at homosexual behavior. This is a problem on a number of levels, but most importantly, it creates a very dangerous atmosphere for young people who are questioning or coming to terms with their homosexual identity.
What should you be doing?
At the very least, Christian schools should be loving, safe and supportive places for all kids. This openness should be displayed in both the school culture as well as the curriculum. In terms of sex education programs, it’s time to start telling kids the truth about homosexuality. Young people need to know that same-sex attractions aren’t strange or bad and that they are not alone if they are experiencing them. It’s important to remember that the church is not of one mind on homosexual issues. Regardless of your perspective, homosexuality should be a part of any sex education curriculum. Bullying thrives in a context of ignorance and fear. Christian schools can protect vulnerable kids and help stop the terrible bullying trend by educating all young people about sexual differences.
What are you doing?
Similar to the way they handle the topic of sex in general, I suspect most Christian schools opt not to talk about pornography except to say it’s bad and move on. In my experience, Christian schools talk about pornography mostly in the abstract and usually refer to it in the context of addiction. School officials put Internet blockers in place to try to shield sexually explicit materials from young people, but they don’t explain why these materials are negative or why young people might want to avoid them. On the issue of pornography, Christian schools are currently operating under an ‘ignorance is bliss’ mentality. They are not acknowledging the reality that, given its staggering availability, many of their students are getting most of their information about sex from porn.
Why is this a problem?
Of course, there are a lot of highly problematic aspects to pornography and I’m certainly not advocating including a balanced discussion on the merits of porn in sex education programs. Rather, I am arguing for the importance of sex education programs precisely because pornography is so problematic. Violent and misogynistic themes are rampant in heterosexual pornography. Rape culture thrives in pornographic contexts where women are portrayed as sexual objects, worthwhile only for the pleasure they can offer a man. In short, porn is a terrible horrible no good very bad place for young people (especially boys) to learn about sex.
What should you be doing?
This might be the most compelling reason for Christian schools to have sex education programs in the first place. Young people desperately need information to provide a counterpoint to the kind of sex depicted in pornography (and other mainstream media contexts, for that matter). It’s time to recognize that young people are going to learn about sex from somewhere, and if Christian schools want what they learn to be edifying and authentic, they need to take matters into their own hands.
Thankfully, educators are not without resources. SIECUS has recently created a thorough set of guidelines for comprehensive sex education from grades K-12. Based on these guidelines, the Unitarian Universalist Church has written curriculum that also includes religious themes and standards. And, this is a fantastic resource for talking to kids as early as 1 year old about the importance of consent. With these kinds of materials readily available and given the moral imperative to fight bullying and rape culture, Christian schools are out of excuses for not implementing comprehensive sex education programs for all students.
Though at first glance rape culture and bullying may seem like disparate issues, they have more in common than you might think. Both involve issues of power and sex(uality). Both are fueled by ignorance and fear. And, I believe, both of these issues could be mitigated by a commitment to more comprehensive sex education in schools.
My experience both as a learner and a teacher took place almost exclusively in Christian schools. While I believe most of the points I will outline below could apply to public and private schools alike, I want to focus specifically on these issues in a Christian school context for two reasons. First, I believe there are things that currently characterize Christian efforts at sex education that are particularly problematic in terms of bullying and rape culture. Second, I believe Christian schools ought to see combating the issues of rape culture and bullying as a moral imperative.
Abstinence
What are you doing?
Since most Christians believe the Bible to be clear about postponing sex until marriage, it is likely that if Christian schools are doing any sex education at all, they are promoting abstinence only. Perhaps they talk about how sex is wonderful and God designed it to be fun and pleasurable, but then they firmly pronounce this wonderful, fun, pleasurable thing ‘off limits’ to students. Sex is great; don’t do it. To say this is a confusing message for young people would be an understatement.
Why is this a problem?
The short answer is, of course, it doesn’t work. The research tells us this. Despite numerous studies, there is very little evidence that abstinence-only sex education delays sexual activity among young people. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that young people who have participated in comprehensive sex education programs are less likely to get pregnant, have abortions and transmit disease.
In addition being ineffective, abstinence only programs are much more likely to propagate rape culture and bullying in schools and society. Abstinence only programs can produce young people who are uneducated about their sexual rights and uninformed about sexual differences. This kind of ignorance can be dangerous as young people go in search of information on their own and find lots of negative and harmful influences along the way.
What should you be doing?
It’s time for a new narrative in Christian sex education, one that acknowledges reality for starters. Somewhere along the line we mistook talking with young people about good sex and safe sex for encouraging young people to go out and have sex. But since when does information = promotion? Can we have a little bit more faith in both our educators and our students that they can engage in frank discussions about sex, talk about safety and protection and even pleasure, without giving/receiving the impression that this information equals a free pass to go have sex with the next person they see?
Comprehensive sex education certainly includes teaching the value of abstinence. Delaying sexual activity has numerous benefits for both the health and well being of young people. But simply saying, ‘don’t do it’ is irresponsible, given what we know about the percentage of young people (including, gasp, Christians) who will engage in sexual behavior before they say ‘I do.’ We are failing them by not giving them the tools they need to make healthy decisions about sex and relationships.
Purity
What are you doing?
It is likely that if a Christian school promotes abstinence only sex education, they also talk a lot about the importance of purity. Simply stated, to remain ‘pure’ is to be absent from sexual sin, or virginal. The pressure to remain pure falls overwhelmingly on young girls who are often told in both subtle and overt ways that once they give in to sexual temptation, they have become ‘damaged goods.’ Boys, on the other hand, may be scolded for giving in to temptation, but their reputations tend to remain untarnished… after all, ‘boys will be boys.‘
The pressure on girls to remain pure and virginal and the tendency to place the responsibility for resisting sexual temptation on girls more than boys manifests itself in different ways in sex education programs. For example, it is very common in Christian schools to place a high value on modesty, especially when it comes to girls’ dress codes. Girls are told that they should cover up their bodies and avoid tight clothing lest they become a ‘stumbling block’ to the boys, causing their eyes to wander and lustful thoughts to overtake them. Boys are more visual creatures, girls are told, and so they can’t be trusted not to sexualize your bare shoulders, thighs or midriffs.
Why is this a problem?
This is where Christian programs for sex education (as well as related modesty codes for girls) do the most damage in contributing to rape culture. Rape culture is propagated in any context in which men have more power than women over their sexual choices. In the context of purity and modesty culture, women are expected to bear most of the burden for remaining virgins until married. They are also held responsible for men’s sexual deviance. Telling middle school girls not to wear leggings to school because the boys might be too distracted to do their algebra is just one step down the road to victim blaming in rape culture. How many times have you heard someone respond to rape allegations with, “well what was she wearing?” as if men should be let off the hook for sexual assault if too much of the victim’s thigh was showing. Not to mention the burden this puts on rape survivors, who, if they ascribe to the hallmarks of purity culture, must believe they are broken or dirty if they have been sexually assaulted.
We are doing just as terrible a disservice to boys with these kinds of harmful purity and modesty expectations as we are to girls. We are sending boys the message that they are weak and can’t help themselves. We are letting them off the hook for bad behavior rather than holding them accountable. We are lowering our expectations rather than raising them.
In addition, as several intelligent bloggers have pointed out, idolizing virginity and purity has a way of objectifying women and girls. It ties their worth to their sexual (or fashion) choices. It reduces their identity to whether or not they have been touched or looked at sexually by a man. This kind of objectification of women is the hallmark of rape culture.
What should you be doing?
First of all, sex education in Christian schools needs to communicate the same high standards about sexual behavior to both girls and boys alike. Boys need to be told, in no uncertain terms (And, yes, out loud. Let’s stop pretending the statistics don’t exist), that preventing sexual assault against women is entirely their responsibility and that they shouldn’t rape. We seem quite comfortable preaching other Biblical commands to our students, so the directive not to rape should be no exception.
Once that is made clear, Christian school sex education programs need to start being real about the fact that young people are engaging in physical, sexual relationships. Even if they don’t have sex, chances are they’re doing (or will be doing) lots of other physically intimate things. And they're experimenting with little or no direction, advice or information from trusted adults. In order to promote mutuality and give girls and boys the same amount of power over their sexual choices, the topic to focus on is ‘consent.’
