Elizaveta Friesem
  • Home
  • Current projects
  • CV
  • Publications and presentations
  • Blog

On power, blame, and responsibility: Challenging the discourse of media externalization (Part 5)

4/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Exploration of the media based on the discourse of externalization has traditionally served to discuss how we can deal with social problems using our understanding of the media. I argue that when we overcome the discourse of externalization, we can continue deepening our understanding of mediated communication in order to challenge the status quo. The difference is that this challenging will be done not by trying to change the media perceived as the Other, but by transforming the media as ourselves, that is by changing our own communication practices. I argue that media literacy education can serve as a space where this important self-inquiry and personal change can happen.

According to Hobbs[1], media literacy education should include not only media analysis, but also reflection on one’s role in the media-saturated environment, creation of media texts with the purpose of understanding their constuctedness, and discussions about strategies of social action. Apart from analyzing media messages, media literacy education offers people opportunities to practice self-reflection, and consider the importance of civic engagement. Media educators can also help students practice collaboration[2], and develop empathy[3], both of which are crucial for effective social action. In addition, research shows that principles of media literacy education, such as media analysis and inquiry-based pedagogy, can serve as a springboard for conversations about a variety of social issues, including controversial ones[4].

As a result, media literacy education provides useful strategies for helping people not only understand the media as themselves, but also substitute blame directed towards the media as the Other with the acknowledgement of common responsibility. I argue that empathy, self-awareness and collaboration practiced in media literacy classes can help people engage in meaningful action aimed towards hacking the status quo. 

If we acknowledge that we all are implicated in the social system, this can help us move past blame and towards empathy, which can be defined as willingness and ability to understand others within their frame of reference. Empathy allows us to look for common values and opens up opportunities for collaboration. We should stop pointing fingers and admit that we all are in one way or the other implicated in the flawed social system; moreover, we need to be able to entertain the idea that we do not really know yet how this system can be fixed. Changing the social system is a tremendous enterprise, and collaboration is a necessary prerequisite of its success, same as individual attitude change achieved through self-awareness, and the conscious effort to empathize with the Other.

Empathy and collaboration are good in theory but not easy to exercise in practice. They are not something people necessarily learn about through the educational system. Indeed, schools have been criticized for failing to develop both. For a long time schools have not been a place where collaboration skills are acquired, and many of them still put the accent on individual achievement. The need to help young people develop empathy is also still not entirely understood by educators and policy-makers, although research shows that empathy can be enhanced[5]. Same as awareness, empathy and collaboration can be effectively developed through media literacy education—in particular, through media production[6]. Research shows that group media production based on principles of media literacy[7] helps students learn how to articulate their ideas, listen to others, and engage in effective decision-making and problem-solving together[8]. As for empathy, Friesem[9] argues that by working in groups on video production students can make important steps towards enhancing it. Media production is not the only strategy that can be used for this purpose. For example, empathy can be enhanced through classroom discussions about controversial issues where students learn the importance of the dialogue, even as they disagree with each other.

Media literacy education has been criticized for misplacing efforts from changing the flawed system to changing individuals by encouraging them to become more critical, reflective, empathic, etc.[10]. Gill notes that in the context of media literacy education “we are made responsible for our own engagement with media,”[11] an approach that “espouses a kind of defeatism, for it suggests that media cannot be changed”[12] (note the manifestations of the externalization discourse in these quotes). In this respect I would like to second Madva’s[13] claim that acknowledging our responsibility to change ourselves and working on achieving structural changes do not have to be prioritized one over the other. These two strategies of dealing with inequalities are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they support each other, not the least because the social system exists through individuals, while individuals are influenced by the social system that they are a part of. In addition, the approach to media literacy education that I have discussed in this section resolves the binary of individual vs. structural change by emphasizing the importance of engaging in social action with the aim to challenge the status quo.

Rather than demonizing the media we should see it/them as an essential form of communication and transmission of human-made meanings in the modern world. The discourse about the media used within and outside of academia contributes to maintaining the status quo by diverting our attention from deeper roots of social problems. It is easy to blame them (the media and media producers) for things that we think are wrong with society, and much more difficult to start dissecting frameworks of meanings underlying our own actions.

Foucault’s notion of power (which discourses uphold and reveal) combined with theories of hegemony and social justification allows us to discuss how we can participate in maintaining the status quo even when we are actively fighting against it. Our implication becomes possible through the multitude of communicative acts that uphold frameworks of understanding (ideologies) our culture is based upon. This is not something we should be blamed for; however, we are responsible for becoming more aware of our implication, for instance, by exploring our implicit biases and their role in reproducing inequalities. We cannot bail out of the social system but we can change it by changing ourselves.

Combining Foucault’s conceptualization of power with the theories of hegemony and system justification allows us to see the media neither as the “main offender” and corruptor of growing generations, nor as an entirely neutral phenomenon that we use to fulfill our needs for connection, information, and self-realization. Mediated communication can be a problem, but it can also offer tools for resistance. It also serves as a litmus test revealing ideologies that our society rests upon. Thus, we should use discussions about the media, and our involvement with different forms of mediated communication, to raise awareness about the way the social system works.

This can be done in media literacy education classrooms, where students learn not only to deconstruct media texts, but also practice reflection and introspection, ultimately engaging in social action with the aim to make the world a better place. There is hope that upon understanding our common implication, we will be able to exercise more empathy towards each other and find ways to collaborate on tackling the system’s flaws together. By combining the individual change based on reflexivity and introspection with structural changes we will get closer to challenging inequalities and injustices that are so abundant in societies of the modern world.


[1] Hobbs, Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Course and Classroom.

[2] Steven Goodman, Teaching Youth Media: A Critical Guide to Literacy, Video Production, and Social Change (New York, Teachers College Press, 2003).

[3] Yonty Friesem, “Empathy for the Digital Age: Using Video Production to Enhance Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Skills,” in Emotions, Technology, and Behaviors, ed. Sharon Y. Tettegah and Dorothy L. Espelage (San Diego, Academic Press, 2016), 21-45.

[4] Tracy Marie Scull, Christina V. Malik, & Janis Beth Kupersmidt, “A Media Literacy Education Approach to Teaching Adolescents Comprehensive Sexual Health Education,” Journal of Media Literacy Education 6, no. 1) (2014): 1–14.

[5] Mary Gordon, Roots of Empathy: Changing the World Child by Child (New York, The Experiment, 2009).

[6] Friesem, “Empathy for the Digital Age: Using Video Production to Enhance Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Skills.”

[7] “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education,” accessed on April 04, 2017, http://namle.net/publications/core-principles

[8] Goodman, Teaching Youth Media: A Critical Guide to Literacy, Video Production, and Social Change

[9] Friesem, “Empathy for the Digital Age: Using Video Production to Enhance Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Skills.”

