Goodman begins by recounting a story of his son's teacher using corporate logos to teach the class about reading and identifying symbols. He expresses both admiration for the incorporation of literacy skills beyond reading and writing and trepidation that frequently no critical analysis of the pervasiveness of corporate symbols accompanies these kinds of lessons. He advocates critical media literacy, much in the same vein as Freire's ideas about the importance of critical consciousness. Goodman describes his work facilitating youth film workshops, which he believes can especially help marginalized youth learn to mediate the divide between their backgrounds and experiences and hegemonic social practices. He believe that the "all-too-fossilized world of the large urban schools" fails to teach youth, especially "at-risk" youth, about how to function successfully in society.
Goodman also discusses the history of educational models, comparing the earlier "factory" system of micromanagement and rote memorization to the "cooperative" model, which puts less emphasis on obedience and recalling facts and encourages questioning and debate. He also recalls the history of community media projects, notably student films and other projects produced by youth in the 1960s and 70s.
Although the modern American school system purports to utilize the cooperative model of education, encouraging critical thinking and debate, it is interesting to examine how well that model is being implemented in this new era of emphasis on standardized test scores as a measure of success at both the school and individual level. Many parents and students in my high school district were concerned about the phenomenon of "teaching to the test" rather than having in-depth discussions, but the school district insisted that standardized tests had to be the focus of our classes in order for the school to receive federal funding for arts, music, and science classes. It seems to have become a vicious cycle of sorts: students have to sacrifice time that could be used for creative projects or research in order to get the money necessary to do creative projects or research.
As far as Goodman's work with youth film projects, I think he is absolutely correct in his belief that these kinds of workshops can help youth understand themselves and their relationship to the greater society. One excellent example of this type of project is the documentary "A.K.A. Don Bonus." It was produced by filmmaker Spencer Nakasako (with the East Bay Asian Youth Center's youth film program) and a Cambodian American high school student, and presents an engaging and poignant portrait of his difficulties growing up in low income areas in the Bay Area. I would highly recommend that anyone who found Goodman's work even remotely interesting view this film; it beautifully demonstrates not only what these projects do for the youth working on them, but also how they help educate the larger public about the issues that these students face.
Lister, et. al. pp. 72-92
Lister's main topic of dicussion in this section is the differences between McLuhan and Williams' ideas about the nature and effects of media, in particular technology and new media. Lister describes the general academic opinion that McLuhan is "theoretically unstable" yet thought-provoking, while Williams' conception of the relationship between society and media is more sound.
According to McLuhan, new media guarantee profound social and cultural change. This view is opposed by Williams, who resists "technological determinism" and suggests that new media and new technologies do not necessarily result in any kind of change. McLuhan suggests four types of human societies as determined by which media were available at the time, which he labels the "four cultures":
- Primitive oral/aural culture: speaking and listening are the primary media for early human civilization, which results in humans being intimately connected with the happenings of their surrounding environment. People are forced to relate to others and to their environment.
- Culture of literacy: writing is privileged, and is often read by elites to the masses. Visual symbols are also important in relating information because the majority of the population cannot read nor write. Thus, humans must still interact frequently with their surroundings.
- Print culture: McLuhan suggests that with the invention of the printing press, which enables more and more people to learn to read, humans become alienated from sensory perception of the world around them, losing tactile, aural, and oral connections with their environment. As McLuhan explains, "Gutenberg culture is hypnotized by its eye." McLuhan regards the dominance of print culture as a negative effect on society because it is isolating and disconnects readers from interacting with their surrounding environment.
- Electronic culture: McLuhan regards electronic culture as a rebirth of the primitive oral/aural culture, as people again begin to interact with one another and become reconnected to the sensations of their surrounding environment. He envisions the world of electronic culture as a "global village," in which people in disparate locations are connected through the use of technology.
In contrast, Williams insists that media are social processes which are developed to serve social purposes, and that their effects are largely the result of "existing systems of wealth and power." He argues that "what a culture is like does not directly follow from the nature of its media," and emphasizes understanding the societal context of a medium and the ways in which it is used to further the goals and aims of a particular group/groups. As Lister explains, the majority of modern studies on media and new media in particular use Williams as their theoretical base, regarding McLuhan as interesting but flawed.
Although Lister points out that Williams' conception of media is more generally accepted, looking at the amount of space both Lister and this blog devote to McLuhan vs. the amount we devote to Williams suggests to me that it truly pays to be a provocateur. There exists a similar situation in many of the social sciences; for example, while Freud is arguably the most famous and most studied name in psychology/psychiatry, the modern professional and academic consensus seems to be that the majority of his theories are incorrect. Which is ultimately more interesting: being radical, innovative, and thought-provoking, or developing a theoretically plausible model for a particular phenomenon. While I think it's important to understand McLuhan's ideas, even if only to theorize in which ways he is wrong, I think it would also be prudent to devote more space to examining Williams if his ideas truly are regarded as more sound than McLuhan's. As to whom I agree with, my previous post on why I didn't major in linguistics explained how I believe social context and literacy to be intextricably connected; thus, I am inclined to agree with Williams that media are social processes rather than artefacts. I do not believe that media would exist without societies inventing them for a specific purpose (such as the wheel, which I don't believe would have been invented were it not for humanity's need to transport goods more efficiently). The anthropologist in me views technological progression as derived from changes in the way society operates, and not the other way around as McLuhan suggests.