There was a commercial that aired during this year’s super bowl in which a young high school boy, feeling empowered after being given the keys to his dad’s Audi, walks confidently into the prom and, kisses a tall, thin, pretty girl right on the lips. The boy is shown driving away afterwards with a black eye (presumably from the girl’s date who most likely was defending his property more than her honor) while the girl is shown breathlessly dreaming after him. A lot of people liked this commercial and most people probably thought it was a cute, romantic gesture. But let’s stop and think for a moment how that girl was positioned. She had zero power over her sexual choices in that moment. She was not asked whether or not she would like to be kissed or touched by this boy. She had no opportunity to give her consent. These kinds of messages that pit romance against consent appear all the time in popular culture and they are a big contributor to rape culture. After all, if a girl likes to be swept off her feet with an unexpected and unconsented kiss, what other sexual physical acts might she secretly welcome?
Verbal consent (ie. asking and responding out loud, directly and specifically) is a critical component of healthy sexuality and young people need to understand that. And, let’s remember that talking about the importance of consent in sexual relationships is not the same as encouraging young people to have sex. I’m not suggesting that educators tell young people that as long as they are consensual, they should feel free to pursue any sexual activity they desire. Consent should be a part of any intimate physical contact, even just hand-holding and kissing. Educating about the importance of consent empowers both young men and young women to make positive sexual choices and works to deconstruct rape culture in society.
Gender
What are you doing?
In addition to holding boys and girls to different standards about remaining virgins or sexually pure, Christian school sex education programs often fall into the dangerous trap of gender stereotyping and reinforcing a false gender binary. Raise your hand if much of your meager sex education in school happened in same-gender groups. You are not alone. This common practice operates under the assumption that girls and boys have inherently different concerns about sex and sexuality. It also assumes that girls and boys don’t need to know about each other’s sexuality. It is the first of many gestures that reinforce the false idea that girls and boys are wildly different creatures with wildly different kinds of sexualities and desires. For example, think about all the faith-based self-help programs for married (heterosexual) couples that base their entire curriculum on the supposed ‘innate differences’ between men and women. These kinds of narrow perspectives on gender identity and gender roles can breed both rape culture and bullying.
Why is this a problem?
Much of the bullying that happens in schools, particularly to boys, serves as a kind of policing of gender stereotypes. The most common way to insult a boy is to compare him to a girl. Both peers and adults (think of sports coaches) scrutinize boys’ gender identities by policing the way they walk, talk, dress and act. Girl bullying is also becoming increasingly common. Girls tend to police each other for things like body image and sexual behavior. Bullying in schools is a serious problem and I hope I don’t need to say too much to convince you of that. Promoting these rigid and artificial gender stereotypes can have a long and lasting negative impact on young people. And, gender stereotypes play a large role in supporting rape culture, too, as the traditional gender binary categorizes women as submissive, delicate and emotional while men are encouraged to be powerful, strong and decisive.
What should you be doing?
First, Christian schools should teach sex education with girls and boys in the same room and allow students to ask questions freely. Don’t be tempted to claim that all girls or all boys experience certain aspects of sexuality in the same way.
Second, promote gender diversity and use people-first language. Johnny is a human before he is a boy. Susie is a person who is also a girl. People’s sex organs do not define them. There is no ‘one way’ to be a boy-bodied person or a girl-bodied person. Young people need desperately to understand that and be encouraged in that. I read an article recently that contained this sentiment regarding gender diversity,
The God of the universe has not created more than 9 million species of animals, only to create two types of people. He has not created more than 315,000 species of plants, only to create "a man" and "a woman." He has created, instead, billions of wildly unique individuals.
Our sex education programs should reflect this wonderful and wild diversity and not fall into the same old narratives claiming absolute and fundamental differences between boys and girls.
Homosexuality
What are you doing?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Christian sex education programs don’t acknowledge the reality of homosexuality. If they aren’t openly decrying it, they are probably ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t exist. Of course, talking and teaching about sex in an authentic way requires a frank discussion of homosexuality. This is especially true because there are surely a good number of students at any Christian school in the country who will (or do already) identify as homosexual. These students need to be acknowledged and supported, not ignored.
Why is this a problem?
The bullying of homosexual kids is a damaging, and often deadly, problem, and Christian schools are not immune to it. In fact, in my experience, blatantly antagonistic behavior towards homosexuals or kids displaying identity markers that might be associated with homosexuality is worse in Christian schools than elsewhere. Christian school kids openly, and often without being corrected, use ‘gay’ as a derogatory term for anything they don’t like and express disgust at homosexual behavior. This is a problem on a number of levels, but most importantly, it creates a very dangerous atmosphere for young people who are questioning or coming to terms with their homosexual identity.
What should you be doing?
At the very least, Christian schools should be loving, safe and supportive places for all kids. This openness should be displayed in both the school culture as well as the curriculum. In terms of sex education programs, it’s time to start telling kids the truth about homosexuality. Young people need to know that same-sex attractions aren’t strange or bad and that they are not alone if they are experiencing them. It’s important to remember that the church is not of one mind on homosexual issues. Regardless of your perspective, homosexuality should be a part of any sex education curriculum. Bullying thrives in a context of ignorance and fear. Christian schools can protect vulnerable kids and help stop the terrible bullying trend by educating all young people about sexual differences.
Pornography
What are you doing?
Similar to the way they handle the topic of sex in general, I suspect most Christian schools opt not to talk about pornography except to say it’s bad and move on. In my experience, Christian schools talk about pornography mostly in the abstract and usually refer to it in the context of addiction. School officials put Internet blockers in place to try to shield sexually explicit materials from young people, but they don’t explain why these materials are negative or why young people might want to avoid them. On the issue of pornography, Christian schools are currently operating under an ‘ignorance is bliss’ mentality. They are not acknowledging the reality that, given its staggering availability, many of their students are getting most of their information about sex from porn.
Why is this a problem?
Of course, there are a lot of highly problematic aspects to pornography and I’m certainly not advocating including a balanced discussion on the merits of porn in sex education programs. Rather, I am arguing for the importance of sex education programs precisely because pornography is so problematic. Violent and misogynistic themes are rampant in heterosexual pornography. Rape culture thrives in pornographic contexts where women are portrayed as sexual objects, worthwhile only for the pleasure they can offer a man. In short, porn is a terrible horrible no good very bad place for young people (especially boys) to learn about sex.
What should you be doing?
This might be the most compelling reason for Christian schools to have sex education programs in the first place. Young people desperately need information to provide a counterpoint to the kind of sex depicted in pornography (and other mainstream media contexts, for that matter). It’s time to recognize that young people are going to learn about sex from somewhere, and if Christian schools want what they learn to be edifying and authentic, they need to take matters into their own hands.
Help
Thankfully, educators are not without resources. SIECUS has recently created a thorough set of guidelines for comprehensive sex education from grades K-12. Based on these guidelines, the Unitarian Universalist Church has written curriculum that also includes religious themes and standards. And, this is a fantastic resource for talking to kids as early as 1 year old about the importance of consent. With these kinds of materials readily available and given the moral imperative to fight bullying and rape culture, Christian schools are out of excuses for not implementing comprehensive sex education programs for all students.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Developing Cultural Literacies
Leaders and policy makers love to stir up hype about the supposed 'literacy crisis' in the United States. They cite statistics claiming high numbers of students are unable to read when they finish high school and lament how the quality of U.S. education is slipping behind other industrialized nations. James Paul Gee (2012) claims this panic is unwarranted and misdirected, however. He writes, "Most young adults do not have an "illiteracy" problem (80% of them can read as well or better than the average eighth-grade student); rather they have a "schooling" problem. (p. 31)" In addition to various environmental and social factors, Gee asserts that most young people are being underserved in schools due to a conflict between their home culture and the dominant school culture. Gee specifically refers to conflicts with language and discourse. He argues that schools privilege certain traditional discourses over others and students whose discourses don't adhere to the dominant model are often chastised and can have their cultures effectively denigrated by teachers. Most of these linguistic differences happen across race, class and ethnic lines. Schools and teachers, in Gee's opinion, must learn about and learn to value diverse literacies and discourses if they are to truly serve all students equally.
There are obvious cultural divides affecting specific students with regards to issues like race and class, but all students face a cultural divide in the classroom regarding popular culture. Media and technology advance at such a rapid pace, that even the youngest teachers in the classroom can find themselves on the other side of a great cultural chasm from their students. Ernest Morrell (2004) argues that, in order to bridge this divide, teachers must integrate popular culture literacies into their curriculum. He makes the case by stressing the following: popular culture is relevant to adolescent lives, consuming popular culture involves intellectually rigorous literacy practices, popular culture helps students make connections across academic disciplines, popular culture helps students learn to critically read the world, and including pop culture in the curriculum helps increase student motivation.
Henry Giroux (2011) agrees that teaching about and through popular culture texts is an essential part of critical pedagogy. Giroux uses the philosophy of Antonio Gramsci to explicate the importance of studying the pedagogical and political nature of popular culture in schools. Popular culture, Giroux argues, plays a "powerful role in shaping the desires, needs and identities of students (p. 64)." Therefore, he believes, it is not enough for students to be schooled exclusively in print literacies. They must learn to read critically the various visual and technological cultures that exercise control over their lives. They also must learn to participate in these cultures meaningfully in order to be responsible citizens.
David Buckingham (1994) writes about what this kind of pop culture literacy integration might look like in his book, Cultural Studies Goes to School. Buckingham argues for not only analytical critique of pop culture texts, but also for student participation in writing about and creating pop culture texts of their own. He says the act of learning about pop culture should be a social process in which students learn to position themselves both socially and politically, as well as an investigative process in which the students become researchers of their own lived cultural experiences.
Buckingham writes, "It begins not with a body of 'critical' academic knowledge but with the understandings, and with the emotional and cultural investments, that students bring to the classroom. Yet it also seeks to enable them to make those aspects explicit, to reflect upon them, and to question them. In the process, it encourages students to examine the complex relationships between both the subjective and the social and between the concrete particulars of lived experience and the powerful generalities of theory. (p. 118)"
Both students and teachers must become researchers in the process of developing cultural literacies. Morrell advocates for teachers to become ethnographers, collecting data on popular culture by engaging with mass media texts, paying attention to students' casual conversations around media and pop culture and asking students direct questions about their pop culture experiences.
In order for students to receive the kind of education that will truly prepare them to be active and critical citizens of the world, teachers must do the work of becoming more culturally literate. I will conclude with Gee's closing words on the matter, "Such knowledge is power, because it can protect all of us from harming others and from being harmed, and because it is the very foundation of resistance and growth... It is a moral matter and can change the world. (p. 216)"
References
Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and teaching popular media. London: Taylor and Francis.
Gee, J.P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2011) On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
Morrell, E. (2004). Linking literacy and popular culture: Finding connections for lifelong learning. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
There are obvious cultural divides affecting specific students with regards to issues like race and class, but all students face a cultural divide in the classroom regarding popular culture. Media and technology advance at such a rapid pace, that even the youngest teachers in the classroom can find themselves on the other side of a great cultural chasm from their students. Ernest Morrell (2004) argues that, in order to bridge this divide, teachers must integrate popular culture literacies into their curriculum. He makes the case by stressing the following: popular culture is relevant to adolescent lives, consuming popular culture involves intellectually rigorous literacy practices, popular culture helps students make connections across academic disciplines, popular culture helps students learn to critically read the world, and including pop culture in the curriculum helps increase student motivation.
Henry Giroux (2011) agrees that teaching about and through popular culture texts is an essential part of critical pedagogy. Giroux uses the philosophy of Antonio Gramsci to explicate the importance of studying the pedagogical and political nature of popular culture in schools. Popular culture, Giroux argues, plays a "powerful role in shaping the desires, needs and identities of students (p. 64)." Therefore, he believes, it is not enough for students to be schooled exclusively in print literacies. They must learn to read critically the various visual and technological cultures that exercise control over their lives. They also must learn to participate in these cultures meaningfully in order to be responsible citizens.
David Buckingham (1994) writes about what this kind of pop culture literacy integration might look like in his book, Cultural Studies Goes to School. Buckingham argues for not only analytical critique of pop culture texts, but also for student participation in writing about and creating pop culture texts of their own. He says the act of learning about pop culture should be a social process in which students learn to position themselves both socially and politically, as well as an investigative process in which the students become researchers of their own lived cultural experiences.
Buckingham writes, "It begins not with a body of 'critical' academic knowledge but with the understandings, and with the emotional and cultural investments, that students bring to the classroom. Yet it also seeks to enable them to make those aspects explicit, to reflect upon them, and to question them. In the process, it encourages students to examine the complex relationships between both the subjective and the social and between the concrete particulars of lived experience and the powerful generalities of theory. (p. 118)"
Both students and teachers must become researchers in the process of developing cultural literacies. Morrell advocates for teachers to become ethnographers, collecting data on popular culture by engaging with mass media texts, paying attention to students' casual conversations around media and pop culture and asking students direct questions about their pop culture experiences.
In order for students to receive the kind of education that will truly prepare them to be active and critical citizens of the world, teachers must do the work of becoming more culturally literate. I will conclude with Gee's closing words on the matter, "Such knowledge is power, because it can protect all of us from harming others and from being harmed, and because it is the very foundation of resistance and growth... It is a moral matter and can change the world. (p. 216)"
References
Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and teaching popular media. London: Taylor and Francis.
Gee, J.P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2011) On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
Morrell, E. (2004). Linking literacy and popular culture: Finding connections for lifelong learning. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Media Education ... Are We Ready Now?
It's hard to study media education without getting a little discouraged from time to time about the lack of real progress in the field despite the abundance of voices advocating for it. There are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of books and articles on the topic written by prominent scholars who have been arguing the same points for what feels like a millennium now. Here are a few notable examples.
In 1986, Len Masterman wrote a comprehensive guide for educators interested in teaching the media. He argued for seven key reasons why media education is important (all of which are still applicable today): the high rate of media saturation in society, the media's ability to influence personal and public ideology, the growth in the media manufacturing business, the penetration of the media into the political process, the importance of visual communication in society, and the increasing pressure to privatize information. He then outlined his perspective on both how to and how not to do media education in schools, followed by a detailed description of the various relevant components of mass media and how they communicate, such as ideology, rhetoric and audience.
Kathleen Tyner joined the discussion in 1998 with her book Literacy in a Digital World, in which she built on Masterman's ideas, but with added consideration for the explosion of digital communication technology that had since taken place. Her book argued for expanding our concept of literacy to include digital media forms (like visual and audio) in order to prepare students to participate more fully and equally in social and political arenas. Tyner advocated for the synthesis of analysis and practice. She believed students should be taught how to use the information tools of the digital age as well as understand and critique them.
In 2003, David Buckingham contributed his survey of the field of media education. Out of frustration regarding the lack of progress by policy-makers as well as the misguided attempts of practitioners, Buckingham's book offered a restatement of the case for media education, focusing on a "'media pedagogy' that is both theoretically coherent and practically possible. (p. xi)" He reiterated with conviction and clarity much that has already been said about media education, but he added a particularly compelling section on the importance of play and creativity. Media production, according to Buckingham, should not be used as a form of assessment, rather it should be used as a step on the way towards critical understanding. Media production should, therefore, be social and experimental. Teachers should allow and encourage students to use a variety of media technologies to dig deeper into complex issues of genre, audience and theory.
And in 2009, Jeff Share, relative newcomer in the larger media education context, added his voice to the mix with an argument for critical media literacy which, he explained, "focuses on ideology critique and analyzing the politics of representation of crucial dimensions of gender race, class and sexuality; incorporating alternative media production; and expanding textual analysis to include issues of social context, control, resistance, and pleasure. (p. 12)" Observing that most media education was happening at the secondary level (if at all), Share advocated for the importance of teaching students to critically read the media at a young age. And his book profiled a number of elementary school teachers who were doing just that.
In addition to these more theoretical texts, there are also plenty of teacher-friendly textbooks and media literacy manuals that provide helpful instructions and ideas for practitioners who have become convinced that media education is important, but aren't sure how to do it. W. James Potter's Media Literacy textbook is currently on its fifth iteration. It breaks down media education into helpful sections on Audience, Industry, Content, Effects and Issues. And, it contains lots of suggestions for additional reading along the way. Cyndy Scheibe and Faith Rogow, in close conjunction with NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education), recently released a very teacher-friendly textbook called The Teacher's Guide to Media Literacy which not only outlines important principles, but also gives examples of lesson plans and activities.
But, despite the wealth of scholarship and helpful instructional texts, if you go into most schools in the United States, you are still unlikely to find any kind of real comprehensive commitment to media education taking place.
And, here's why...
What all these authors' arguments have in common is a mandate to change the way we do education. Media education, they insist, cannot be done well within traditional school structures, on either a philosophical or a practical level.