[10] Rosalind Gill, “Postfeminist Sexual Culture,” in The Routledge Companion to Media & Gender, ed. Cynthia Carter, Linda Steiner & Lisa McLaughlin (New York, Routledge, 2015), 589-599.

[11] Ibid, p. 595.

[12] Ibid, p. 596.

[13] Madva, “A Plea for Anti-Anti-Individualism: How Oversimple Psychology Misleads Social Policy.”

​Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash
0 Comments

On power, blame, and responsibility: Challenging the discourse of media externalization (Part 4)

1/24/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
When we deconstruct the discourse about the media to reveal our collective implication in the social system through mediated and non-mediated communication, this should ideally lead us to consider our individual responsibility for challenging the status quo. The acknowledgement of our responsibility should substitute the blame often directed towards the media understood as the Other in relation to ourselves. But how can this embracing of responsibility be accomplished? And doesn’t advocating for it mean shifting the blame towards ourselves (i.e., if we are responsible for social flaws, we are to blame for their existence) and denying the impact of structural problems?

Calls to acknowledge the importance of individual choice and responsibility are often associated with “the neoliberal fantasy that anything can be achieved if the correct disposition has been adopted”[1]. In contrast to the ideology of neoliberalism, I do not suggest that the focus on individual responsibility negates the need to deal with structural roots of social problems. I agree with Madva, who argues that advocating for individual change and advocating for structural change are not mutually exclusive, as “individual changes [are] integral to the success of structural changes”[2]. Although individuals are constrained by the social system, they are at the same time its constituent parts allowing it to exist.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize that when an individual finds her or himself at a disadvantage, this power imbalance must not be described as the disadvantaged individual’s fault. A woman who has experienced sexual assault or a Black man who has suffered from police brutality must not be blamed for the acts of their perpetrators. At the same time, while we explain these victims’ actions not simply through their individual actions but by referring to their position in the flawed social system, perpetrators’ actions (although unacceptable) should also be seen as reflecting a combination of personal choices and structural pressures. For instance, gendered violence should be discussed in the context of the social construction of masculinity and pressures on men to conform to its scripts[3] [4]. Although in the snapshot view of the power imbalance, a disadvantaged and a privileged party can be clearly discerned, if we look at any situation in the context of the dynamic social system maintained through actions of all individuals that constitute it, the “victim vs. villain” binary becomes blurred.

The call to consider one’s implication in the social system through communication can be further justified if we differentiate backward-looking and forward looking aspects of responsibility[5]. Backward-looking responsibility refers to accountability for things that already happened; it is often perceived as blame. I suggest focusing instead on forward-looking responsibility, which can be interpreted as an obligation to take certain actions in the future. While people who occupy disadvantageous positions in specific social scenarios (e.g., targets of bullying) should not be held accountable for creating these specific situations, we can still consider their role in upholding the social system as a whole, as well as their forward-looking responsibility in relation to structural problems that have affected them (e.g., educating their children about harms of bullying). By the same token, acknowledging our responsibility for understanding how we contribute to the social flaws through everyday communicative acts (whether mediated through technology or not) does not equal blaming ourselves for specific instances of oppression and marginalization that we have suffered. It means, however, considering our future actions in the context of our implication in the social system through communication processes.

The discourse of media externalization is misleading as it obscures how placing hopes and fears in what we call “media” distracts us from exploring our implication in the social system through mediated and non-mediated communication. Although changing the way we talk about the media might not be easy (unless we are ready to add lengthy explanations each time we refer to “media”), we should be able to change the way we think about the media and our own role in mediated communication.

All too often the media become(s) a scapegoat that is used to divert our attention from deeper roots of social problems[6] [7]. I do not want to imply that the role of mediated communication in reproducing inequalities should not discarded. Looking for complex reasons behind social flaws does not mean that we should not pay attention to the media at all. Communication through technology is a prevalent form of communication in the modern world, and it most certainly plays a role in the way our society functions. Therefore, we should continue exploring and discussing mediated communication, but do it while keeping in check our tendency to use the discourse of media externalization.

For instance, it is still crucial to examine politics of representation (who speaks for whom and for what purpose via technology) as well as the economic context of the media industry. At the same time, we should refrain from blaming professional media producers as a social group different from ourselves for creating and perpetuating social problems. In media studies literature as well as in the public discourse, professional media producers are often described as directly accountable for problematic media texts, tools, and practices, and as the ones responsible for changing them. For instance, scholars argue that because there is not enough diversity in the media industry, media texts lack diversity as well, which translates into power imbalances in the culture at large[8]. While the lack of diversity (especially in the positions of power) in the media industry is hard to deny, the cause-effect behind the numbers can be interpreted differently whether we use the externalization discourse or try avoiding it. If we choose the second path, we might note that, rather than cause inequalities in society, the lack of diversity in the media industry reflects them. Furthermore, using the notion of forward-looking responsibility we can argue that it is up to all constituents of the social system (and not just mainstream media producers) to challenge inequalities—for instance, by becoming aware of our implicit biases and their role in upholding the social system[9], whose flaws cause the lack of diversity in the media industry and consequent media representations.
​
We might also want to consider Bobo’s claim that

[p]roducers of mainstream media products are not aligned in a conspiracy against an audience. When they construct a work, they draw on their own background, experience, and social and cultural milieu. They are therefore under “ideological pressure” to reproduce the familiar.[10] (p. 212)

We can explore this ideological pressure through the notion of frameworks of understanding developed within the model of symbolic interactionism[11]. The ideological pressure is maintained through communication processes, as members of the social system communicate to each other their expectations about normative behavioral scripts. Even though individuals are able to negotiate and play with meaning of their culture, this negotiation always takes place within certain constraints. This is true not only for professional media producers but for every member of the social system.

Using the theory of participatory culture[12], we can also note that the very notion of mainstream media is becoming less and less useful for describing mediated communication in the modern world. Today, a person does not need to be a professional media producer to contribute to the circulation of cultural meanings through technology. When we create media messages and send them out into the world, be it in a personal blog, on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube channel, we unconsciously reproduce some of these meanings. Our messages feed back into the culture, reinforcing frameworks of understanding that have shaped them in the first place, and the cycle continues. Both people who work in the media industry and those outside of it participate in this process. In most cases, neither the former nor the latter conspire to reproduce the status quo when they draw on common tropes and stereotypes of their culture.


[1] Paul Gilroy, “…We Got to Get Over before We Go Under… Fragments For a History of Black Vernacular Neoliberalism,” New Formations 80/81 (2013): 23-38, p. 26.

[2] Alex Madva, “A Plea for Anti-Anti-Individualism: How Oversimple Psychology Misleads Social Policy,” Ergo 3, no. 27 (2016): 701-728, p. 702.

[3] R. W. Connell, Masculinities (Berkley, University of California Press, 2005).

[4] William S. Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood (New York, Henry Holt & Company, 1998).

[5] Jules Holroyd, Robin Scaife, & Tom Stafford, “Responsibility for Implicit Bias,” Philosophy Compass 12, no. 3 (2017): 1-13.

[6] Freedman, Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence.

[7] Sternheimer, Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture: Why Media is Not the Answer.

[8] Bramlett-Solomon & Carstarphen, Race, Gender, Class and Media: Studying Mass Communication and Multiculturalism, 2nd ed.

[9] Banaji & Greenwald, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.

[10] Bobo, “The Color Purple: Black Women as Cultural Readers.”

[11] Snow, “Extending and Broadening Blumer’s Conceptualization of Symbolic Interactionism.”

[12] Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.
0 Comments

On power, blame, and responsibility: Challenging the discourse of media externalization (Part 3)

12/4/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
​The discourse about the media, by portraying “media” as the Other, allows people to blame the media for social flaws, or at least be suspicious about its/their possible contributions to inequalities. This Other is seen as a force outside of people who are (potentially) affected by the media-saturated environment they inhabit. The blame is directed either towards different media manifestations (commercials, social networks, video games, etc.) or towards professional media producers – individuals held directly accountable for problematic media practices and products.

Using Foucault’s conceptualization of power, I suggest that the big picture is more complex than a struggle between the privileged and the oppressed, between marginalized and dominant social groups. This does not mean that everybody benefits from mediated communication and the social system it supports in exactly the same way. This also does not mean that there are no discrimination and inequalities. However real the power struggles are, if we examine the social system over time and take into consideration all the networks of power, as suggested by Foucault, the picture becomes more complex and difficult to describe in terms of binaries (e.g., oppressors vs. oppressed). In the grand scheme of things, it might be unproductive to look for victims and villains[1].

In his History of Sexuality Foucault famously argued that “power is everywhere”[2]: it is not held only by certain individuals and social groups, and not maintained through coercion. Although the social system might grant power to some people more often than to others at some points in time, and although people who hold power more often than others share certain characteristics based on their race, gender, sexuality, class, and physical ability, that does not mean that these characteristics always predetermine power.

In order to further explain the relationship between the social system and individuals that constitute it, I propose combining Foucault’s conceptualization of power with the theories of hegemony[3] and social justification[4]. These two theories allow us to discuss in more detail how individuals can contribute to the social system whether they benefit from it or not. I argue that the division of people into those who are to blame for maintaining social flaws through (mediated and non-mediated) communication and those who are victims of these communication practices is misleading. The discourse of media externalization that supports this binary and the blame that stems from it should, therefore, be challenged.

The theory of hegemony formulated by a neo-Marxist scholar Gramsci posits that the domination in society is maintained not through force but through consent. According to Foucault, similarly, power is not maintained through coercion; however, the notion of consent is not as prominent in his writings. Gramsci and scholars who used the concept of hegemony to discuss the media[5] applied this theory to explain how dominant social groups deal with resistance by assimilating subversive ideologies through the process known as co-option. Co-option “refers to ideologies maintaining their hegemonic status by including aspects of opposing or new ideologies into their own frameworks, thus broadening their appeal and avoiding resistance in new social climates”[6]. The original Gramscian interpretation of hegemony is, thus, built on the idea of the struggle between different classes (social groups), which had been extensively explored by Marx.

I propose reconciling this interpretation with Foucault’s understanding of power as held not by certain social groups and individuals over others, but in the grand scheme of things by the social structure over individuals that constitute it (although in the snapshot view of society some individuals are always more powerful than others). The notion of consent that is essential for the theory of hegemony can be, thus, usefully transferred to Foucault’s understanding of power: because we all give the social system our consent through the simple act of remaining within it (and contributing to it though communication), we all allow it to exist, no matter how often power flows in our direction and how often it leaves us.

I argue that the main struggle within the hegemonic social system takes place not between more and less dominant groups, as Gramsci and many scholars after him[7] suggested, but rather between the social system and individuals that constitute it. In this sense, I find Foucault’s notion of fluid power, or the fluid privilege described by McIntosh to be particularly useful for understanding how hegemony works.

The exploration of (mediated) communication is directly related to this theoretical discussion. According to symbolic interactionism[8] [9], individuals participate in the social system through processes of communication that allow them to negotiate, challenge, and reproduce cultural meanings. Communication, thus, plays an essential role in creating the social system. Human beings are constantly engaged in communication, and in the recent period of history, this engagement increasingly takes place through technology. We are socialized from childhood to accept certain forms of expression and communication within the social system as “normal,” which makes them invisible to us[10]. As we communicating (via technology or not), we challenge but also reproduce certain ways of being, thinking, and acting in the world. Thus, our participation in communication processes that reproduce ideologies of our culture makes us all participate in the maintenance of the social system, where power and privilege are in a constant flow. Indeed, it is not coercion that keeps the hegemonic social system in place but consent of all its members.

The fact that some individuals benefit more than others from the status quo does not mean that those who benefit less do not contribute to maintaining the system. In order to further explain this paradoxical situation, I draw on the system justification theory that emerged within the field of social psychology[11]. System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimized, even at the expense of personal and group interest”[12]. The theory posits that people tend to accommodate and rationalize the status quo. Counterintuitively, those who have less power in the social order engage in these practices as much as or even more than privileged ones. The more individuals are disadvantaged, the more they might feel the need to justify the system in order to rationalize their own unfortunate condition.

The fact that members of disadvantaged groups are—under some circumstances, at least—more likely than others to justify the system is consistent with the notion that they are motivated to reduce ideological dissonance in such a way that the status quo is preserved.[13]

I argue that cultural meanings that we absorb through mediated communication play a crucial role in system justification processes. While people are not brainwashed or duped by the media (as it might look like according to the media effects model), they are not free to reject dominant frameworks of understanding (as the extreme version of the active audience paradigm would have us believe) either. We are constrained by ideologies that circulate through communication, mediated or otherwise; but we are also the ones through whom ideologies exist in the first place.

We are born into certain cultural meanings, and though we can and do challenge them, we also reproduce broader frameworks of understanding through a variety of communicative acts. It is crucial to acknowledge that “preserving the status quo is a collaborative process”[14] and that in this process “everyone… is both a victim and a supporter of the system”[15]. The hidden frameworks of understanding discussed by scholars of symbolic interactionism[16] are similar to implicit attitudes explored by the social justification theory[17]. In particular, Implicit Association Test created to further investigate these attitudes has revealed that most people hold implicit biases that make them contribute to the flawed social system[18].

