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
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
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.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Mass Media, Power and Discourse
There are three major theories of power.
Domination theories of power claim that power comes from one major force. For example, many religions claim that the ultimate power over people and society is God. Some conspiracy theorists may believe that the government holds ultimate power over everything people do. At certain times in human history, small groups of people have held dominant power over others.
Hegemonic theories of power claim that power comes from lots of different places at one time. Cultural hegemony (a theory pioneered by Antonio Gramsci) occurs when the values of the ruling/controlling/powerful class become de facto values for all people. At any given time, a person may be constrained by any number of hegemonic constructs that attempt to define her reality.
Both of these theories are deterministic. The power in these constructs requires human agency to escape from. Many educators who subscribe to these theories believe that the goal of education should be to empower students with such agency to escape the powerful forces that might control them. Paulo Friere comes to mind here.
Some philosophers, such as Foucault, question both of these theories of power. For them, the difference between power structures and human agency are too convoluted. They suggest a third theory of power: governmentality. Governmentality theories of power claim that not only does power come from all over, but it doesn't just come at people. People are inherently active in the creation and reproduction of power relationships. According to this theory, there is no need for humans to claim agency or have someone (a teacher) give them agency or facilitate their agency in order to defy power. All people are born with the ability to both claim and resist power. And they use discourse to do so.
Mass media studies is a particularly helpful way to understand the governmentality theory of power. There is no doubt that mass media can exert power over people. But it is also true that people have power over mass media. Like any part of popular culture, mass media reflect the values and beliefs of society because people choose to consume them. The more people consume, the more media just like it will be produced. Of course this reflect/affect process is complex and rarely evenly balanced. This is where the discourse of critical media literacy comes in.
Discourse includes anything that is 'sayable' - usually expressing the ideas, attitudes and beliefs that people use to construct and define reality. Different mass media have their own discourses (television communicates in a very distinct way, for example, than do film and radio...etc.) in addition to reflecting the discourses of society. The more people create discourse around and unpack the discourses of mass media, the more power people exert and the less they can be controlled.
I believe this is where education can play a vital role. Schools can provide safe and communal spaces where students can experiment with lots of different discourses around a media text. Mass media are typically viewed by both parents and students as simply entertainment and young people are not often encouraged to critically engage with mass media at home or with friends. Mass media can exert a tremendous amount of power over young people (and all people) when their discourse is the only one speaking. But when people create thoughtful and critical discourse around and about mass media, they hold the power. Educators play an important role in encouraging and providing space for that discourse to occur.
Educators and parents tend to understand media literacy in a few basic ways, as illustrated by these graphics below. The first graphic displays what is commonly called 'the protectionist approach.' This approach to media literacy gives mass media discourse all the power. The role of media literacy in the protectionist approach is to help children resist the negative messages that mass media send them. Media literacy is thought to provide a kind of barrier, protecting children from mass media influence. While there are certainly negative influences of mass media that children ought to be protected from, this approach offers much too narrow a view of media literacy. It assumes no power on behalf of the student.
This second image displays what might be called 'the reader response approach.' This approach to media literacy gives the student's discourse about mass media all the power. The role of media literacy in the reader response approach is simply to analyze and discuss mass media messages and ascribe meaning to them. While this approach certainly gives power to students to define the role of mass media in society, it admits no power to the media itself. In this way, it fails to fully understand mass media's role in society and the power they exert over it.
This final image displays the ideal way to understand critical media literacy as discourse. It admits the reality that mass media both reflect and affect society and individuals, while admitting power belongs to both the viewer and the medium itself.
This is the governmentality theory of power at work. People use discourse to unpack power relationships and situate themselves in positions of power over their own reality. Schools practicing critical media literacy allow students to both understand and critique mass media as well as take an active role in participating and creating it.
Domination theories of power claim that power comes from one major force. For example, many religions claim that the ultimate power over people and society is God. Some conspiracy theorists may believe that the government holds ultimate power over everything people do. At certain times in human history, small groups of people have held dominant power over others.
Hegemonic theories of power claim that power comes from lots of different places at one time. Cultural hegemony (a theory pioneered by Antonio Gramsci) occurs when the values of the ruling/controlling/powerful class become de facto values for all people. At any given time, a person may be constrained by any number of hegemonic constructs that attempt to define her reality.
Both of these theories are deterministic. The power in these constructs requires human agency to escape from. Many educators who subscribe to these theories believe that the goal of education should be to empower students with such agency to escape the powerful forces that might control them. Paulo Friere comes to mind here.
Some philosophers, such as Foucault, question both of these theories of power. For them, the difference between power structures and human agency are too convoluted. They suggest a third theory of power: governmentality. Governmentality theories of power claim that not only does power come from all over, but it doesn't just come at people. People are inherently active in the creation and reproduction of power relationships. According to this theory, there is no need for humans to claim agency or have someone (a teacher) give them agency or facilitate their agency in order to defy power. All people are born with the ability to both claim and resist power. And they use discourse to do so.
Mass media studies is a particularly helpful way to understand the governmentality theory of power. There is no doubt that mass media can exert power over people. But it is also true that people have power over mass media. Like any part of popular culture, mass media reflect the values and beliefs of society because people choose to consume them. The more people consume, the more media just like it will be produced. Of course this reflect/affect process is complex and rarely evenly balanced. This is where the discourse of critical media literacy comes in.
Discourse includes anything that is 'sayable' - usually expressing the ideas, attitudes and beliefs that people use to construct and define reality. Different mass media have their own discourses (television communicates in a very distinct way, for example, than do film and radio...etc.) in addition to reflecting the discourses of society. The more people create discourse around and unpack the discourses of mass media, the more power people exert and the less they can be controlled.
I believe this is where education can play a vital role. Schools can provide safe and communal spaces where students can experiment with lots of different discourses around a media text. Mass media are typically viewed by both parents and students as simply entertainment and young people are not often encouraged to critically engage with mass media at home or with friends. Mass media can exert a tremendous amount of power over young people (and all people) when their discourse is the only one speaking. But when people create thoughtful and critical discourse around and about mass media, they hold the power. Educators play an important role in encouraging and providing space for that discourse to occur.
Educators and parents tend to understand media literacy in a few basic ways, as illustrated by these graphics below. The first graphic displays what is commonly called 'the protectionist approach.' This approach to media literacy gives mass media discourse all the power. The role of media literacy in the protectionist approach is to help children resist the negative messages that mass media send them. Media literacy is thought to provide a kind of barrier, protecting children from mass media influence. While there are certainly negative influences of mass media that children ought to be protected from, this approach offers much too narrow a view of media literacy. It assumes no power on behalf of the student.
This second image displays what might be called 'the reader response approach.' This approach to media literacy gives the student's discourse about mass media all the power. The role of media literacy in the reader response approach is simply to analyze and discuss mass media messages and ascribe meaning to them. While this approach certainly gives power to students to define the role of mass media in society, it admits no power to the media itself. In this way, it fails to fully understand mass media's role in society and the power they exert over it.
This final image displays the ideal way to understand critical media literacy as discourse. It admits the reality that mass media both reflect and affect society and individuals, while admitting power belongs to both the viewer and the medium itself.
This is the governmentality theory of power at work. People use discourse to unpack power relationships and situate themselves in positions of power over their own reality. Schools practicing critical media literacy allow students to both understand and critique mass media as well as take an active role in participating and creating it.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Mass Media Orbits
Jacques Ranciere suggests that emancipated human beings are each in their own orbits around 'truth'. Put another way, all people come to understand knowledge in different ways and on their own unique terms. People in their own orbits assume their own equality to everyone else and they assume everyone else's equality to them. There is no 'right' way to arrive at knowing. It is a beautiful picture, to be sure, but at first it felt very individualistic to me and I wondered where the orbit metaphor allowed for genuine human connection when it came to learning. If every student orbits around truth/knowledge/reality in a different way, how can school children ever work together to discover something? Can schools foster a genuine sense of community in learning, or must every child be allowed to proceed with his or her learning completely independently? I struggled with these questions. However, after thinking more about Ranciere's ethics and the reality of daily human behavior, I'm not sure that the orbit every person inhabits cannot ever intersect with or merge with another person's orbit. Obviously, people make connections with each other. And some of the deepest human connections are often made over a shared sense of knowing. There is something very powerful in the kinship of understanding or seeing something in the same way as another. In these moments, our unique orbits intersect. I think of those magic tricks where independent metal hoops somehow become connected and then disconnected in the blink of an eye. These connections needn't take away from each person's unique orbit, either. The orbit metaphor must go hand in hand with Ranciere's ethic of equality. As long as I acknowledge that your orbit it as valid and beautiful as mine, then we can feel confident that when/if our orbits intersect, it is not due to some form of stultification, or someone forcing 'truth' upon us. My question then, became: how can education provide opportunities for students to emancipate themselves and enter their own orbits around knowledge? What are the forces currently inhibiting such emancipation?