Tyner reveals the philosophical tensions inherent in teaching media literacy in a traditional educational context. She noted, "Conflicts between present-day approaches to media literacy are in line with historical tension between the purposes for schooling as a mechanism to maintain the social status quo and those of critical literacy, which demand that the social status quo be questioned and challenged. (p. 139)" Media education will struggle to find a foothold in any schooling context that refuses to critically reflect on both its own practices as well as those of society.
Masterman, Buckingham and Share offer insight into some of the practical conflicts that arise in media education. All three insist that teaching media is a collaborative and creative process in which students and teachers should be on the same level in their quest for understanding.
Masterman argued, "teaching effectively about the media demands non-hierarchical teaching modes and a methodology which will promote reflection and critical thinking whist being as lively, democratic, group-focused and action orientated as the teacher can make it. (p. 27)"
Buckingham pointed out, "[media learning] is a collaborative process: through the encounter with their peers and with the academic knowledge of the teacher, students progressively move towards greater control over their own thought processes. (p. 143)"
Finally, Share explained that media education defies traditional modes of teaching in a variety of aspects, making its implementation quite complicated. He said, "A major challenge in developing critical media literacy, however, results from the fact that it is not a pedagogy in the traditional sense with firmly established principles, a canon of texts, and tried-and-true teaching procedures. It requires a democratic pedagogy that involves teachers sharing power with students as they join together in the process of unveiling myths, challenging hegemony, and searching for methods of producing their own alternative media. (p. 12)"
According to these scholars and many more like them, media education requires a dynamic and participatory pedagogy, one in which students and teachers are free to work together on equal footing to read, critique, play with, create and deconstruct media texts and technologies. Even as media scholars continue to advocate for such pedagogy, schools, given the increasing stress on standardization and competition, seem to be moving farther away from it.
There is perhaps some hope for the future. Since media studies remains a largely ignored and misunderstood discipline, it has also escaped the bonds that testing and accountability have placed on its more traditional counterparts. Advocates for media education, therefore, must stay strong and continue to advocate for a robust and holistic media curriculum and pedagogy. Someday, it might just work.
References
In 1986, Len Masterman wrote a comprehensive guide for educators interested in teaching the media. He argued for seven key reasons why media education is important (all of which are still applicable today): the high rate of media saturation in society, the media's ability to influence personal and public ideology, the growth in the media manufacturing business, the penetration of the media into the political process, the importance of visual communication in society, and the increasing pressure to privatize information. He then outlined his perspective on both how to and how not to do media education in schools, followed by a detailed description of the various relevant components of mass media and how they communicate, such as ideology, rhetoric and audience.
Kathleen Tyner joined the discussion in 1998 with her book Literacy in a Digital World, in which she built on Masterman's ideas, but with added consideration for the explosion of digital communication technology that had since taken place. Her book argued for expanding our concept of literacy to include digital media forms (like visual and audio) in order to prepare students to participate more fully and equally in social and political arenas. Tyner advocated for the synthesis of analysis and practice. She believed students should be taught how to use the information tools of the digital age as well as understand and critique them.
In 2003, David Buckingham contributed his survey of the field of media education. Out of frustration regarding the lack of progress by policy-makers as well as the misguided attempts of practitioners, Buckingham's book offered a restatement of the case for media education, focusing on a "'media pedagogy' that is both theoretically coherent and practically possible. (p. xi)" He reiterated with conviction and clarity much that has already been said about media education, but he added a particularly compelling section on the importance of play and creativity. Media production, according to Buckingham, should not be used as a form of assessment, rather it should be used as a step on the way towards critical understanding. Media production should, therefore, be social and experimental. Teachers should allow and encourage students to use a variety of media technologies to dig deeper into complex issues of genre, audience and theory.
And in 2009, Jeff Share, relative newcomer in the larger media education context, added his voice to the mix with an argument for critical media literacy which, he explained, "focuses on ideology critique and analyzing the politics of representation of crucial dimensions of gender race, class and sexuality; incorporating alternative media production; and expanding textual analysis to include issues of social context, control, resistance, and pleasure. (p. 12)" Observing that most media education was happening at the secondary level (if at all), Share advocated for the importance of teaching students to critically read the media at a young age. And his book profiled a number of elementary school teachers who were doing just that.
In addition to these more theoretical texts, there are also plenty of teacher-friendly textbooks and media literacy manuals that provide helpful instructions and ideas for practitioners who have become convinced that media education is important, but aren't sure how to do it. W. James Potter's Media Literacy textbook is currently on its fifth iteration. It breaks down media education into helpful sections on Audience, Industry, Content, Effects and Issues. And, it contains lots of suggestions for additional reading along the way. Cyndy Scheibe and Faith Rogow, in close conjunction with NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education), recently released a very teacher-friendly textbook called The Teacher's Guide to Media Literacy which not only outlines important principles, but also gives examples of lesson plans and activities.
But, despite the wealth of scholarship and helpful instructional texts, if you go into most schools in the United States, you are still unlikely to find any kind of real comprehensive commitment to media education taking place.
And, here's why...
What all these authors' arguments have in common is a mandate to change the way we do education. Media education, they insist, cannot be done well within traditional school structures, on either a philosophical or a practical level.
Tyner reveals the philosophical tensions inherent in teaching media literacy in a traditional educational context. She noted, "Conflicts between present-day approaches to media literacy are in line with historical tension between the purposes for schooling as a mechanism to maintain the social status quo and those of critical literacy, which demand that the social status quo be questioned and challenged. (p. 139)" Media education will struggle to find a foothold in any schooling context that refuses to critically reflect on both its own practices as well as those of society.
Masterman, Buckingham and Share offer insight into some of the practical conflicts that arise in media education. All three insist that teaching media is a collaborative and creative process in which students and teachers should be on the same level in their quest for understanding.
Masterman argued, "teaching effectively about the media demands non-hierarchical teaching modes and a methodology which will promote reflection and critical thinking whist being as lively, democratic, group-focused and action orientated as the teacher can make it. (p. 27)"
Buckingham pointed out, "[media learning] is a collaborative process: through the encounter with their peers and with the academic knowledge of the teacher, students progressively move towards greater control over their own thought processes. (p. 143)"
Finally, Share explained that media education defies traditional modes of teaching in a variety of aspects, making its implementation quite complicated. He said, "A major challenge in developing critical media literacy, however, results from the fact that it is not a pedagogy in the traditional sense with firmly established principles, a canon of texts, and tried-and-true teaching procedures. It requires a democratic pedagogy that involves teachers sharing power with students as they join together in the process of unveiling myths, challenging hegemony, and searching for methods of producing their own alternative media. (p. 12)"
According to these scholars and many more like them, media education requires a dynamic and participatory pedagogy, one in which students and teachers are free to work together on equal footing to read, critique, play with, create and deconstruct media texts and technologies. Even as media scholars continue to advocate for such pedagogy, schools, given the increasing stress on standardization and competition, seem to be moving farther away from it.
There is perhaps some hope for the future. Since media studies remains a largely ignored and misunderstood discipline, it has also escaped the bonds that testing and accountability have placed on its more traditional counterparts. Advocates for media education, therefore, must stay strong and continue to advocate for a robust and holistic media curriculum and pedagogy. Someday, it might just work.
References
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Masterman, L. (1986). Teaching the media. London: Comedia.
Potter, W. (2011). Media literacy (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Schiebe, C., & Rogow, F. (2011). The teacher's guide to media literacy: Critical thinking in a multimedia world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Share, J. (2009). Media literacy is elementary: Teaching youth to critically read and create media. New York: Peter Lang.
Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
This is Reading
In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.
These are the opening sentences of Guy Debord’s (1967) The Society of the Spectacle, in which Debord argues that capitalism, mass media and certain forms of government have caused social life to become entirely occupied by commodities. In this age, Debord claims, social relations are mediated by things and images, essentially erasing human interaction and replacing it with the exchange of products. In this version of society, he contends, “all community and all critical sense are dissolved (thesis 25).” Debord suggests that the only way to escape this state of ignorance and isolation is to disrupt and separate ourselves from the spectacle in order to critique it.
One need not embrace his premise fully in order to admit that elements of Debord’s version of society ring true. Certainly in this age of constant media saturation (the vast majority of which is designed with only one purpose in mind: to encourage consumption) it is easy to become detached and uncritical of the world around us.
So how can we disrupt the spectacle?
We can teach young people how to read.