Wong Kar-Wai, Wong Gok Ka Moon (As Tears Go By)I was glad for the opportunity to watch this film again. I'm a huge fan of Wong Kar-Wai's work, and I hadn't seen this film in a few years. Watching it again, I am reminded of why I haven't watched this film numerous times as I have some of his later works. There is just so much going on in this story that, for me, it's difficult to put all the thematic threads together; however, I can see the beginnings of themes that are continued in Wong's later films: the tentative relationship between Ah-Wah and Ah-Ngor seems like the predecessor of the dynamic of In the Mood for Love and 2046, while the theme of destructive loyalty as seen with Ah-Wah and Fly is revisited in Happy Together. For me, As Tears Go By foreshadows greatness that is to come, but does not quite reach that level itself.
As far as the relation to new media and utilizing new technologies, I am finding it difficult to figure out what is technically innovative about this film, as my knowledge of film history is relatively minimal. However, I did notice the prominence of artificial light sources in the film. The lighting from the neon signs and fluorescent indoor fixtures give the gang-related scenes in the film an unnatural feel; they especially serve to make the actors' skin tone look almost sickly, which draws my attention to the way in which brutality and death have become natural to the characters. These scenes are contrasted with the shots of Ah-Ngor and where she lives, which looks very bright and natural. I'm not sure how much of this technique has to do with technology, but it is very different from other Hong Kong gangster movies I've seen which make use of a more film noir style with light and shadow or a more typical action movie style of bright colors and flashes of light. I'm really interested to discuss more about this with folks who have more experience with film techniques and film history. I've taken film studies classes before, but always from that same anthropological perspective where I'm focused more on the content and social context than the technical aspects of production and aesthetics.
3 comments:
It seems you and Michael have similar experiences with Don Bonus (doc). It would be great to discuss this more in the context of today's topic on youth media (and media production). I appreciate the links you are making with previous viewings and readings of texts. One thing this class hopes to also address are aesthetic aspects of production (in addition to the technical and, as you say, social and anthropological). Perhaps even complicate the McLuhan/Williams debate.
I'm glad you brought up AKA Don Bonus, Katie. I watched it for the first time last Spring when I took a class on Asian Americans in Film & Video. When we are talking about Asian American representations, especially male ones, Don Bonus is both a positive and complicated figure. He was a representation of Asian American men that I have never encountered before. His face is familiar, but his story is not — he is a Cambodian refugee living and dealing with poverty, robbery and vandalism in a ghetto in San Francisco. While he is trying to find comfort in his family, he has no father, his mother is often gone with her boyfriend, his older brother/father figure has moved away and “assimilated,” and his other brother has recently been sent to jail due in part to the inefficiency of the government and law enforcement to protect kids like him in schools and on the street. His situation reminded me of some classmates I had in high school, who I’d once heard described as “parachute kids” — those who had been brought or sent to America by their parents but were essentially left without guidance. Needless to say, Don Bonus experiences heavy feelings of loss. I was especially moved by the character Touch and his discussion of “reality” — how the political and military actions of the U.S. brought immigrants here, and the subsequent bitterness of escaping civil war only “to be treated like shit” in America. Even though this argument is an explicit criticism of structural racism, it remains staggering because it isn’t a point of view that gets to be expressed often. Yet despite the number of heavy issues it deals with as a film, AKA Don Bonus is still so appealing because it doesn’t ask for your sympathy or come across as a “social justice” piece. For the most part, it feels like Don Bonus made the movie more for himself and his family than to persuade anyone else for their sympathy. Don Bonus is not someone we decide we should feel sorry for; instead, he is a real person who experiences the day to day highs and lows of immigrant life in America. In the follow up, he describes his experience making the film as a form of self-counseling, something that created a space for him to talk about his problems and his environment, and to express his emotions. In all honesty, I appreciated that analogy so much because I feel like classes like these, offered by CSRE, serve as that kind of space for me.
Your resounding endorsement of Goodman's analysis of the alienating
effects of prevalent pedagogical practices on marginalized youth and
of the redemptive value of community arts initiatives reflects my
reaction to the Goodman article. Would that the incarceration do-
this-or-we-will-hurt-you model of K-12 education could be replaced by
a learner-centered model so that schools could resemble centers of
inquiry and activity rather than prisons. Power to the inmates!
Thanks for the tip on the documentary.
Why do you think the Mcluhan-Williams debate compels people to take
sides? Is there a true ideological divide or can the purportedly
divergent viewpoints be reconciled on some level? Is it worth
considering what about the perceived differences evokes such
partisanship?
Your analysis of As Tears Go By is greatly enhanced by your
familiarity with the works of Wong Kar-Wai. You are able to perceive
a more textured appreciation of thematic elements in the work through
an acquaintance with the auteur than a single viewing of a single
film can afford. Deficiencies in the ins and outs of film aesthetics
are overcome by your ability to observe and articulate the way in
which Wang employs lighting to add visual effect to the narrative.
--Fiona
Post a Comment