This explains, for instance, the phenomenon discussed by Michelle Alexander in her provocative book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness [19]. Alexander argues that slavery did not disappear but rather took different forms. One certainly has to pause when confronted with the fact that there are more Black men in American prisons nowadays than were enslaved on plantations before the Civil War. According to the social justification theory, this can be explained not by blatant racism (which in “the age of colorblindness” is condemned as politically incorrect) but by implicit biases, more specifically by the so-called automatic White preference. Describing how the Implicit Association Test works, Banaji and Greenwald[20] indicate that an astonishing seventy-five percent of test-takers reveal this preference, including those who sincerely reject racism, or are themselves Black. Furthermore, studies show that automatic White preference is linked to behaviors that feed into discrimination and racial inequalities, often unbeknownst to people who engage in such acts[21] [22].

According to the social justification theory, “members of disadvantaged groups play a perplexing role in maintaining their own disadvantage”[23]. This claim finds its parallel in the theory of hegemony, which posits that people contribute to their own oppression by giving to the oppressing force their consent. Foucault’s conceptualization of power serves as a further link between these two theoretical frameworks, explaining that people do not hold or lack power by definition of who they are. There is no denying that marginalization and its unfortunate effects are real. Nevertheless, marginalized individuals play a certain role in maintaining the flawed social system, while individuals who benefit from the status quo more often than others do not necessarily have more power to change the system (although they might have power over other individuals in specific scenarios).

To put it simply, the discourse of externalization obscures the complexity outlined above. The media is/are seen as either part of the reason social problems (e.g., sexism, racism, and homophobia) persist in the modern technology-saturated world, or as a hope for a better future. When we change our focus to emphasize that the media is/are people communicating with each other through technology, and that all people (and not just more privileged individuals) participate in making the social system the way it is though communication—this allows us to think differently about the social change and our own role in it.


[1] Vaclav Havel, “The power of the powerless,” in Open Letters: Selected Writings 1965-1990, Vaclav Havel (London, Faber & Faber, 1991), 125-214.

[2] Foucault, The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, p. 63.

[3] Antonio F. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York, International Publishers, 1971).

[4] John T. Jost, Mahzarin R. Banaji, & Brian A. Nosek, “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo,” Political Psychology 25 (2004): 881-919.

[5] Kevin M. Carragee, “A Critical Evaluation of Debates Examining the Media Hegemony Thesis,” Western Journal of Communication 57 (1993): 330-348.

[6] Katie Milestone & Anneke Meyer, Gender and popular culture (Malden, Polity Press, 2012), p. 18.

[7] Carragee, “A Critical Evaluation of Debates Examining the Media Hegemony Thesis.”

[8] Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.

[9] Snow, “Extending and Broadening Blumer’s Conceptualization of Symbolic Interactionism.”

[10] Neil Postman, “The Reformed English Curriculum,” in High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in American Secondary Education, ed. Alvin C. Eurich (New York, Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1970): 160-168.

[11] Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.”

[12] Jost & Banaji, “The Role of Stereotyping in System Justification and the Production of False Consciousness,” p. 2.

[13] Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo, ” p. 910.

[14] Ibid, p. 909.

[15] Havel, “The Power of the Powerless,” p. 144.

[16] Snow, “Extending and Broadening Blumer’s Conceptualization of Symbolic Interactionism.”

[17] Mahzarin R. Banaji & Anthony G. Greenwald, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People (New York, Delacorte Press, 2013).

[18] Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.”

[19] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York, The New Press, 2010).

[20] Banaji & Greenwald, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.

[21] Anthony G. Greenwald, Colin Tucker Smith, N. Sriram, Yoav Bar-Anan, & Brian A. Nosek, “Race Attitude Measures Predicted Vote in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 9, (2009): 241-253.

[22] Louis A. Penner, John F. Dovidio, Tessa V. West, Samuel L. Gaertner, Terrance L. Albrecht, Rhonda K. Dailey, & Tsveti Markova, “Aversive Racism and Medical Interactions with Black Patients: A Field Study,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, (2010): 436-440.

[23] Banaji & Greenwald, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, p. 118.

Photo by Mario Purisic on Unsplash
0 Comments

On power, blame, and responsibility: Challenging the discourse of media externalization (Part 2)

11/14/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
​Looking back at the history of media studies, and observing the state of the discipline today, one notices interplay between two major paradigms: media effects and active audiences. Scholars can be described as leaning more or less towards one of these extremes according to the way they answer the essential question: What role do the media play in people’s lives?

Media effects paradigm, which posits that the media have significant (often negative) influence on our attitudes and behaviors, is rooted in works of such scholars as Lasswell[1] and Lazarsfeld[2]; it produced many influential theories, e.g. cultivation[3], framing, priming and agenda-setting[4]; and it has greatly shaped the modern debates about media violence[5]. The concern about the problematic influence of the media led to the emergence of media literacy education, which is rooted in critical pedagogy[6] as well the philosophy of progressive education[7], and has a long history of exposing power relationships in media texts and media industries[8].

Active audience paradigm, in contrast, suggests that people are actively interpreting media texts and using media tools and spaces in many different ways, so it is difficult to talk about a predictable (negative) media impact[9] [10] [11] [12]. In its current form, this paradigm was significantly influenced by British cultural studies, especially by Hall’s encoding/decoding model[13]; it produced, among others things, scholarship on participatory culture and fandom[14] [15]; and it is generally more optimistic about people’s relationship with the media. Following the development of this paradigm, newer approaches to media literacy education highlight active role of people in using media tools and critically engaging with media texts[16] [17].

At the same time, even according to (relatively) more optimistic positions, the media’s role in our lives is not entirely neutral. The media are seen as reflecting dominant ideologies that contribute to the status quo, and potentially reinforcing them. In Bird’s words: “We may be able to make creative, individual meanings from this torrent of messages and images, but we can still only work with what we’re given”[18]. By the same token, even more optimistic media literacy educators are driven by their concern that people’s engagement with the media environment is never unproblematic[19]. According to this position, although we may be empowered to use media texts and tools for our individual purposes, we should not forget about power imbalances in society that they reveal and potentially reinforce.

It is not uncommon for media scholars, regardless of what position they occupy on the “media effects vs. active audience” continuum, to take the meaning of the term “media” for granted. Derivative terms such as “media technology,” “media environment,” “media representations,” “media messages,” “media effects,” “media channels,” “media tools,” and so on are also usually used without a definition. The common understanding within media studies is that mediated communication involves somebody who creates and sends out a message using some sort of technology. After the message is produced, it is (potentially) received and processed by an individual or a group of individuals who might (or might not) be influenced by it. Mediated communication can be also seen as taking place in a special (usually virtual) space created through technology (e.g., video games or social networks).

On the one hand, it appears that to argue that “media” is people communicating with each other through technology is to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, it is essential to highlight that this taken-for-granted understanding of the media exists in a contradiction with the language that is used to talk about the media both in academia and outside of it. This language portrays “media” as the Other in relation to people whose communication processes, in fact, make the existence of the media possible.