There is a long-standing debate over how to teach reading in this country. Most recently, the debate has raged between a Phonics vs. Whole Language approach, but in the past there have been other methods that experts preached as ‘the only right way.’ The current controversy presents a false choice, however. Of course, students should learn language in a holistic way. However, no one is going to learn to read words on a page without some basic phonemic awareness. It’s not an either/or situation. Education for simple decoding skills can occur at all levels. Some kids need more time for that and others pick it up right away. However, it is important to note that not knowing how to spell or sound out a word on paper doesn’t preclude someone from understanding the meaning of that word and all its complexities. (Nor, it should be said, does the ability to sound out words and sentences on a page suggest that more complex understandings are taking place.) No person, young or old, should be denied access to rudimentary phonemic awareness education out of principle. But a lesson in reading fundamentals need not displace a richer understanding of the intricate meanings of signs and texts.
Reading is about so much more than understanding words on a page. It always has been, of course, but recent developments in media technology are forcing this previously hidden truth into the light. Reading education must be expanded to include more than just verbal decoding, but also the decoding of images, sounds and spaces. Reading education should involve helping people at all levels of schooling recognize the disparate and fragmented meanings as well as the oppressive and liberating nature of signs and texts in society. This education should happen at three levels, which I will call: reading signs, signs together and reading stories. There is complexity at all levels and so they are not meant to be seen as hierarchical. All three levels may be taking place at one time at any time in the education process.
Reading Signs
The first level of reading has primarily been the domain of phonics and involves decoding and reproducing basic signs and symbols. Of course, phonics focuses exclusively on verbal decoding skills and centers around the alphabet. But teaching students to decode symbols should involve much more than just the ABC’s. Students should understand that they are also reading when they decode things like shapes, colors, and sounds. In addition to expanding students’ understanding of decoding, teaching students to read signs should include teaching the concept of representation.
According to Stuart Hall (1997), “representation means using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent, the world meaningfully, to other people.” It involves the use of words, signs, and images to stand for (or represent) things (p. 15). Simply put, nothing is simple.
The best way to understand representation is through examples. Since we’re talking about very basic decoding, let’s look at letters. When people learn phonics, they learn that letters make different sounds depending on their placement in words. They learn that the letter A can make an ‘ahh’ sound or an ‘ayy’ sound. They learn about capital A and little a. They learn that A is the first letter of the alphabet. Then they move on to B. But there’s more to the letter A than how it sounds. If I write a giant red A on a piece of paper, what will most people think of? And speaking of the color red, it’s quite a bit more complicated than just the color at the top of the rainbow or the color of roses. The color red has lots of different connotations in lots of different circumstances. To some people, red represents blood and violence. To others, it represents passion and love. And now that we’re talking about ideas and words together, we might want to mention that how you write a word sometimes holds as much meaning as the word itself. Consider the word love, for example. What are the different meanings conveyed when I represent the word love in this font vs. this font. And, furthermore, what happens when you connect images with words? Type in the word ‘love’ to an Internet search engine. How many different visual representations come up?
We’ve just gone down the proverbial rabbit hole of representation in just one short paragraph. Imagine all the complex and interesting things people can learn if reading education were expanded to include representation in addition to phonics.
Signs Together
Once students learn basic decoding skills and are able to sound out letters and words, most reading education moves on to larger combinations of letters and words in the form of sentences and paragraphs. Reading skills taught then expand to include the comprehension of concepts and ideas. Oftentimes, comprehension skills are taught in a very straightforward manner. The assumption is usually that texts have only one meaning and the goal of reading is to discover that meaning. I think particularly of the reading comprehension sections of standardized tests. These kinds of comprehension activities encourage students to read narrowly and without imagination. It is no surprise that when reading education moves into this phase, young people often lose interest in reading altogether. And can we blame them?
Not only is this an unimaginative way to teach reading, it is also faulty as it assumes that words and phrases have inherent and fixed meanings. In reality, of course, all letters, words and phrases are merely symbols. The word ‘chair’ doesn’t have any meaning in and of itself. It stands for ‘a thing to sit down on’ because we have made it so. The meaning of language therefore is incredibly flexible. Stuart Hall writes about the problematic concept of reading for fixed meanings. He argues,
“the meaning is not in the object or person or thing, nor it is in the word. It is we who fix the meaning so firmly that, after awhile, it comes to seen natural and inevitable. The meaning is constructed by the system of representation. (p. 21)”
This concept is much easier understood when applied to art. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” so the adage goes. We seem quite comfortable recognizing and affirming that people can construct multiple meanings from things like a painting at a museum or a piece of classical music. But applying that same concept to written text makes us uncomfortable. Roland Barthes (1975) would have us challenge that discomfort by thinking of the pleasures that reading can bring. Barthes argues that a person taking pleasure in a piece of writing is a person who, “abolishes within himself all barriers, all classes, all exclusions… who mixes every language, even those said to be incompatible; who silently accepts every charge of illogicality, of incongruity… (p. 3).” This state of mind might seem unsafe or irrational, but it is exactly what is required to begin deconstructing systems of representation in both verbal and visual texts.
So what are the systems of representation at work in a simple paragraph in a science text, for example? Well, any presentation of a scientific concept is going to include some kind of argument. It might not immediately appear that way, as most textbooks present their content as if it is undisputed fact. But the reality is that, of course, science is always changing and all scientific information has bias. The representation of information about climate change comes to mind here. Students reading even the most basic information about climate and global warming trends can analyze that information to uncover who wrote it and from what perspective, what research was privileged and what was left out, and whether anyone stands to benefit or lose upon receiving such information, etc.
In addition to printed text, reading at this stage should include texts like photographs, paintings and pieces of music. Reading images and sounds alongside traditional sentences and paragraphs opens the mind and can help students to see the nuances and layers of representation and meaning in even the simplest combinations of words and phrases.
Reading Stories
Once students can reasonably comprehend most combinations of words and phrases, they are ready to read stories. In schools, this stage of reading education usually involves reading short stories, novels or longer expository texts. But there are so many interesting stories to read that aren’t printed on a page. Students of all ages can be taught to read complex verbal, visual and spatial narratives.
In terms of representation, the concept that students are ready to learn at this stage of reading is discourse. Hall (by way of Foucault) explains that discourse is,
“a group of statements which provide a language for talking about – a way of representing the knowledge about – a particular topic at a particular historical moment. … Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But … since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do – our conduct – all practices have a discursive aspect (p. 44).”
Writing and reading stories is a discursive practice. We write stories with words, images and sounds. Nothing has inherent meaning. It is what we ‘say’ about a given subject that constructs its meaning. The stories we construct about a cultural artifact define our understanding of what that cultural artifact is or should be.
John Fiske (1989) demonstrates this concept expertly in his ‘reading’ of an American institution, the shopping mall. (Yes, it is possible to ‘read’ a mall.) Among other things, his analysis connects the act of women shopping in malls to the both the participation in and the resistance of the oppressive patriarchal male gaze. Patriarchy, Fiske explains, positions women as objects of male desire. By purchasing clothing, makeup, and other beauty items in a shopping mall, women attempt to control their own image. On one hand, the items they purchase are foisted on them from a male-dominated consumer culture. On the other, the choices they make give them agency over how they are perceived and looked upon by other people (specifically, males.)
And here we return to Debord. By teaching students to critically ‘read’ complex social institutions like shopping malls, we give them power to disrupt the spectacle. As Debord argues,
“To effectively destroy the society of the spectacle, what is needed is [men] putting a practical force into action … it is certain that the obscure and difficult path of critical theory must also be the lot of the practical movement acting on the scale of society (thesis 203).”
Expanding reading education to include critical issues of representation is one practical way to empower students to disrupt the spectacle. Students can (and must) learn to both participate in and be critical of the myriad cultural discourses that surround them. By learning to read critically, they learn to interact with culture and each other in authentic ways, thereby resisting the commodification of social life that Debord warned about. It is time to advocate for the expansion of reading education that will empower students of all ages and benefit society.
References
Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. New York: Hill and Wang.
Debord, G. (1983). The society of the spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black and Red.
Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the popular. London And New York: Routledge.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications.
These are the opening sentences of Guy Debord’s (1967) The Society of the Spectacle, in which Debord argues that capitalism, mass media and certain forms of government have caused social life to become entirely occupied by commodities. In this age, Debord claims, social relations are mediated by things and images, essentially erasing human interaction and replacing it with the exchange of products. In this version of society, he contends, “all community and all critical sense are dissolved (thesis 25).” Debord suggests that the only way to escape this state of ignorance and isolation is to disrupt and separate ourselves from the spectacle in order to critique it.
