Identify the main arguments
The main arguments of Semali’s article are that the advent of new communication technology has created the need for several new branches of critical study (or “literacies”), but this “explosion has outpaced our pedagogy” (Semali, 2001). So to catch up, the many literacies need to be defined (preferably by the authors of each critical study), and then the overlapping “relationships among them and among other literacies now emerging” needs to be examined (Semali, 2001). For Semali, it is not enough to examine, create, and appreciate something like visual literacy. Students must be taught to examine and analyze “the motive of the creator relative to one’s own experience” (Semali, 2001). If this does not happen we risk allowing students to become “passive citizens” (Semali, 2001).
Explain whether or not you agree or disagree with the main arguments?
I agree with Semali, so much so, that I wonder why twelve years after his article, and after the arguments of many more pedagogical thinkers, there has been little change in public school curricula. West Virginia has adopted a set of blanket 21st Century CSOs that may have helped to identify some desired outcomes along these lines, but the subjects that can help most with Media Literacy (English, History, Sociology, Psychology, Journalism, Civics, etc.) have been hindered by everything from copyright laws, to censored internet access, to just flat out discouragement from school boards over showing videos (DVD or internet). Youtube is blocked, Netflix is blocked, social media in general is blocked, and many blogs (news or otherwise) are blocked. Our pedagogy has been “outpaced” (Semali, 2001), but it is difficult to catch up when so many of the avenues to media sources are blocked. Are teachers meant to teach media literacy without media? Or are they expected to violate policy to do it? Personally, I’d like to see a relaxing of these blanket restrictions, and to see a greater spirit of trust in teachers infuse he whole process.
To what extent do you think that media can be held responsible for low self-esteem in women and violence behavior in men?
Media is among the main culprits in producing low self-esteem in women. Young people tend to look for cues on how to present themselves, and so often they choose trends in advertising over suggestions from parents or other nearby role models. The beautiful people in the photos are cool, right? Girls especially, aspire to a certain standard of physical beauty that requires an array of fashion elements (clothes, hair, make up). Many things drive this, but part of it is just proving to other women that she can keep up with our consumer culture by being among the first to invest money in trends. Another part of it is proving to men that they are healthy and willing candidates for a sexual relationship. Cues for how to do both of these come primarily through advertising which is loaded with messages in beauty and sex appeal.
Media does help to reinforce the misconception that violence is a natural part of masculinity, but I do not think it is the main cause of violent behavior. I actually think that local influences (family, neighborhood, and school culture) do much more to help men determine if, when, and how much violence is acceptable. I think this for two reasons: First, violent behavior changes from region to region. Some cities are incredibly violent (Washington D.C. is #1 in the U.S.) while other cities of comparable size are much less violent. If mass media was responsible, violence would be about the same everywhere people have cable TV, cinema, and internet. Second, violent crime in the U.S. has gone down every year since the mid-1990s, and is now as low as it was in the early 1960s. Media, however has become much MUCH more violent. When I was in high school, the criticism of violence in the media was at an all-time high. Television and video games were mostly to blame, however, these were not reinvented to be more family friendly. Nightly viewing now includes The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and a few dozen violent crime dramas. Video games include the Grand Theft Auto series, the Call of Duty series, and several others that are more violent than would have been technologically possible twenty years ago. If there was a direct correlation between media and violent behavior, this generation of young men should be one of the worst in history. However, even with a rise in school shootings, crime statistics seem to show otherwise.
So yes, I believe media is very responsible for low-self esteem in women, but only responsible in part (a small part) for violent behavior in men. Other social factors affect men.
Make connections between the videos and two quotes from the reading.
The two video selections this week, “Tough Guise: Violence, Media, & the Crisis in Masculinity” and “Killing us Soflty” were very insightful and relate to Semali’s article in at least a couple of points. Jean Killbourne points out in her presentation that “everyone in America feels personally exempt from the influence of advertising” (Killbourne, 1999). Perhaps this is because of a lack of media literacy education. As Semali points out, “lack of critical pedagogy in schools creates passive citizens” (2001). Without a doubt, this perceived immunity to advertising could be just a lack of critical analysis skills. Similarly, the messages of toughness identified by Jackson Katz are just another aspect of media that students must be trained to question. “The time has arrived to broaden the canons of traditional education and the curriculum to include the expanding technologies of television, film, video, and computers,” Semali wrote in 2001. However, now that it’s 2013 and media portrayal of beauty and violence has not improved, broadening the canons may be long overdue.
References
Katz, J. Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3exzMPT4nGI
Killbourne, J. Killing Us Softly - Woman are used like pieces of meat. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KVmcmePRqSk
Semali, L. (2001, November). Defining new literacies in curricular practice. Reading Online, 5(4). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/semali1/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment