Representation in New Media

Tomorrow will mark one of the most challenging and important days of the semester. We are discussing race, gender, values and representation in new media. One of the first reactions that tends to happen during this particular class is that the white men in the room feel personally attacked and silenced by the topic. Often this is because they individualize the concept of racism, instead of moving the problem of racism to a larger macro-level. In the same sense, non-white students can be harmed severely by the conversation, and asked to speak for their race, or experience (which I would never do). This is the symptom of a dominant culture not understanding the experiences of people who are not part of the dominating group.

Racism and sexism are systemic problems which are echoed and reinforced in a multitude of ways. In more concrete terms, the inequalities attached to race are clear in our justice system. According to Mauer & King, "African Americans are incarcerated (5.6) nearly 6 times the rate of whites, and hispanics are incarcerated at (1.6) double that rate" (2007) These numbers are grossly out of proportion with the demographics. Possible causes identified by The Innocence project are eyewitness misidentification, jury makeup, and unjust detective work. The higher rates of incarceration cannot be linked to just one individual instance - but rates of conviction, incarceration, and levels of punishment are systems within systems that continue to reinforce one another.

Mediated representations of race and gender create and sustain stereotypes which can and do have a vital role in how people are percieved and treated. Though the idea of each person being judged on their own merits sounds good - the reality is that there are far to many institutionalized inequalities at play to pin blame on individual actions. The act of doing so is derived from a privileged position - where systemic inequity serves those in power to continue to blame circumstances on individuals as opposed to looking at the systems that serve to disenfranchise and underscore achievement. Inequality manifests itself in many ways and representation reinforces what is acceptable and normal and what is not.

The idea of systemic racism can be more clearly understood and seen when boiled down to the unacknowledged privileges white skin enables. Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" looks to deconstruct the way white privilege reconstitutes and centers itself by making a list of privileges that she is endowed by her skin color. It is by understanding race in this way - as a system of privilege and oppression that it can be more clearly understood - and white guilt (hopefully) avoided.

Selections from McIntosh's list of invisible white privilege:
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race
14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group
22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" cover and have them more or less match my skin.

My own addition: I can walk into any department store and get makeup in my skin tone

Tomorrow we will be discussing the ways race and gender are represented through video games. Gendered stratification means that not only women are portrayed in unequal ways - but the hyper-masculine male is another image that penetrates and centers what it means to be man. Representation victimizes everyone. There are several layers to this.

First, is understanding the argument in regard to colorblind vs. color-conscious ideology. This is directly related to whiteness - white is a color and often by not referring to white as a color, it is centered as normative, and people who are not white - Othered. Second - the idea that gender is problematized only by the way women are represented. Gender is not just about women!

Another layer to this article is the relevance and impact of video game representation vs. other mediated forms and those possible reprocussions. Video games are interactive virtual realities. As such, should we have a more or less heightened response to representation since it enables interaction, in a lot of circumstances - violent/gratuitous interaction? What is the difference between playing games and watching a movie? Who has the privilege to say that "it's just a game" and who gets hurt by these representations? How are systems of subordination and domination naturalized - and ultimately, the biggest question is "WHY ARE WE SO OK WITH THESE REPRESENTATIONS?"

Technology and Democracy

It was interesting watching student's unravel Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics" article the other day. We tend to rest on our own socially constructed versions of reality, creating concrete ideas of what is real and what isn't, and how objective reality works. It isn't often that an idea comes along that challenges our beliefs and makes us reconsider the world around us.

After reading Winner for the first time, my intertwined reality with technology became so much more complicated. By teaching the article, I was able to dive in to the theoretical underpinnings and implications in new and different ways. By far, the most provocative idea that Winner posits is that choosing particular technologies also subordinates our existence to certain types of political organization. He uses the ship example where by choosing to use the ship to fish, transport goods, and for war a heirarchical and authoritarian political structure is necessitated. The ship would not run the way it needs to run if it was operated in a decentralized, egalitarian way. Order and authority are direct political results that are required by adopting the technology of the ship.

I have been trying to pin down technologies that enable egalitarian and democratizing political systems. I suppose it depends on how you understand democracy - I think of it in terms of its roots - one person, one vote and the radical idea that the will of the people governs and can genuinely change systemic inequities. So - what do new technologies do? For example, what political system is inherent to the adoption of the internet and world wide web? I suppose that initially it was designed in a way for egalitarian principles to take hold. Tim Berners Lee chose to keep the web free and did not "register" it as intellectual property to gain a profit. The "freeness" of the internet was intended to make it available to everyone - however: inequities in knowledge, access, and finances have really allowed those who have the means and the will to dominate this medium. So, is this a democratizing medium?

A segment on KSL last night highlighted a USU student who heard about the $30 million budget cuts in Utah public higher education and started a facebook page to organize a rally at the capital and sign petitions. This, to me, seems to be democracy. The will of the people to speak to their government and let the government know what they want. The ability to organize through facebook is one way that it has been used to "level the playing field". This coupled with the reporters belief in the amazing and influential abilities of the internet play into our ideas of how we need to continue to keep up with the technologies that dictate our world. So - these college students were able to organize a rally - they have the knowledge, access and ability to use these systems in ways that empower their specific group. I have to ask, however, what about the hispanic community on the West Side of Salt Lake who does not have the same level of access, knowledge or finance to use these technologies to their advantage?

According to Fox & Livingstone from the Pew Internet and American Life project,

Latinos comprise 14% of the U.S. adult population and about half of this growing group
(56%) goes online. By comparison, 71% of non-Hispanic whites and 60% of non-
Hispanic blacks use the internet. Several socio-economic characteristics that are often
intertwined, such as low levels of education and limited English ability, largely explain
the gap in internet use between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

So, is there equal access to political power if the primary language on the internet is English, if poor neighborhoods don't get the same access and exposure to computers, and if students only get to use these tools at school? Their voice is not as loud, yet their resources are in jeopardy and they are much more needed just to get to the place that the USU students are at.

So, is this a democratizing technology or another way for those who are already in power to sustain power?

The everday-ness of duality

This article spawned my reflection today:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112009/news/nationalnews/this_kids_a_text_maniac_149614.htm

In class today, two things became quite clear to me and addressing them through this blog is my first hope at learning more about how to better manage "connection" in class. Jenkins notes that one of the traits of the new media landscape is the idea that media are "everyday". This is to say that ICT's have become entrenched in our daily interactions, so much so that there are no clear cues or signals as to when to turn it off. They have become an extension of ourselves, and as such challenging to turn off or disengage.

I watched four students today accept and return text messages on their cellular phones. I also witnessed three instant message conversations and became aware of the internet being down for some in class - as students tried furiously to reconnect (to no avail) until the end of class. The idea of dual consciousness (Bugeja) is an astounding reality in everyday interactions. Interpersonal communication is interrupted by ringing, downloads, and simple thinking about what one said to the other in that email, text, or Instant message. It is even more impending when people are distracted by thinking about what message or phone call they might be getting next. Yet, when we are connected - how involved and "present" are we in that communication. Can an instant message be engaged when you are trying to hide your IM from the teacher circling the room? Can we effectively communicate in both realities simultaneously?

I suppose my challenge is in understanding and thinking about how classroom dynamics can, do and will take place when students are pulled in multiple directions by being connected. Have they learned how to be present in both realities and my impression of duality is the result of antiquated ideas of what it means to "pay attention"? It isn't my responsibility to make people learn - however, I do take partial responsibility for the classroom environment. How likely are people to contribute if no one is listening? Or, is this a generational difference and people have grown accustomed to others not listening to them speak?

Are cellular phones and text messages the new media of "passing notes" in class (distracting, yet engaged)? I suppose the difference I see between texting and note passing is that those who passed notes did it with one another in the same class. In a way, this helps form student cohesion. What is the onus for students to meet, get to know each other in class, discuss and debate ideas when they can maintain their relationships and conversations with their already immediate circle?

How is a communal class discussion supposed to take place when student's realities are split between the virtual and the "real"? To complicate this even further - what should my role as the instructor be as far as embracing ICT's in the classroom, when the class is about living the E-Life? There is something emergent about letting minor communications take place during class - it's something that happens in everyday interactions - so why not have it be part of class. My concern is how those minor communications have a long term effect on the classroom dynamic. As an instructor, I am forced to "be present" in class. I have to wonder what would happen if I answered my phone, Instant messaged, or accepted and returned a text message while a student was speaking.

I think I should attempt to find out.....

New ICT's in an "identity crisis"

In class today we discussed the diffusion of innovation theory and ways that media are studied and discussed (risk or opportunity), but I am still ringing my hands about the identity crisis of media - and how new/not new these conversations are in comparison with older media innovations. Through innovation immediacy is increased - but how do we start to think about these "tools" in more socially conscious and viable ways? The first step, I believe, is in acknowledging the social and economic crafting that is behind their ultimate production and dissemination. Requiring technology to have a history in relation to other media, but beyond that media and into more complex ground. Who designs these technologies and for what purpose? Who is consciously and unconsciously left out of the design process? What are the specific and relevant elements that require deeper study?


Technology has always acted as a connector and divider - it is the speed at which those things happen that merely quickens the process. For example, the television was new at one point. First adopted by wealthy and innovative households with only three channels - these channels carried messages and created shared experiences for people within 100 miles. Then, the speed and frequency were able to carry more, and the price of the television decreased - and more people were included in these experiences. The evening news was a media event in and of itself. Pilots knew the news had ended, as they flew over head and watched house lights go out simultaneously. Now, news is at our fingertips and our experiences are based on what we choose to expose ourselves to - not necessarily what is brought to us.

Are we taking part in less shared experiences, or are there more opportunities for shared experiences that just take place at different times? What is considered a shared experience anymore? Is it that we do the same things or we do things together? Who gets to participate in these experiences, and with increasing advances - who doesn't?

Welcome to Living the E-Life

Hello Everyone -

This is an ongoing journal about the E-life class I will be teaching this fall. I will post my questions about the readings, reflections on the course, and important local lectures and current events that are related to the weekly topic. As I have asked students in the course to blog about their own media use and critically think about how their use is related to our course readings, I will do the same. My hope is to learn from students in the same contextual manner that they might learn from me.

My primary interest is in the way that new technologies divide and bring together people and communities and how new media literacy can act as an agent of empowerment.

Critical consumption and responsible production will be the guiding theme of this blog.