Foucault’s notion of discourse is useful for dissecting these contradictions and uncovering limitations they impose on our perception of mediated communication. According to Foucault, discourse is a politically charged manner of perceiving elements of reality, expressing one’s perception through language, and choosing a course of action based on one’s perception[20]. Discourses manifest power relationships by constructing truths about the world we live in. The Foucauldian notion of discourse must, therefore, be understood in relation to this scholar’s conceptualization of power.

According to Foucault, power flows through the social system at any given time, as “power is everywhere” and “comes from everywhere” [21]. Neither specific individuals, nor social groups can be described as wielding power by definition of who they are. If we take a snapshot of society, we will see some people having more power than others. However, when we look at society over time, power becomes fluid and difficult to attribute to specific individuals or social groups. McIntosh’ description of fluid privilege provides a further glimpse into this complexity:

[E]verybody has a combination of unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage in life. Whiteness is just one of the many variables that one can look at, starting with, for example, one’s place in the birth order, or your body type, or your athletic abilities, or your relationship to written and spoken words, or your parents’ places of origin, or your parents’ relationship to education and to English, or what is projected onto your religious or ethnic background. We’re all put ahead and behind by the circumstances of our birth. We all have a combination of both. And it changes minute by minute, depending on where we are, who we’re seeing, or what we’re required to do.[22]

Foucault explains: “Power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor a possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society”[23]. On certain occasions we all hold certain power, yet in the grand scheme of things we are powerless as nobody holds the power over the social system (“complex strategic situation”) itself. This does not negate power imbalances that are visible in the snapshot view of society, but suggests that in the grand scheme of things power relations are more complex than the snapshot view seems to imply.

This conceptualization of power explains the slow, meandering, and unpredictable path of social change: the social system is resistant to any challenge to its status quo, holding the ultimate power over all individuals that comprise it. Foucault sees discourses as expressions of power, but also as a potentiality of resistance: “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart”[24]. While the social system holds power over individuals that constitute it, discourses that serve as a manifestation of this power can be also used to undermine it. The discourse of externalization that shapes our understanding of the media can be similarly used for challenging the status quo that mediated communication manifests and reinforces.

The majority of media scholars—whether they see audiences as passive, active, or somewhere in between—explore people’s relationship with the media. The development of media studies has been significantly influenced by the concern that this relationship might be somehow problematic—that the media can “hurt” us. Think, for instance, about the role of propaganda studies in the early stages of the field[25]. Media studies literature describes how people use the media, interpret the media and/or are influenced by the media in one way or another. Although it is clear that media scholars understand the media as produced, sustained, and enacted by people—and therefore only possible through people—the language they use often turns the media into an entity, a force, or a class of objects that exist somehow outside of people, and can be used by them or act upon them.

Two main manifestations of this language are (1) active verbs, and (2) third person pronouns used when referring to the media (“they” in scholarly literature, and “it” outside of the academia). The second manifestation is evident in any written or oral discussion about the media. In this article I have tried to avoid it on several occasions, but did not manage to eliminate it altogether. As any discourse, it is hard to escape. To see examples of both manifestations, let us look at the quote below:

They [media] tell us what’s in and what’s out, what’s hot and what’s not, and they convey what it means to be pretty or ugly, rich or poor, successful of failure, female or male, powerful or powerless, or good or bad. Media define not only our culture but, indeed, most aspects of our lives. The media are a main source of knowledge about our world and, in fact, teach us about the various groups that constitute our society.[26] (Emphasis added.)

Active verbs are also present when specific instances of the media (e.g., social networks, ads, books, films, Internet, etc.) are discussed. For example, during the campaign for the Family Entertainment Protection Act in 2005 Hillary Clinton (in)famously argued: “If you put it just really simply, these violent video games are stealing the innocence of our children” (Emphasis added). This language is used not only by those who are concerned about the media, but also by authors who occupy a more optimistic position, as in the following report on participatory culture by Jenkins et al.: “Educators must work together to ensure that every American young person… can articulate their understanding of how media shapes perceptions”[27] (Emphasis added). This last quote illustrates that even when people are seen not as passive consumers, but as active produsers[28], the discourse of externalization remains present.

The use of active verbs and third person pronouns, thus, effectively externalizes the media, making it appear to exist outside of people. It must be noted that this discourse is not an exception. Externalization is, in fact, a common linguistic device. Take, for instance, the phrase “love makes people do crazy things.” By portraying love as an object external to people, this wording downplays people’s agency in choosing certain actions. The result of this wording is a displacement of self-reflection by externalized blame: “I did not choose to act like this, my feelings made me do it.” The discourse about the media, therefore, exemplifies how externalization can be used to obscure one’s personal responsibility. The discourse about the media, however, has a more far-reaching influence in the modern world and should, therefore, be a subject of special attention.

Weinberg discussed problems that may arise when people forget that language is but a human-made map that we use to find our way through the universe:

When our maps do not fit the territory, when we act as if our inferences are factual knowledge, we prepare ourselves for a world that isn’t there. If this happens often enough, the inevitable result is frustration and an ever-increasing tendency to warp the territory to fit our maps. We see what we want to see, and the more we see it, the more likely we are to reinforce this distorted perception, in the familiar circular and spiral feedback pattern.[29]   

Although we recognize that the media exist through people communicating with each other, our language reveals that we tend to detach ourselves from our own communicative choices and instead project our blame, fears, and hopes onto what we call “media,” seen as the Other in relation to ourselves.

Using Foucault’s interpretation of power as it relates to discourse, I argue that the discourse about the media is political not because it buttresses the power of certain social groups over others, but because it reinforces the power of the social system over its constituting elements, people. The language used to talk and write about the media defines our reality because we have come to see the media as a (potential) scapegoat that can be referred to explain or deal with social problems, from violence, to sexism, to consumerism and capitalism (and more). Even the active audience paradigm betrays certain distrust of the media, which can (as it is argued) at least under some circumstances, shape our perceptions and guide our actions in a problematic way[30] [31].

The discourse about the media, thus, reinforces the status quo by allowing us to substitute a deeper understanding of our role in the social system with externalized blame; this blame is directed towards what we call “media” and perceived as the Other in relation to ourselves. What does this language obscure?

To answer this question I draw on the framework of symbolic interactionism[32], which posits that people create the social reality they inhabit through constant acts of interaction with each other and with themselves. According to symbolic interactionism, we are active creators of meanings that help us make sense of the world around us. However, our meaning-making practices take place in the space limited by frameworks of understanding provided by society that we are a part of[33], frameworks that we often choose not to challenge. These frameworks of understanding are otherwise known as ideologies – underlying assumptions that shape our ways of being, thinking, and acting in the world.

Symbolic interactionism, thus, explains how communication acts create and maintain the fabric of society through meaning-making, interpretation, and negotiation. Externalizing processes and products of our communication obscures that human communication consolidates yet also constantly challenges the social system by enabling the flow of dominant and subversive ideologies. The direction of social change depends on cumulative actions of individuals, who allow the social system to exist through networks of communication and its outcomes.
​
This argument leads us to a series of questions: How legitimate is it to claim that all people participate in maintaining problematic ideologies through communication? How can we contribute to the social system if we condemn its flaws? Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that only those individuals/social groups who benefit from the system the most are complicit in its existence, while others (underprivileged, marginalized, oppressed) are caught in its networks against their will? The last question is especially relevant for our discussion, because when we direct our blame towards the media, this often means critiquing certain individuals and groups (usually, professional media producers) who allegedly have the power to shape the course of mediated communication. I use the theories of hegemony and social justification to tackle these questions, and explain why it is misleading to divide people into villains and victims of (mediated) communication, or of the social system as a whole...


[1] Harold D. Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in World War I (Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1971[1927]).

[2] Everett M. Rogers, A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach (New York, The Free Press, 1994).

[3] Michael Morgan, James Shanahan, & Nancy Signorelli, “Growing Up with Television: Cultivation Process,” in Media Effects, 3rd ed, ed. Jennings Bryant and Mary Beth Oliver (New York, Routledge, 2009), 34-49.

[4] Dietram A. Scheufele, “Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication,” Mass Communication and Society 3, no. 2-3 (2009): 297-316.

[5] Sparks, Sparks, & Sparks, “Media Violence.”

[6] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, translated by Myra Bergman Ramos (New York, Herder and Herder, 1970).

[7] John Dewey, Democracy and Education (Radford, Wilder Publications, 2008 [1916]).

[8] Len Masterman, Teaching the Media (New York, Routledge, 1985).

[9] DeVane & Squire, “The Meaning of Race and Violence in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.”

[10] Jacqueline Bobo, “The Color Purple: Black Women as Cultural Readers,” in Say it loud! African-American Audiences, Media, and Identity, ed. Robin R. Means Coleman, (New York, Routledge, 2002): 205-228.

[11] Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York, New York University Press, 2008).

[12] Rand, Barbie’s Queer Accessories.

[13] Hall, “Encoding/Decoding.”

[14] Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York, Routledge, 1992).

[15] Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

[16] David Buckingham, “Introduction: Fantasies of Empowerment? Radical Pedagogy and Popular Culture,” in Teaching Popular Culture: Beyond Radical Pedagogy, ed. David Buckingham, (Bristol, UCL Press,1998), 1-17.

[17] Renee Hobbs, Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Course and Classroom (Thousand Oakes, Corwin Press, 2011).

[18] S. Elizabeth Bird, The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World (New York, Routledge, 2003), p.3.

[19] Hobbs, Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Course and Classroom.

[20] Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge.

[21] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge (London, Penguin, 1998), p. 63.

[22] Joshua Rothman, “The Origins of ‘Privilege,’” accessed April 03, 2017, http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-origins-of-privilege

[23] Foucault, The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, p. 93.

[24] Ibid, pp. 100-101.

[25] J. Michael Sproule, “Propaganda Studies in American Social Science: The Rise and Fall of the Critical Paradigm,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 60-78.

[26] Sharon Bramlett-Solomon & Meta G. Carstarphen, Race, Gender, Class and Media: Studying Mass Communication and Multiculturalism, 2nd ed. (Dubuque, Kendall Hunt, 2012), p. 3.

[27] Henry Jenkins, Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, & Margaret Weigel, “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century,”
accessed April 03, 2017, https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF, pp. 3-4.

[28] Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.

[29] Harry L. Weinberg, Levels of Knowing and Existence: Studies in General Semantics (New York, Harper and Row, 1959), p. 29.

[30] Gill, Gender and the Media.

[31] Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st century,” accessed April 03, 2017, https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

[32] Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.

[33] David A. Snow, “Extending and Broadening Blumer’s Conceptualization of Symbolic Interactionism,” Symbolic Interaction 24, no. 3 (2001): 367-377.
0 Comments

On power, blame, and responsibility: Challenging the discourse of media externalization (Part 1)

11/5/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Many individuals inhabiting the modern media-saturated world—be it parents, politicians, educational policy-makers or scholars—are preoccupied with potential harms of mediated communication. Who controls the media? Can the media harm us? What do we learn from the media about the world? How can we improve the media? These questions have a long history connected to the trajectory of the media studies paradigm that can be broadly defined as “media effects”[1]—the idea that the media influence people in certain scientifically measurable ways. This influence is often seen as negative or at least problematic. Although it is not uncommon for the public discourse about the media to be dominated by what can be effectively described as blame[2] [3] [4], many media scholars lean towards the active audience paradigm[5] acknowledging that our relationship with the media is complicated[6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

Few people can be described as occupying a strictly media effects or active audience position; most exist somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. However, the tension between the two paradigms remains present. It stems from different ways of answering the broad question: What is the role of the media in people’s lives? This tension can be seen in public debates about media texts (e.g., whether it is a good idea to have a Star Wars movie with a Black protagonist, or whether it is true that portrayals of women in video games are demeaning and must be changed), as well as in the academic literature. In particular, the debate about the impact of violent media content is as heated as it was several decades ago[11] [12].

We may be able to overcome the tension between the two paradigms by challenging the dominant discourse about the media that dictates how we talk about and view mediated communication. To do so, we can draw on Foucault’s understanding of discourse[13], which was effectively summarized by Lessa as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak”[14]. According to Foucault, discourses are historically situated truths that reflect the social reality we inhabit; discourses are political in a sense that they manifest and reinforce power relations in the social system.

The phenomenon of “media” is usually understood in relation to human communication. It is telling that media studies occupy a niche within the broader field of communication studies. Curiously, the meaning of “media” is usually taken for granted by media scholars, whose works are often conspicuous by the absence of the term’s definition. At the same time, this meaning remains vague: the media are alternatively or cumulatively understood as communication channels, processes, or products, as texts, representations, spaces, tools, or institutions. When the media are understood as people engaging in communication processes, the focus of attention (as well as of hope or blame) often concentrates on those specific individuals who are seen as directly responsible for how mediated communication functions – professional media producers.

What unites all these various ways of seeing the media is the discourse of externalization. The media are perceived as a force that exists outside of us, which presents a contradiction to the understanding of the media as a form of human communication that this perception coexists with. The current discourse about the media supports this perception through language that reflects the externalization: for instance, through the use of active verbs, as in “the media (do not) impact people’s attitudes.” In fact, the underlying question of media studies (What role do the media play in our lives?) is exemplary of this dominant discourse.

