While reading the Buckingham text, I was reminded of something that I have seen in the workplace is the evolving choices regarding identity. I work, and have worked, primarily with college age employees who are, for all intensive purposes, developing their identities. Most, recently leaving home and high school, find themselves seeking a newer sense of identity – a way to define who they are. As we discussed and read regarding media literacy education in Jenkins’ article, part of what media has done in its more participatory culture is the increased opportunity for self-expression. This expression, without hesitation, allows the individual to explore his or her internal roots and to find justification or reinvention based on collaborative efforts from readership, online communities, etc. What this means to me is that our current medias help in the evolution of the individual identity as a part of culture and multiple cultures. But they, by no means, are the determinant factor but merely a contributing factor where the individual then makes a choice to act within the context given and thus they are making choices in their media culture that lead them to evolving a sense of personal identity whereas young adults previously developed their identity merely through their choices of major or work; the outward world defined the individual. Media creates a new domain with which to exercise preferences and growth opportunities – thus influencing identity.
I have seen the formation of belief systems almost entirely based on the work that the individual does and those who surround them have a profound influence on their future business and work experience (despite what their major may be). But, more often than not, I have seen the individual categorizing their lives with work, home life, school, and another dimension that has given them some sense of liberation: the media. These individual belief systems, from a media education standpoint, are formed by those we interact with through the media (because media is not only a filmic, television, or literary experience, but an ongoing growing process of participation). The book puts it this way: “identity comes to be seen as a matter of individual choice, rather than birthright or destiny; and in the process, it is argued, individuals have also become more diverse – and to some extent more autonomous – in their uses and interpretations of cultural goods” (pg 16). This is a long way of saying: media has allowed for choices in identity.
The challenge in this context is that wider choices can be made than before but those choices are very much influenced within the communities that are participated in on an intercultural level. “Children are being ‘empowered’ and yet simultaneously denied the opportunity to exercise control” (pg. 22). The boundaries being let loose have created a dichotomy that is hard for individuals to grasp because there is a new vocabulary necessary to handle the new culture that they are involved in, and which is giving them some degree of power but is also pressing an intertextuality and interactivity that takes the individual across “landscapes” of media and increasingly are more connected with merchandising product upon product in a mass communication of consumerism which the individual is not always aware of because they do not have the means or know-how to deal with this paradigm. The individual has a new way of forming identity but that identity is controlled by businesses using media to help form the belief systems that compose the identity without the individual being entirely conscious of these effects. My question is, how do we effectively help children (and young adults) navigate through the consumer culture inherent in today's "trans-media intertextuality"?
2 comments:
I don't know if I have a definitive answer for how we help youth navigate (I could posit some answers related to education methods, etc.), but something that your post made me think of that I wanted to bring up about the Jenkins reading is another difficulty facing media educators: grading. I don't mean this in any sort of trite way: So many of the things that Jenkins describes as being central to a student creating and shaping their identity happen outside of school, and this is not only for technological reasons. Choosing to run for president of "Alphaville" is certainly important, but how do you put a grade on that? How do you make that an assignment? The thing that is both wonderful and dangerous about our media environment is the amount of individual choice within the system, and does making it an assignment fundamentally change that? I know that there is a way to engage with these issues in a meaningful way, but it's definitely challenging.
I really like what you have put together as a response here and the idea of finding your identity rings true to me. In HOAC, the student's are given the leeway to create a documentary film about anything (within school standards) they want. By giving the students the ability to decide so many aspects of the project puts the product in their hands. We also tell them that it is their project. That seems to inspire the students to do good work and make it about something they care about. I bring this up because these students either find an identity or share their identity with other through this project. It is interesting and rewarding to work with a student while their go through a creative process of sharing something meaningful. The balance of specific and general assignments to learn and share seems to bring out an identity.
Post a Comment