The Power of Naming

I really appreciate Michael Wesch's optimism about new media. As a teacher who believes that learning happens when students and their teachers are provided space to explore what is significant to them, I look forward to his idea that "the new media environment provides new opportunities for us to create a community of learners with our students seeking important and meaningful questions." As I mentioned in my previous post, this is the approach I tried to take with my "Media Busters" unit, using questions and texts the students wanted to explore to drive the content of the class. This emphasis on questions means that "it becomes less important for students to know, memorize, or recall information, and more important for them to be able to find, sort, analyze, share, discuss, critique and create information." Because he frames students as producers rather than consumers, he says that students "need to move from being simply knowledgeable to being knowledge-able."

While I agree with his premise, I worry that his assertion that his anthropology course subjectivities cannot be "taught" will be misinterpreted. He says that, "We can only create environments in which the practices and perspectives are nourished, encouraged, or inspired." This comes in direct conflict with Danah Boyd's ideas about teaching and learning. She would say that his approach of nourishing, encouraging, and inspiring is not quite enough to ensure that digital citizens will have access to and acquire the skills needed to become media literate.

Boyd's observation that "teens may make their own media or share content online, but this does not mean that they inherently have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume" (p. 177) connect with Lisa Delpit's arguments about educating other people's children. Here are Delpit's five aspects of power and some quotes from Boyd that go along with them:

Lisa Delpit says...	Danah Boyd says...	And so...
“1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms” (p. 282).	“From this perspective, teens are ‘digital natives,’ and adults, supposedly less knowledgeable about technology and less capable of developing these skills, are ‘digital immigrants’” (p. 176).	Like Delpit, Boyd recognizes that naming people as “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” is way that people use their power.
“2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a ‘culture of power’” (p. 282).	"In describing youth as natives, both Barlow and Rushkoff frame young people as powerful actors positioned to challenge the status quo. Yet many who use the rhetoric of digital natives position young people either as passive recipients of technological knowledge or as learners who easily pick up the language of technology the way they pick up a linguistic tongue" (p. 178).	Boyd notices that there are codes/rules for media literacy, specifically when she mentions that there is a “language of technology.”
“3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power” (p. 282).	"Worse, by not doing the work necessary to help youth develop broad digital competency, educators and the public end up reproducing digital inequality because more privileged youth often have more opportunities to develop these skills outside the classroom" (p. 180).	When Boyd says that “educators and the public end up reproducing digital inequality” she is acknowledging that media literacy reflects skills that those educators and the public already have.
“4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier” (p. 282).	“When they engage with media— either as consumers or producers—they need to have the skills to ask questions about the construction and dissemination of particular media artifacts. What biases are embedded in the artifact? How did the creator intend for an audience to interpret that artifact, and what are the consequences of that interpretation?” (p. 181).	Here, Boyd explains that adults who call youth digital natives are setting them up to stay in their position. Those adults can help youth  become literate by teaching them to ask certain questions (which she gives two examples of). If students are taught how to ask these questions, they can then become media literate.
“5. Those with power are frequently least aware of - or least willing to acknowledge - its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence” (p. 282).	"Rather than assuming that youth have innate technical skills, parents, educators, and policymakers must collectively work to support those who come from different backgrounds and have different experiences"(p. 180).	Boyd’s use of the word “assumption” shows that the adults in power are not necessarily willing to acknowledge their role in reproducing the inequalities inherent in the digital world, particularly for youth in underprivileged situations.

Ultimately, I agree most strongly with Boyd in that media literacy skills can and MUST be taught. Otherwise those with privileged access (to digital tools and resources) will continue to gain power over those who don't.

Calling it a "digital world" is so appropriate because the interactions and hierarchies that exist in our "real world" have been so easily reproduced online. Critical voices like Boyd's are important to point out that the playing field is not even and that not everyone is starting from the same place. Certain groups have privileges/advantages and those with power must recognize this and use their power to ensure more just outcomes for everyone.