I propose to discuss the importance of challenging this way of perceiving and talking about the media. We need to shift our focus away from such questions as: Can the media impact us negatively? How should we change the media? to the recognition that what stands behind the term “media” is people communicating with each other though technology (and not just some people, but all people inhabiting the media-saturated world). This might also necessitate broadening of our understanding of technology, from tools enabling mass production and dissemination of information over distance, to tools and techniques used by humans (in this sense, a wheel and needle are technology the same was as a TV set or a camera). Challenging the discourse of externalization should ideally render the tension between the media effects and active audience paradigms irrelevant. It is not about whether and how much the media impact us. Rather, it is about reflecting on our role as communicating beings in producing the fabric of society. As we are communicating (through technology or without it), we influence each other, but in infinitely complex and unpredictable ways. I suggest that we should focus on exploring how communication in different forms reflects and contributes to the status quo, and how it can be used to challenge flaws of the social system that are often blamed on the media.


[1] Jennings Bryant & Mary Beth Oliver (Editors), Media Effects, 3rd ed (New York, Routledge, 2009).

[2] Jonathan L. Freedman, Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2002).

[3] David Gauntlett, Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2005).

[4] Karen Sternheimer, Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture: Why Media is Not the Answer (Philadelphia, Westview Press, 2013).

[5] Stuart Hall, “Encoding/Decoding,” in Culture, Media, Language, ed. Stuart Hall, Doothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (London, Hutchinson, 1980), 128-138.

[6] Cynthia Carter, Linda Steiner & Lisa McLaughlin (Editors), The Routledge Companion to Media & Gender (New York, Routledge, 2015).

[7] Ben DeVane & Kurt D. Squire, “The Meaning of Race and Violence in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,” Games and Culture 3, no. 3-4 (2008): 264-285.

[8] Rosalind Gill, Gender and the Media (Malden, Polity, 2007).

[9] Adrienne Shaw, Gaming at the Edge: Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2015).

[10] Erica Rand, Barbie’s Queer Accessories (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995).

[11] Freedman, Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence.

[12] Glenn G. Sparks, Cheri W.Sparks, & Erin A. Sparks, “Media Violence,” in Media Effects, 3rd ed, ed. Jennings Bryant and Mary Beth Oliver (New York, Routledge, 2009), 269-286.

[13] Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge (New York, Pantheon, 1972).

[14] Iara Lessa, “Discursive Struggles within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood,” British Journal of Social Work 36, no. 2 (2005): 283-298, p. 285.
0 Comments

Some updates on my book...

11/1/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
I realize that I have not written anything in my blog for a while. Explanation? I am writing a book! It is an exciting project that takes most of my "writing time." I have been working on it for, well, almost three years now (wow!). The book is about media, communication, what it means to be human, and what it takes to understand each other's humanity. It was inspired by my attempts to articulate for my students what media is. And then it turned into something much much bigger.

I did not feel comfortable simply listing things like Internet, films, books, stamps, maps, TV shows, commercials, mass produced T-shirts with prints of unicorns, Barbie dolls, and more. It was too confusing to choose from such options as messages, representations, texts, spaces, practices, tools, policies, and organizations. Finally, I decided that the problem is with our foundational assumptions about media: we tend to think about it as something outside of ourselves, while media is simply a way we communicate with each other. Yes, it involves technology, and it involves products as well as practices. But it is impossible without humans taking part in it, exchanging meanings about the world and about themselves. Will a magazine be still media if it's the only thing that's left from an extinct human race? With nobody to read it or at least try to make sense of it, it will not be media anymore.

I started my book by trying to find this elusive definition, but then moved to discuss what makes human communication so different from signals that deer or fireflies send to each other. I discussed human meaning-making, with its complexity, the opportunities it creates, but also its tendency to reproduce imperfections of society. We simplify the world in order to understand it, we divide everybody into "us" and "them", our judgment is clouded by biases and emotions. In short, we are not rational at all, and we keep making mistakes that hurt ourselves and others. Thus, the conversation about the media led me towards self-reflection. 

I have been struggling to emphasize that I do not mean that we should only focus on our own imperfections and ignore structural problems. My goal was to reconcile these two extremes by better understanding communication. Structural problems do exist, but society is the way it is because of everybody's actions. I had to examine the notion of power, the uneasy relationship between the social system and individuals that comprise it. I had to stress the need to fight for accountability, but I wanted to do it in a way that involves self-awareness and understanding of paradoxes that shape human communication. I wanted to talk about empathy.

I am working on the last chapter now. I will probably have to revise everything again and again because I realize that my ideas are still raw. Once I start getting closer to the end of my journey, I hope to post some ideas and excerpts here. Stay tuned!


0 Comments

Blame is not the answer: Reflecting on our implicit biases

2/8/2017

0 Comments

 
After the 2016 presidential election one half of the country has turned to the other half of the country, and accused it quite unequivocally of such serious sins as overt racism, sexism and homophobia.

But blame is not the answer.
 
In the modern America we should beware not of the explicit prejudgment (although it certainly exists as well), but of assumptions that are hiding under the surface of our own consciousness. They are called implicit biases. It turns out that we all have them, whether we want it or not. Because of these biases we often contribute to social flaws even when we are actively trying to make them go away.

This video explains how each of us can learn about our implicit biases. We can learn about them by taking an ingenious Implicit Association Test created by Harvard scholars. The test is free and fun to take. The video describes how the test works, and talks about the importance of acknowledging our own implicit biases for making the world a better place. 

0 Comments

Did media literacy backfire? My thoughts on danah boyd's piece

1/9/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
I have just read this provocative piece by media scholar danah boyd. Here are my thoughts about it.

I agree with danah boyd's point that the focus on fake news oversimplifies the problem and distracts us from bigger issues that contributed to the 2016 election outcome. Like dahah, I am concerned about the current tendency I note among my liberal friends, especially those who work in the area of media literacy, to focus on blaming the media for what happened on November 8th. I agree with danah that we need to heal the rifts that exist in our society along the lines of not only gender and race, but also class and political affiliation. Although she does not use the word "empathy," I believe that is what danah is hinting at when she talks about the need to listen to each other in the increasingly polarized world.

What I do not agree with is the author's simplified presentation of media literacy education. Not all media literacy educators talk about fake news as the key problem. Understanding what sources to trust is important in media literacy education, but that's not the end of it. I, for one, certainly don't teach my students that we must simply find experts and trust them. My main issue with this piece, thus, is the way danah boyd describes media literacy education, ignoring the complexity of approaches that exist in the field. 

Critiques of the piece have pointed out correctly that danah boyd paradoxically engages in polarization as she is describing its problems. In the best tradition of marketable media texts, the title is designed to attract media literacy community's attention and raise a lot of eyebrows.

At the same time, I think we should resist the temptation to engage in further polarization by focusing overwhelmingly on the essay's flaws. The author does make many important points, although the wording that conflates media literacy education is general with the news literacy is unfortunate. However, nuance can be added without dramatically altering the piece. 

