MLK Day reflection
I wanted to offer a reaction to another Michael Wesch video, a slightly less popular one than the "The Machine is Us/ing Us" (4 millions views) <http://youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&feature=related>, but one that nonetheless has garnered a fair amount of critical attention and particularly classroom attention (1 million views). His video is called "A Vision of Students Today." <http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o> My roughly tagged response: (Re)Visions of Students Today ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6WUy29fAA) In his "Students" video, Wesch presents the collaboration of 200 of his students on a Google Document, a subsequent survey (in that Doc), and a video. This video features some of the same sexy footage of software with dazzling tech-enabled collaboration. Wesch may be the Annie Liebovitz of Screen Capture. (or Martin Munkacsi?) Key to this video is a subversion of expectations about student habits as well as what we might mean by "classroom technology," since his supertitles evoke the development of (non-electronic) blackboards and his students hold up pieces of notebook paper as display technologies. The video is a marked contrast to his "Web 2.0" video, particularly in tone and an sense of ambivalence. On the other hand, this video includes another subject left out of his Wesch 2.0 video, people. The "students today" are represented by the non-plussed (or low affect) students in his class, holding placards of observations from the survey. Their statistics reveal information about their use of technology, which is a focus of the course's "digital ethnography" I'm assuming. The dour suggest to me a sense of resistance -- certainly not the "ain't this cool we're making a video" face I'd expect. More like a: "hey, don't think you know how I use the internet or my traditional educational technologies" look. [Actually, many of the comments I read in the YouTube threads seemed to focus their hostility on the students themselves, particularly as representative of an apathetic or spoiled American middle class] When watching this video about "Students Today," which features white student after white student, I can't help but wonder why the students don't comment on race. On the one hand, the video offers just "a vision" as in one vision of students. However, I read Wesch's title as having broader implications, bordering on universalism. As in "Come see what typical students look like today" or at least what a representative sample looks like today. Even if his video doesn't claim to be representative, the fact that the video about student use of technology does not mention what to many of us might be so apparent is indicative of certain trends in discussions of Web 2.0, trends I've recently been discussing with Elizabeth Losh of UC Irvine among others: the trend to create a vision of some imaginary Web 2.0student, one that does not take into consideration differences in background or access. What do we risk when we leave out race or even socio-economic class? I think some on this listserv are answering this question with their research. It's just something I'm thinking about this MLK Day. More on this discussion here: http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2008/01/20/a-revision-of-students-... Wesch has also printed some responses and further discussions of his video here: http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=124#more-124 Best, Mark Marino -- Writing Program University of Southern California http://WriterResponseTheory.org http://CriticalCodeStudies.com
Mark, Some excellent and extremely relevant questions you've raised here. See my embedded responses below. Mark Marino wrote:
[message truncated for brevity's sake]
When watching this video about "Students Today," which features white student after white student, I can't help but wonder why the students don't comment on race.
Before I start, you may want to freeze-frame at 03:22 and look toward the bottom—the sign the girl is holding appears to read "Ethnic Conflict." But journalists usually use that particular phrasing to refer to the sort of unrest that happens in "other" (non-Western) settings, so you may be on to something yet . . . anyway, that said . . . In my experience as both a student and an instructor, race isn't something most white students are comfortable discussing in the classroom. Relevant research ("Teaching about Inequality: Student Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage" by Nancy Davis, 1992 is the first thing that comes to mind) suggests a pervasive colorblindness among American college students that has proven remarkably resilient to pedagogical penetration. Race may not be the first concept that comes to mind in discussing new media, and the sense that the "economic" digital divide is rapidly closing in most western nations may further buttress the (erroneous) view that the web renders race irrelevant. Another factor may be the particular school this video came from. According to the latest US Census figures, Kansas is 90% white. Without knowing its precise ethnic distribution, the state's lack of diversity may go some ways toward explaining the absence of race from students' mental agendas.
On the one hand, the video offers just "a vision" as in one vision of students. However, I read Wesch's title as having broader implications, bordering on universalism. As in "Come see what typical students look like today" or at least what a representative sample looks like today.
Even if his video doesn't claim to be representative, the fact that the video about student use of technology does not mention what to many of us might be so apparent is indicative of certain trends in discussions of Web 2.0, trends I've recently been discussing with Elizabeth Losh of UC Irvine among others: the trend to create a vision of some imaginary Web 2.0student, one that does not take into consideration differences in background or access.