[Incidentally, studying mass media requires a similar ethic of equality that Ranciere applies to people, except that rather than assuming all people are equal, mass media scholars assume all media is equal. This doesn't mean that all mass media are equal in quality or beauty, necessarily. That is, in fact, not the point at all. It simply means that all mass media can be critiqued and understood as reflecting something about society and reality. All mass media texts are equally worthy of study. For this reason, I think studying mass media provides more opportunities to live into the reality of Ranciere's ethics of equality in schools because there is currently no hierarchy of mass media knowledge, no curriculum that 'experts' have chosen, no content standards to adopt. Any and all mass media texts can be studied in schools, allowing for maximum opportunity for student choice.]
In pondering these questions, I started thinking about the ways that students orbit around mass media texts, and the ways in which mass media texts orbit around them. There are obviously many constraints on equality in society that prevent students from seeing or valuing their unique orbits, not the least of which are mass media. Mass media texts, influenced primarily by big business and the desire to make money, are not typically designed to encourage deep, unique thought. In fact, one of my greatest challenges in teaching young people about mass media was their resistance to critique their favorite forms of entertainment. At times it felt more like mass media was orbiting them and constraining them and defining them than the other way around. This was the inspiration for the graphic below. The students in the image are being orbited by a barrage of mass media texts, all attempting to define them and influence them to consume - all preventing them from entering their own unique orbits or discovering 'truth'. However, as happens with many forms of entertainment that people enjoy, these students have found a connection - perhaps a television show that they both enjoy watching. The orbits around them have suddenly merged. The space has opened up for these students to break free from the media orbits that surround them, and enter their own orbit around a text that compels them.
Undoubtedly these kinds of connections around mass media happen all the time and mostly outside of school. But here is where I think education might play a particularly important role in the process of emancipation from the influences of mass media. Schools provide a space in which young people can experiment with their own orbits around a similar object of study. Because mass media is currently not a regulated discipline in education, students are much freer to come to their own unique interpretations and understandings around a common mass media text. There simply are no 'right answers' in mass media education (at least for now). What is possible, then, is depicted in the graphic below. Students are on their own orbits around the mass media text they connected over earlier. Not only are they forming community with each other by studying it, but they are also emancipating themselves from the constraints that a consumption-obsessed mass media might place on them. They are free to follow their own orbits, and the teacher, having created space for them to do so, can also use mass media texts to open new doors of perception.
[Incidentally, studying mass media requires a similar ethic of equality that Ranciere applies to people, except that rather than assuming all people are equal, mass media scholars assume all media is equal. This doesn't mean that all mass media are equal in quality or beauty, necessarily. That is, in fact, not the point at all. It simply means that all mass media can be critiqued and understood as reflecting something about society and reality. All mass media texts are equally worthy of study. For this reason, I think studying mass media provides more opportunities to live into the reality of Ranciere's ethics of equality in schools because there is currently no hierarchy of mass media knowledge, no curriculum that 'experts' have chosen, no content standards to adopt. Any and all mass media texts can be studied in schools, allowing for maximum opportunity for student choice.]
In pondering these questions, I started thinking about the ways that students orbit around mass media texts, and the ways in which mass media texts orbit around them. There are obviously many constraints on equality in society that prevent students from seeing or valuing their unique orbits, not the least of which are mass media. Mass media texts, influenced primarily by big business and the desire to make money, are not typically designed to encourage deep, unique thought. In fact, one of my greatest challenges in teaching young people about mass media was their resistance to critique their favorite forms of entertainment. At times it felt more like mass media was orbiting them and constraining them and defining them than the other way around. This was the inspiration for the graphic below. The students in the image are being orbited by a barrage of mass media texts, all attempting to define them and influence them to consume - all preventing them from entering their own unique orbits or discovering 'truth'. However, as happens with many forms of entertainment that people enjoy, these students have found a connection - perhaps a television show that they both enjoy watching. The orbits around them have suddenly merged. The space has opened up for these students to break free from the media orbits that surround them, and enter their own orbit around a text that compels them.
Undoubtedly these kinds of connections around mass media happen all the time and mostly outside of school. But here is where I think education might play a particularly important role in the process of emancipation from the influences of mass media. Schools provide a space in which young people can experiment with their own orbits around a similar object of study. Because mass media is currently not a regulated discipline in education, students are much freer to come to their own unique interpretations and understandings around a common mass media text. There simply are no 'right answers' in mass media education (at least for now). What is possible, then, is depicted in the graphic below. Students are on their own orbits around the mass media text they connected over earlier. Not only are they forming community with each other by studying it, but they are also emancipating themselves from the constraints that a consumption-obsessed mass media might place on them. They are free to follow their own orbits, and the teacher, having created space for them to do so, can also use mass media texts to open new doors of perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)