One need not embrace his premise fully in order to admit that elements of Debord’s version of society ring true. Certainly in this age of constant media saturation (the vast majority of which is designed with only one purpose in mind: to encourage consumption) it is easy to become detached and uncritical of the world around us.
So how can we disrupt the spectacle?
We can teach young people how to read.
There is a long-standing debate over how to teach reading in this country. Most recently, the debate has raged between a Phonics vs. Whole Language approach, but in the past there have been other methods that experts preached as ‘the only right way.’ The current controversy presents a false choice, however. Of course, students should learn language in a holistic way. However, no one is going to learn to read words on a page without some basic phonemic awareness. It’s not an either/or situation. Education for simple decoding skills can occur at all levels. Some kids need more time for that and others pick it up right away. However, it is important to note that not knowing how to spell or sound out a word on paper doesn’t preclude someone from understanding the meaning of that word and all its complexities. (Nor, it should be said, does the ability to sound out words and sentences on a page suggest that more complex understandings are taking place.) No person, young or old, should be denied access to rudimentary phonemic awareness education out of principle. But a lesson in reading fundamentals need not displace a richer understanding of the intricate meanings of signs and texts.
Reading is about so much more than understanding words on a page. It always has been, of course, but recent developments in media technology are forcing this previously hidden truth into the light. Reading education must be expanded to include more than just verbal decoding, but also the decoding of images, sounds and spaces. Reading education should involve helping people at all levels of schooling recognize the disparate and fragmented meanings as well as the oppressive and liberating nature of signs and texts in society. This education should happen at three levels, which I will call: reading signs, signs together and reading stories. There is complexity at all levels and so they are not meant to be seen as hierarchical. All three levels may be taking place at one time at any time in the education process.
Reading Signs
The first level of reading has primarily been the domain of phonics and involves decoding and reproducing basic signs and symbols. Of course, phonics focuses exclusively on verbal decoding skills and centers around the alphabet. But teaching students to decode symbols should involve much more than just the ABC’s. Students should understand that they are also reading when they decode things like shapes, colors, and sounds. In addition to expanding students’ understanding of decoding, teaching students to read signs should include teaching the concept of representation.
According to Stuart Hall (1997), “representation means using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent, the world meaningfully, to other people.” It involves the use of words, signs, and images to stand for (or represent) things (p. 15). Simply put, nothing is simple.
The best way to understand representation is through examples. Since we’re talking about very basic decoding, let’s look at letters. When people learn phonics, they learn that letters make different sounds depending on their placement in words. They learn that the letter A can make an ‘ahh’ sound or an ‘ayy’ sound. They learn about capital A and little a. They learn that A is the first letter of the alphabet. Then they move on to B. But there’s more to the letter A than how it sounds. If I write a giant red A on a piece of paper, what will most people think of? And speaking of the color red, it’s quite a bit more complicated than just the color at the top of the rainbow or the color of roses. The color red has lots of different connotations in lots of different circumstances. To some people, red represents blood and violence. To others, it represents passion and love. And now that we’re talking about ideas and words together, we might want to mention that how you write a word sometimes holds as much meaning as the word itself. Consider the word love, for example. What are the different meanings conveyed when I represent the word love in this font vs. this font. And, furthermore, what happens when you connect images with words? Type in the word ‘love’ to an Internet search engine. How many different visual representations come up?
We’ve just gone down the proverbial rabbit hole of representation in just one short paragraph. Imagine all the complex and interesting things people can learn if reading education were expanded to include representation in addition to phonics.
Signs Together
Once students learn basic decoding skills and are able to sound out letters and words, most reading education moves on to larger combinations of letters and words in the form of sentences and paragraphs. Reading skills taught then expand to include the comprehension of concepts and ideas. Oftentimes, comprehension skills are taught in a very straightforward manner. The assumption is usually that texts have only one meaning and the goal of reading is to discover that meaning. I think particularly of the reading comprehension sections of standardized tests. These kinds of comprehension activities encourage students to read narrowly and without imagination. It is no surprise that when reading education moves into this phase, young people often lose interest in reading altogether. And can we blame them?
Not only is this an unimaginative way to teach reading, it is also faulty as it assumes that words and phrases have inherent and fixed meanings. In reality, of course, all letters, words and phrases are merely symbols. The word ‘chair’ doesn’t have any meaning in and of itself. It stands for ‘a thing to sit down on’ because we have made it so. The meaning of language therefore is incredibly flexible. Stuart Hall writes about the problematic concept of reading for fixed meanings. He argues,
“the meaning is not in the object or person or thing, nor it is in the word. It is we who fix the meaning so firmly that, after awhile, it comes to seen natural and inevitable. The meaning is constructed by the system of representation. (p. 21)”
This concept is much easier understood when applied to art. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” so the adage goes. We seem quite comfortable recognizing and affirming that people can construct multiple meanings from things like a painting at a museum or a piece of classical music. But applying that same concept to written text makes us uncomfortable. Roland Barthes (1975) would have us challenge that discomfort by thinking of the pleasures that reading can bring. Barthes argues that a person taking pleasure in a piece of writing is a person who, “abolishes within himself all barriers, all classes, all exclusions… who mixes every language, even those said to be incompatible; who silently accepts every charge of illogicality, of incongruity… (p. 3).” This state of mind might seem unsafe or irrational, but it is exactly what is required to begin deconstructing systems of representation in both verbal and visual texts.
So what are the systems of representation at work in a simple paragraph in a science text, for example? Well, any presentation of a scientific concept is going to include some kind of argument. It might not immediately appear that way, as most textbooks present their content as if it is undisputed fact. But the reality is that, of course, science is always changing and all scientific information has bias. The representation of information about climate change comes to mind here. Students reading even the most basic information about climate and global warming trends can analyze that information to uncover who wrote it and from what perspective, what research was privileged and what was left out, and whether anyone stands to benefit or lose upon receiving such information, etc.
In addition to printed text, reading at this stage should include texts like photographs, paintings and pieces of music. Reading images and sounds alongside traditional sentences and paragraphs opens the mind and can help students to see the nuances and layers of representation and meaning in even the simplest combinations of words and phrases.
Reading Stories
Once students can reasonably comprehend most combinations of words and phrases, they are ready to read stories. In schools, this stage of reading education usually involves reading short stories, novels or longer expository texts. But there are so many interesting stories to read that aren’t printed on a page. Students of all ages can be taught to read complex verbal, visual and spatial narratives.
In terms of representation, the concept that students are ready to learn at this stage of reading is discourse. Hall (by way of Foucault) explains that discourse is,
“a group of statements which provide a language for talking about – a way of representing the knowledge about – a particular topic at a particular historical moment. … Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But … since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do – our conduct – all practices have a discursive aspect (p. 44).”
Writing and reading stories is a discursive practice. We write stories with words, images and sounds. Nothing has inherent meaning. It is what we ‘say’ about a given subject that constructs its meaning. The stories we construct about a cultural artifact define our understanding of what that cultural artifact is or should be.
John Fiske (1989) demonstrates this concept expertly in his ‘reading’ of an American institution, the shopping mall. (Yes, it is possible to ‘read’ a mall.) Among other things, his analysis connects the act of women shopping in malls to the both the participation in and the resistance of the oppressive patriarchal male gaze. Patriarchy, Fiske explains, positions women as objects of male desire. By purchasing clothing, makeup, and other beauty items in a shopping mall, women attempt to control their own image. On one hand, the items they purchase are foisted on them from a male-dominated consumer culture. On the other, the choices they make give them agency over how they are perceived and looked upon by other people (specifically, males.)
And here we return to Debord. By teaching students to critically ‘read’ complex social institutions like shopping malls, we give them power to disrupt the spectacle. As Debord argues,
“To effectively destroy the society of the spectacle, what is needed is [men] putting a practical force into action … it is certain that the obscure and difficult path of critical theory must also be the lot of the practical movement acting on the scale of society (thesis 203).”
Expanding reading education to include critical issues of representation is one practical way to empower students to disrupt the spectacle. Students can (and must) learn to both participate in and be critical of the myriad cultural discourses that surround them. By learning to read critically, they learn to interact with culture and each other in authentic ways, thereby resisting the commodification of social life that Debord warned about. It is time to advocate for the expansion of reading education that will empower students of all ages and benefit society.
References
Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. New York: Hill and Wang.
Debord, G. (1983). The society of the spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black and Red.
Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the popular. London And New York: Routledge.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Social Media Epistemologies
I recently sat down with an former elementary school teacher of mine to talk about my alma matter's transition to a one-to-one program. Her school, like many others today, is jumping on the technology integration bandwagon, with smart boards in classrooms and personal laptops and iPads for students and teachers. And she, like many other teachers today, wonders whether she and her staff are successfully integrating new technology in meaningful ways.
This is, of course, a difficult and complex issue. But I believe it ultimately comes down to questions of epistemology: what is knowledge? how is it acquired? what is possible to know? And questions like this are often directly related to the nature of communication technology at any given moment.
Scholars who trace the history of communication throughout civilization note that every time a new medium is introduced, society changes. Some of these changes have been small, while others indicate major shifts in how people understand and navigate the world.
For example, Marshall McLuhan writes a brief, but compelling history of the mechanical clock and how the process of fixing time into measurable units altered the structure of society. Once the clock allowed for time to be organized into uniform chunks, basic elements of life (eating, sleeping, working) became structured according to time rather than organic needs. Consider the 9-5 workday, for example. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans do not all have similar times of high productivity. Some people work better at night and some very early in the morning. However, partly enabled by the invention of the clock, all work is expected to take place in a set amount of time during a specific (somewhat arbitrary) part of the day.
Harold Innis explores larger examples of the ways in which technology organized space and governance in ancient civilizations. He examines the difference between cultures that used stone as a primary communication medium as opposed to cultures using papyrus. Because stone is heavy, not portable and permanent, civilizations using stone as their primary communication medium covered smaller territory and favored centralized absolute governments. Papyrus-based civilizations, thanks in part to the lightness and portability of the medium, were able to spread out across more territory and therefore favored smaller, more local leadership.
Walter Ong analyzes the substantial transition from orality to literacy and its effects on society. This transition was slow and complex and it involved, among other things, the creation of the alphabet and a substantial loss of collective memory. It is hard to imagine what life was like before words were printed on pages and mass distributed, but it is safe to say that society has never been the same since. Many scholars believe that the proliferation of social media technology signals a major transition in society, on a scale similar to the transition from orality to literacy. The new reality of our digital world has profound effects on knowledge and education.
So, what are some of the characteristics of media and communication in the digital communication age?
First, information and communication are public and available for mass consumption. Before the internet, people only knew your opinions and ideas about the world if you told them in person or were a published author. Now, if I post my opinions and ideas on Facebook or on a blog, hundreds (thousands... millions...) of people have access to them at any time. Because of this, information is more communal and readily available; it is easier to learn about the world and the happenings in it, large or small.
Second, media is social. During the literate age, we saw a huge push for individualized communication. People had the newfound freedom to consume information in private rather than together in a large group. Now, things are transitioning again. Information is rarely consumed in solitary/individual settings any more. People work collaboratively rather than in isolation. And receiving affirmation (and criticism) from other people has become a critical componant of sharing information with the world.
Third, media and communication are democratic. Another word I like to use for this is participatory. The best example of this is, of course, Wikipedia. There are hundreds of digital artifacts like this that change daily as they are being defined and shaped by the people using them. People now have the opportunity to affect public information in an unprecedented way.
Finally, information and communication are creative. The internet has made it possible for all kinds of people to share their talents with the world. Not only that, but due to its participatory nature, the very act of publishing or contributing to information on the internet is often inherently creative. When I edit a Wiki, I am creating something new that wasn't there before. One my my favorite examples of this is the internet meme. Information such as a picture or piece of music, can be created and then altered by people all over the world.
This is the culture in which our young people are growing up. When you look at those four chief characteristics and compare them to the culture of an average school, is it any wonder why young people seem disengaged? Young people are spending the majority of their time in a culture that validates their ideas and opinions, allows them infinite access to the world around them, updates them on new information and entertainment constantly, and facilitates their creativity. Do schools do that? Are teachers encouraging student voice and providing diverse and relevant information and activities? Is curriculum creative and flexible enough to adapt and grow based on student interests and abilities? In my experience, the answer is unfortunately, no. Instead, rather than adapt to the demands and opportunities the digital world presents, teachers and parents blame social media for creating shorter attention spans and infinite distractions while clinging to outdated and/or traditional schooling methods.
In the end, the answer to my former teacher's concerns has less to do with how well they are integrating physical pieces of technology, like laptops and iPads, into the existing curriculum, but rather how they are changing the existing curriculum (and culture of school) to better reflect the wider social media culture. In fact, while I believe it is important that all school children have access to state of the art technology, I believe teaching with a social media epistemology can be done without even opening a computer. Imagine what it would look like to create classrooms in which information and communication were public and communal rather than private and individual. Imagine a classroom where students worked together to solve complex problems. Imagine a classroom in which all students had a voice in creating and shaping the curriculum. Imagine a classroom in which creativity flourished and non-conformity was encouraged rather than stifled. This is the social media classroom. And it doesn't require a smart board.
References
Crowley, D., & Heyer, P. (2007). Communication in history: Technology, culture, society (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Innis, H.A. (1972). Empire and communications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Critical ed.). Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy. New York City: Routledge
This is, of course, a difficult and complex issue. But I believe it ultimately comes down to questions of epistemology: what is knowledge? how is it acquired? what is possible to know? And questions like this are often directly related to the nature of communication technology at any given moment.
Scholars who trace the history of communication throughout civilization note that every time a new medium is introduced, society changes. Some of these changes have been small, while others indicate major shifts in how people understand and navigate the world.
For example, Marshall McLuhan writes a brief, but compelling history of the mechanical clock and how the process of fixing time into measurable units altered the structure of society. Once the clock allowed for time to be organized into uniform chunks, basic elements of life (eating, sleeping, working) became structured according to time rather than organic needs. Consider the 9-5 workday, for example. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans do not all have similar times of high productivity. Some people work better at night and some very early in the morning. However, partly enabled by the invention of the clock, all work is expected to take place in a set amount of time during a specific (somewhat arbitrary) part of the day.
Harold Innis explores larger examples of the ways in which technology organized space and governance in ancient civilizations. He examines the difference between cultures that used stone as a primary communication medium as opposed to cultures using papyrus. Because stone is heavy, not portable and permanent, civilizations using stone as their primary communication medium covered smaller territory and favored centralized absolute governments. Papyrus-based civilizations, thanks in part to the lightness and portability of the medium, were able to spread out across more territory and therefore favored smaller, more local leadership.
Walter Ong analyzes the substantial transition from orality to literacy and its effects on society. This transition was slow and complex and it involved, among other things, the creation of the alphabet and a substantial loss of collective memory. It is hard to imagine what life was like before words were printed on pages and mass distributed, but it is safe to say that society has never been the same since. Many scholars believe that the proliferation of social media technology signals a major transition in society, on a scale similar to the transition from orality to literacy. The new reality of our digital world has profound effects on knowledge and education.
So, what are some of the characteristics of media and communication in the digital communication age?
First, information and communication are public and available for mass consumption. Before the internet, people only knew your opinions and ideas about the world if you told them in person or were a published author. Now, if I post my opinions and ideas on Facebook or on a blog, hundreds (thousands... millions...) of people have access to them at any time. Because of this, information is more communal and readily available; it is easier to learn about the world and the happenings in it, large or small.
Second, media is social. During the literate age, we saw a huge push for individualized communication. People had the newfound freedom to consume information in private rather than together in a large group. Now, things are transitioning again. Information is rarely consumed in solitary/individual settings any more. People work collaboratively rather than in isolation. And receiving affirmation (and criticism) from other people has become a critical componant of sharing information with the world.
Third, media and communication are democratic. Another word I like to use for this is participatory. The best example of this is, of course, Wikipedia. There are hundreds of digital artifacts like this that change daily as they are being defined and shaped by the people using them. People now have the opportunity to affect public information in an unprecedented way.
Finally, information and communication are creative. The internet has made it possible for all kinds of people to share their talents with the world. Not only that, but due to its participatory nature, the very act of publishing or contributing to information on the internet is often inherently creative. When I edit a Wiki, I am creating something new that wasn't there before. One my my favorite examples of this is the internet meme. Information such as a picture or piece of music, can be created and then altered by people all over the world.
This is the culture in which our young people are growing up. When you look at those four chief characteristics and compare them to the culture of an average school, is it any wonder why young people seem disengaged? Young people are spending the majority of their time in a culture that validates their ideas and opinions, allows them infinite access to the world around them, updates them on new information and entertainment constantly, and facilitates their creativity. Do schools do that? Are teachers encouraging student voice and providing diverse and relevant information and activities? Is curriculum creative and flexible enough to adapt and grow based on student interests and abilities? In my experience, the answer is unfortunately, no. Instead, rather than adapt to the demands and opportunities the digital world presents, teachers and parents blame social media for creating shorter attention spans and infinite distractions while clinging to outdated and/or traditional schooling methods.
In the end, the answer to my former teacher's concerns has less to do with how well they are integrating physical pieces of technology, like laptops and iPads, into the existing curriculum, but rather how they are changing the existing curriculum (and culture of school) to better reflect the wider social media culture. In fact, while I believe it is important that all school children have access to state of the art technology, I believe teaching with a social media epistemology can be done without even opening a computer. Imagine what it would look like to create classrooms in which information and communication were public and communal rather than private and individual. Imagine a classroom where students worked together to solve complex problems. Imagine a classroom in which all students had a voice in creating and shaping the curriculum. Imagine a classroom in which creativity flourished and non-conformity was encouraged rather than stifled. This is the social media classroom. And it doesn't require a smart board.
References
Crowley, D., & Heyer, P. (2007). Communication in history: Technology, culture, society (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Innis, H.A. (1972). Empire and communications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Critical ed.). Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy. New York City: Routledge
Monday, May 21, 2012
Mass Media, Progress and Aesthetics
Modernism is largely characterized by the Cartesian mind-body split. In this philosophy, the mind and body are seen as separate and disconnected entities and the mind is elevated over the body for its rational abilities. This mistrust of the body brought with it a devaluing of aesthetics. If the body can't be trusted, then neither can its emotional and physical reactions to external stimuli. I believe the Cartesian split has affected society's evaluation of mass media in profound, and often unseen, ways.
One thing I hear A LOT from people (particularly parents and teachers) when discussing mass media is how fearful they are of all the new technology that comes out and replaces/alters the things we once held dear. See if any of these complaints sound familiar...
Kids these days...
... have terrible handwriting; all they can do is type or text!
... don't use proper grammar/spelling/punctuation when they communicate; everything is shortened!
... don't buy/listen to albums; all they do is cherry pick songs and make playlists!
and, of course...
... they don't read anymore! ... all they do is stare at a screen! ... I wish I could get my students to just read one book! ... they have no attention span!
Of course, kids these days ARE reading a lot of things. They're reading blogs, walls, comments, texts, tweets, images, games, advertisements, etc. But it is true that they may not be picking books up at the same rate that they used to. And many people are upset about this. They claim it signals some kind of huge decline in intelligence or culture or taste... etc. There's even a debate about the changing format of books and other printed text as the popularity of electronic media and eReaders is on the rise. The late children's author Maurice Sendak expresses his concern over this transition, giving his opinion on eBooks.
“I hate them. It’s like making believe there’s another kind of sex. There isn’t another kind of sex. There isn’t another kind of book! A book is a book is a book.”
A lot of people share his opinion (though I doubt whether they'd express it in quite the same acerbic and witty manner). And the truth is, I have no problem with any of these concerns and complaints. My problem is with the assumption that these concerns and complaints are rational and therefore can be defended as the 'only right way to think' on such subjects.
I'm sure it would not be difficult to assemble a panel of the most intelligent and educated people in the world and hear as many different opinions on the merits of printed vs. electronic media as there were people on the panel. The truth is that these kinds of opinions are usually aesthetic in nature. They are mostly based on taste and emotional reactions, not logic.
Many philosophers argue with the idea of linear human progress. They do not see moving forward in time as being inherently connected to moving forward in terms of the sophistication of human thought and action. Just because something is newer/faster/easier does not mean it is better. Just because we make strides in gaining justice for a marginalized group in one decade does not mean we won't or can't continue to harm that group in the future. There are plenty of examples of this. And many philosophers point to Modernism as one of them. The devaluing of the body and aesthetics has been counterproductive and harmful in many respects because the reality is, whether we acknowledge it or not, the body plays an enormous role in how we think and behave. Claiming that it is possible to make decisions solely based on logic and reason while ignoring our aesthetic responses is futile. Yet this way of viewing the world has permeated almost every area of society and culture.
I grew up in the age of transition from cassette tapes to CD's. At the time, I was more than happy to make the switch because CD's were so much more convenient - easier to organize and listen to. Now, as we make the transition from hard copy music (CD's) to electronic (mp3's), I notice a resistance. I still like to buy CD's. I like to hold the case in my hand. I like to display them on racks in my house. I like to own a complete album by an artist rather than a series of single tracks. None of this resistance is rational, though. It's not based on logic. It's a purely aesthetic reaction.
When a student texts the word GR8 instead of great or B4 instead of before, rationality would claim that the same thing is being accomplished. Words are being communicated and understanding is reached. Aesthetically, however, it is a different story. It is important to make this distinction before attempting to have a civil conversation about the rapid changes it often feels technology is forcing upon us.
There's nothing wrong with arguing for the preservation of something based on its aesthetic value. But we're not moving the dialogue forward by simply lamenting and complaining that kids these days are lazy or sloppy just because they no longer know how to write in cursive.
One thing I hear A LOT from people (particularly parents and teachers) when discussing mass media is how fearful they are of all the new technology that comes out and replaces/alters the things we once held dear. See if any of these complaints sound familiar...
Kids these days...
... have terrible handwriting; all they can do is type or text!
... don't use proper grammar/spelling/punctuation when they communicate; everything is shortened!
... don't buy/listen to albums; all they do is cherry pick songs and make playlists!
and, of course...
... they don't read anymore! ... all they do is stare at a screen! ... I wish I could get my students to just read one book! ... they have no attention span!
Of course, kids these days ARE reading a lot of things. They're reading blogs, walls, comments, texts, tweets, images, games, advertisements, etc. But it is true that they may not be picking books up at the same rate that they used to. And many people are upset about this. They claim it signals some kind of huge decline in intelligence or culture or taste... etc. There's even a debate about the changing format of books and other printed text as the popularity of electronic media and eReaders is on the rise. The late children's author Maurice Sendak expresses his concern over this transition, giving his opinion on eBooks.
“I hate them. It’s like making believe there’s another kind of sex. There isn’t another kind of sex. There isn’t another kind of book! A book is a book is a book.”
A lot of people share his opinion (though I doubt whether they'd express it in quite the same acerbic and witty manner). And the truth is, I have no problem with any of these concerns and complaints. My problem is with the assumption that these concerns and complaints are rational and therefore can be defended as the 'only right way to think' on such subjects.
I'm sure it would not be difficult to assemble a panel of the most intelligent and educated people in the world and hear as many different opinions on the merits of printed vs. electronic media as there were people on the panel. The truth is that these kinds of opinions are usually aesthetic in nature. They are mostly based on taste and emotional reactions, not logic.
Many philosophers argue with the idea of linear human progress. They do not see moving forward in time as being inherently connected to moving forward in terms of the sophistication of human thought and action. Just because something is newer/faster/easier does not mean it is better. Just because we make strides in gaining justice for a marginalized group in one decade does not mean we won't or can't continue to harm that group in the future. There are plenty of examples of this. And many philosophers point to Modernism as one of them. The devaluing of the body and aesthetics has been counterproductive and harmful in many respects because the reality is, whether we acknowledge it or not, the body plays an enormous role in how we think and behave. Claiming that it is possible to make decisions solely based on logic and reason while ignoring our aesthetic responses is futile. Yet this way of viewing the world has permeated almost every area of society and culture.
I grew up in the age of transition from cassette tapes to CD's. At the time, I was more than happy to make the switch because CD's were so much more convenient - easier to organize and listen to. Now, as we make the transition from hard copy music (CD's) to electronic (mp3's), I notice a resistance. I still like to buy CD's. I like to hold the case in my hand. I like to display them on racks in my house. I like to own a complete album by an artist rather than a series of single tracks. None of this resistance is rational, though. It's not based on logic. It's a purely aesthetic reaction.
When a student texts the word GR8 instead of great or B4 instead of before, rationality would claim that the same thing is being accomplished. Words are being communicated and understanding is reached. Aesthetically, however, it is a different story. It is important to make this distinction before attempting to have a civil conversation about the rapid changes it often feels technology is forcing upon us.
There's nothing wrong with arguing for the preservation of something based on its aesthetic value. But we're not moving the dialogue forward by simply lamenting and complaining that kids these days are lazy or sloppy just because they no longer know how to write in cursive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)