If there was an "imaginary," "exemplary," or "quintessential" Web 2.0 student, an Everystudent of the future, what race/gender/sexual orientation would he/she be? I'd be surprised if no one out there has researched what online discussants tend to assume about their invisible interlocutors' real-life demographic characteristics. We may well imagine that most of the newsgroups/forums/comment areas we frequent look a lot like Wesch's classroom, at least ethnically speaking. In that scenario, inconvenient disparities in privilege and opportunity could be assumed away to ease the pursuit of less dissonant discussion topics.
What do we risk when we leave out race or even socio-economic class? I think some on this listserv are answering this question with their research.
I too would be interested in relevant research in this area. As a member of a racial minority myself, I feel that some new media outlets make me less likely to speak my mind online by bracketing ethnicity and disinhibiting conversation. The instances of casual racism I've encountered in several open forums I have observed closely but informally (e.g. political blog comments, newspaper comments, Youtube) effectively foreclose any substantive contribution I may have been interested in making. Not to jump too far off the deep end of casual social theorizing here, but perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of our society's failure to provide sufficient offline avenues for honest dialogue on race/SES/sexual orientation. Getting back to the original question, in examining whatever social benefits new media are supposed to provide, we should always slow down to ask ourselves: who's speaking and who's lurking? Whose views are represented and whose aren't? What can we do to make representation more equitable, more inviting, and more tolerant? Anyway, thanks again for starting this discussion. I don't think these issues get raised nearly as often as they should. ~DEEN
It's just something I'm thinking about this MLK Day.
More on this discussion here: http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2008/01/20/a-revision-of-students-...
Wesch has also printed some responses and further discussions of his video here: http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=124#more-124
Best, Mark Marino
-- Deen Freelon Master's Student, Communication University of Washington dfreelon@u.washington.edu
Deen, Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I just want to speak to a few of the issues you raise with the hopes of picking up more of them later. Check out this document for the source of some of the video: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfnq2hd6_26cs5w6j If there was an "imaginary," "exemplary," or "quintessential" Web 2.0
student, an Everystudent of the future, what race/gender/sexual orientation would he/she be? I'd be surprised if no one out there has researched what online discussants tend to assume about their invisible interlocutors' real-life demographic characteristics.
Precisely. Screen names obscure some identity characeristics. Profile pictures offer a little more information. But my guess would be similar to yours, that there is an latent segregation occurring and a tendency to imagine the community to be either similar to yourself or similar to the cultural majority. We may well
imagine that most of the newsgroups/forums/comment areas we frequent look a lot like Wesch's classroom, at least ethnically speaking. In that scenario, inconvenient disparities in privilege and opportunity could be assumed away to ease the pursuit of less dissonant discussion topics.
And possibly sometimes that leads to people networking and communicating in ways (and with others) that they wouldn't in person. But judging from your comments below, you are also suggesting that that omission may be to the detriment of the community itself as de/illusion of homogeneity leads to unwelcoming comments. I too would be interested in relevant research in this area. As a member
of a racial minority myself, I feel that some new media outlets make me less likely to speak my mind online by bracketing ethnicity and disinhibiting conversation. The instances of casual racism I've encountered in several open forums I have observed closely but informally (e.g . political blog comments, newspaper comments, Youtube) effectively foreclose any substantive contribution I may have been interested in making. Not to jump too far off the deep end of casual social theorizing here, but perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of our society's failure to provide sufficient offline avenues for honest dialogue on race/SES/sexual orientation.
I would love to see some more writing about these issues, even ethnographic or first-person accounts of the ways these communities put up their cultural gates, if you will. It might help online communities start to think about ways to open themselves up. I think there is also an aspect of intimidation involved and that technological knowledge is one of the tools (though not in the case you relate about yourself). Getting back to the original
question, in examining whatever social benefits new media are supposed to provide, we should always slow down to ask ourselves: who's speaking and who's lurking? Whose views are represented and whose aren't? What can we do to make representation more equitable, more inviting, and more tolerant?
Absolutely, as we should with any discussion, academic or otherwise. I wonder if some technologies make this a bit more apparent. Have you seen the recent readers pictures on some blogs? Under the category: Look who else is reading this blog? But of course, when we such such information, instead of trying to network with our fellow blog-readers (adding them to our Facebook pages), we might ask who's not represented. Thank you, Deen, Mark
Quick update: Recently, Wesch published a post addressing the video I made. See this post: http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=133 After commenting briefly on my video (which he embeds in the post), Wesch posts images from a scene that he had to cut from the video. First he sets up the scene: several students had ideas emerge right on the spot [of the video
recording]. Whenever they had an idea they would write it down on a piece of paper and hold it up for the camera. While we were reflecting on the size of the room and the anonymity this creates among students, one student held up the following sign:
A white (looking) woman holds up a sign that reads, "I am more than just a face." This shot is followed by an African American (looking) woman holding a sign that reads, "There is more to me than just MY RACE!" Wesch explains that this scene
"did not make the final cut - not because it wasn't worth showing - but because it was so important that it overshadowed some of the other issues we were trying to raise."
He also adds,
It was a powerful moment, and the sign itself defies any simple reading.
I agree that it is a powerful moment, although I have conflicting feelings about this YouTube deleted scene. Here is the evidence that at least one of the students was thinking in terms of racial issues (or a critique of racial readings). However, when this critique is raised (literally and figuratively) by one, if not the only one, of the African-American students in the video seems to underscore some of my initial concerns. Somehow I feel that this scene overshadows the video even in its exclusion. Perhaps I am falling into a trap that Wesch was trying to avoid altogether by drawing too much attention to this aspect of the video. Perhaps, on the other hand, the video has a racial component that can't be deleted. Thoughts? Mark On Jan 20, 2008 2:06 PM, Mark Marino <markcmarino@gmail.com> wrote:
Deen,
Thank you for this thoughtful reply.
I just want to speak to a few of the issues you raise with the hopes of picking up more of them later.
Check out this document for the source of some of the video: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfnq2hd6_26cs5w6j
If there was an "imaginary," "exemplary," or "quintessential" Web 2.0
student, an Everystudent of the future, what race/gender/sexual orientation would he/she be? I'd be surprised if no one out there has researched what online discussants tend to assume about their invisible interlocutors' real-life demographic characteristics.
Precisely. Screen names obscure some identity characeristics. Profile pictures offer a little more information. But my guess would be similar to yours, that there is an latent segregation occurring and a tendency to imagine the community to be either similar to yourself or similar to the cultural majority.
We may well
imagine that most of the newsgroups/forums/comment areas we frequent look a lot like Wesch's classroom, at least ethnically speaking. In that scenario, inconvenient disparities in privilege and opportunity could be assumed away to ease the pursuit of less dissonant discussion topics.
And possibly sometimes that leads to people networking and communicating in ways (and with others) that they wouldn't in person. But judging from your comments below, you are also suggesting that that omission may be to the detriment of the community itself as de/illusion of homogeneity leads to unwelcoming comments.
I too would be interested in relevant research in this area. As a member
of a racial minority myself, I feel that some new media outlets make me less likely to speak my mind online by bracketing ethnicity and disinhibiting conversation. The instances of casual racism I've encountered in several open forums I have observed closely but informally ( e.g . political blog comments, newspaper comments, Youtube) effectively foreclose any substantive contribution I may have been interested in making. Not to jump too far off the deep end of casual social theorizing here, but perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of
our society's failure to provide sufficient offline avenues for honest dialogue on race/SES/sexual orientation.
I would love to see some more writing about these issues, even ethnographic or first-person accounts of the ways these communities put up their cultural gates, if you will. It might help online communities start to think about ways to open themselves up. I think there is also an aspect of intimidation involved and that technological knowledge is one of the tools (though not in the case you relate about yourself).
Getting back to the original
question, in examining whatever social benefits new media are supposed to provide, we should always slow down to ask ourselves: who's speaking and who's lurking? Whose views are represented and whose aren't? What can we do to make representation more equitable, more inviting, and more tolerant?
Absolutely, as we should with any discussion, academic or otherwise.
I wonder if some technologies make this a bit more apparent. Have you seen the recent readers pictures on some blogs? Under the category: Look who else is reading this blog? But of course, when we such such information, instead of trying to network with our fellow blog-readers (adding them to our Facebook pages), we might ask who's not represented.
Thank you, Deen, Mark
-- Writing Program University of Southern California http://WriterResponseTheory.org http://CriticalCodeStudies.com
participants (2)
-
Deen Freelon -
Mark Marino