I believe that we should use danah boyd's essay as a starting point for important conversations about the current state and the future of media literacy. What are some effective ways to go beyond focusing on fake news in the classroom? What techniques do you use in order not to fall back on the dichotomy of "good" vs. "bad" media texts and representations? How can we complicate our discussions about the outcome of the 2016 election without reverting to the good old media effects paradigm? Add your questions, and let's talk!


0 Comments

On the importance of empathy in the post-election America

11/27/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Since the election night, the United States has welled up with anger and blame. Heated debates about the future of the country have promptly spilled out from social networks into the streets. In the time of divisiveness, we should be able to listen to each other. Yet some find it hard to muster empathy for those whose votes propelled Trump for presidency, while others either do not see any ground for fear or contribute to it with their actions. 

If you are against Trump, you might be asking: “How could we miss that our country is filled with racist, homophobic, misogynistic bigots?” While you should fight to stop harassment and intimidation, you also need to try to understand Trump supporters’ complex motivations. The country’s inability to listen to them might be what cost Hillary the precious votes. It is possible that this lack of empathy for Trump supporters has propelled him to presidency.

If you are for Trump, do not ignore people who are now afraid for their well-being and even life. Yes, the new president might be able to address your concerns and make your voices heard. But remember that even if you only voted for Trump because of his economic promises, there are others out there who have been emboldened by the outcome of this election to engage in vicious harassment. You can be happy about your victory, but do not gloat, do not mock the other side as they are wiping their tears in shock and disbelief.

I can hear anti-Trump activists say: “But have you seen videos of Trump rallies? Have you read about swastikas painted on walls, or school children chanting songs about the Wall to their Hispanic classmates?” Only a certain kind of people goes to rallies. They are not representative of all Trump supporters. And although your Facebook news feed seems to be filled with examples of post-election atrocities, Trump supporters are not all vicious bullies whose only pleasure is to undermine principles of a liberal society. 

I can hear the pro-Trump part of the population retort: “But they call us deplorables! Our president-elect is not perfect, but his promises made us hope that our needs will be finally addressed. After all, Clinton is not perfect as well but you ignored her flaws and voted for her anyway.” Unfortunately, media stories draw the nation’ attention to bizarre acts of harassment instead of showing Trump supporters as ordinary people with a variety of backgrounds and needs. Intimidation is happening, and people are legitimately afraid. If you are against violence, do not take this fear personally – do something to alleviate it. 

Exercising empathy sounds good in theory but it is easier said than done. Two days after the election I held in my arms a sobbing friend who had been harassed by a self-proclaimed anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ, racist Trump supporter on a weekly basis. A day after that I myself cried in desperation when I discovered that a person who is dear to my heart refused to understand my frustration with the election results. Every day since the election, there are moments when I want to shout in anger, to find someone to blame. Yet I am trying to fight these feelings, because I want to believe that many people on the other side of the divide have the same basic values as me.

Exercising empathy does not mean not fighting back. We should oppose violence against minorities, disrespect towards women’s rights, and ignorance about the climate change. We should press the president-elect to condemn any violent acts done in his name. Yet we need to form alliances across the divide and not only along its lines. People on the other side are not all cry-babies, idiots or cruel bigots. They have their unique stories and reasons for their choice.

Being able to empathize with those whose opinions differ from ours might have never felt so difficult. It is hard to find a balance between listening to potential allies and protecting ourselves from those who insist on staying enemies. Doing it every day is emotionally draining, confusing, and frustrating. But we should remember that violence only breeds violence, and if we hate instead of trying to love, we will only get hate in return. 
0 Comments

Video games for change

7/31/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​If you want to help your friends, students or children discuss LGBTQ experiences, why not use a video game for that? Some video games have been described as having problematic representations of gender and sexuality. As more and more people are becoming not only consumers, but also producers of video games, we suddenly have indie games that tell stories from the LGBTQ point of view. Many of these games are free and available online. Here I am going to talk about three games that seem particularly suitable for helping people around you better understand what it means to be LGBTQ: Dys4ia, Lim and To Kill a Black Swan.​

Dys4ia is an autobiographical non-game created by Anna Anthropy aka Auntie Pixelante. In this game, the player controls a character undergoing hormone replacement therapy and transitioning from sex assigned at birth. "The game consists of several chapters, and each of them employs low-level systems of interactions (controls, collisions, movements in space, micro-challenges and so on) to express a range of visceral states like frustration, stress, humiliation or relief."

According to Patrick Gann, Dys4ia can help non-transgender people empathize with those who feel uncomfortable with the sex assigned to them at birth. Yang argues that the power of this game lies in the player’s very lack of real influence over the eventual outcome: “It’s taking its turn in the larger dialogue outside of the game, saying, ‘No, now YOU listen to ME for once.’ ”

​Although Lim does not explicitly tell a story of LGBTQ experiences, this is one of the possible interpretations of this game. Lim is about the external violence that one experiences standing out, and an internal self-violence of blending in. The game is very simple. "Players navigate a maze as a multi-colored square, encountering brown and dark blue blocks throughout the series of rooms. The blocks react violently to the player’s presence in the space, shaking erratically and seeking out the player to collide with him/her. As they push the player’s block around, there is often the possibility of being shunted outside of the maze completely, becoming isolated from the experience of the game and being forced to navigate the maze from the outside."

The game also offers an option to blend in, which, as the player soon discovers, comes with a price. There is no graphic violence, but sound and visual effects that the player encounters will make her physically uncomfortable. The game allows the player to get a taste of intense discomfort that people marginalized because of their difference feel. Lim and Dys4ria were praised by a famous media scholar Henry Jenkins for their effectiveness and originality.

Finally, there is To Kill a Black Swan, "a short murder mystery visual novel about a detective, a yoga course attendant, a grieving wife, an obsessed cleaner, a 'bro', and a bitchy friend." But I won’t tell you more about it – it is a mystery after all! 
These three games are, of course, not a magic bullet, and I am not claiming that by playing them one can suddenly understand LGBTQ experiences, or cured from homo/transphobia. You should not simply tell a person to play them and hope that the games will be self-explanatory. However, they can certainly be a nice way to start (or continue) this very important conversation.

This piece was previously posted by www.cultnoise.com
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

    Categories

    All
    Awareness
    Beauty
    Binary
    Book
    Boxes
    Bullying
    Change
    Choices
    Class
    Crime
    Digital Literacy
    Diversity
    Education
    Empathy
    Femininity
    Feminism
    Gender
    Hegemony
    Hurt
    Language
    LGBTQ
    Love
    Media
    Media Literacy
    Privilege
    Racism
    Rape
    Russia
    Sexism
    Sexuality
    Sexual Violence
    Style
    Teaching
    Violence

    RSS Feed