Monthly Archives: October 2011

Site of struggle

  By laurelfelt | October 17, 2011 - 9:38 pm | ,
Leave a comment

How can any contemporary woman (especially one with brains and a lamentably slow metabolism) not be struck by the following passage from Susan Bordo’s Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body (courtesy of COMM 395: Gender, Media & Communication)?

“…women, feminists included, are starving themselves to death in our culture.

This is not to deny the benefits of diet, exercise, and other forms of body management. Rather, I view our bodies as a site of struggle, resistance to gender domination, not in the service of docility and gender normalization. This work requires, I believe, a determinedly skeptical attitude toward the routes of seeming liberation and pleasure offered by our culture. It also demands an awareness of the often contradictory relations between image and practice, between rhetoric and reality. Popular representations, as we have seen, may forcefully employ the rhetoric and symbolism of empowerment, personal freedom, “having it all.” Yet female bodies, pursuing these ideals, may find themselves as distracted, depressed, and physically ill as female bodies in the nineteenth century were made when pursuing a feminine ideal of dependency, domesticity, and delicacy. The recognition and analysis of such contradictions, and of all the other collusions, subversions, and enticements through which culture enjoins the aid of our bodies in the reproduction of gender, require that we restore a concern for female praxis to its formerly central place in feminist politics” (Bordo, 1993, pp. 183-184).

Bartky (1998) enumerates these practices: “…those that aim to produce a body of a certain size and general configuration; those that bring forth from this body a specific repertoire of gestures, postures, and movements; and those that are directed toward the display of this body as an ornamented surface” (p. 27).

Indeed, and it’s as I’ve known for quite a while: The culture might be serving up toxicity, but we’re also feeding it ourselves… and cooking up new creations at home.

“We.” I just implicated a “we,” Bordo admonished a proactive “we”… which is who? All women? Some shadowy phalanx of feminist scholars and advocates? How do I play a role in that inchoate “we”? Does it begin with the “I”? Or is that too linear and individualistic? Perhaps I can retrain the “I” by participating in the “we” — community, then self…?

Regardless of the player, what’s the game? What is anyone to do? Are we to recognize these contradictions? Rationalize these contradictions? Strive to eliminate these contradictions by modifying practice? modifying ideals?

The simple answer is “Yes.”

I recently came across this Chinese Proverb: “Those who say it cannot be done should get out of the way of those doing it.”

Who’s doing it, and how? Or is this when Gandhi’s words should be applied? ”You must be the change you want to see in the world.”

The simple answer: Yes.

Dating scripts

  By laurelfelt | October 12, 2011 - 10:11 pm | , ,
Leave a comment

Who should pay on a first date? Why?

This question emerged organically, in a conversation with a male friend about our heterosexual dating expectations. I thought it’s always the man who pays on the first date. Period. A girl can offer tip if she’s feeling generous. The weight of this financial burden is alleviated by the inexpensiveness of the encounter — a cup of coffee or an ice cream or appetizers or two drinks max. My male friend thought this was “retrograde,” both in general and in relation to the dating scene he frequented 10 years ago. He doesn’t assume that anyone will pay for him, and he assumes that other adults feel the same — women included.

So I brought the question to Facebook, where brilliant friends (all of whom happen to be female and, because they hail from different parts of my life (PhD, MA, BA, high school, junior high school, elementary school), are mostly strangers to one another) shared their thoughts and built a fascinating dialogue. We discussed chivalry and wooing, the gender wage gap and gender norms, investment and obligation, politesse and evaluation metrics, hetero vs. GLBTQ cultural expectations…

I was hooked. This issue is too rich to abandon, I thought; it is the site for articulating and negotiating values around cultural norms, gender relations, romantic appropriateness, financial responsibility, and more.

So I set up an informal straw poll today and 39 people have weighed in thus far. My colleague Rhea and I might explore this in a more formal fashion later. But until that day comes, here is the initial, anonymous data. Please note, I modified the survey after receiving the first 36 responses by adding demographic questions (gender, sexual orientation, relationship status, age).

Most participants thought that the man should pay (assuming this was a heterosexual encounter), but also added interesting caveats. Here are some key quotes that represent the range (but not the frequency) of responses:

“Always the guy… ALWAYS!”

“It depends.  As a female, I always offer to split.  However, I’m more impressed by a man who declines and pays for the first date.”

“It depends on a range of scenarios, but I’ll just use the simplest ones. If the guy asked the girl out then he should pay. If she asked him out, they will probably go dutch.”

“The person who asked for the date, regardless of gender.”

“Split the bill. It shows both parties respect each other and if the relationship grows it sets the trend that they are both equal partners in it.”

A whole-hearted thank you to all who have participated! And it’s not too late to share your thoughts. The survey is still open!

Abstracts

  By laurelfelt | October 1, 2011 - 2:21 am | , , , ,
Leave a comment

One day. Two abstracts. Pray to the guest editors of Learning, Media, & Technology…

SPECIAL ISSUE: Digital Literacy and Informal Learning Environments

Vartabedian, V., Felt, L.J., Literat, I., & Mehta, R. Explore Locally, Excel Digitally: A participatory learning-oriented after-school program for enriching citizenship on- and offline.

KEYWORDS: participatory learning, digital, citizenship, after-school, pedagogy

Following Jenkins and colleagues’ elucidation of participatory culture and new media literacies-enriched education[1], this article argues that facilitating a culture of participatory learning stimulates the development of 21st century social skills and cultural competencies. To support this argument, we examine the components of a new pedagogical framework designed for participatory learning and explore a case study in which this framework was implemented — an after-school program in digital citizenship for Los Angeles public high school students.

A culture of participatory learning (often found in informal learning environments[2]) respects and nurtures: heightened motivation and new forms of engagement through meaningful play and experimentation; learning scenarios relevant to students’ realities and interests; creativity with a variety of media, tools, and practices; a community designed for co-learning; and contexts that are situated within a larger learning eco-system. Such a culture empowers learners to practice new media literacies (NMLs) and social and emotional learning skills (SELs)[3] because it allows for the expression of all voices and multiple ways of knowing.

How one negotiates digital tools and norms impacts citizenship on- and offline. As such, the after-school program “Explore Locally, Excel Digitally” (ELED) used hardware (iPod Touches, desktop computers), software (mobile apps, Twitter, GoogleMaps, Prezi), and team-building activities to investigate ethics, mapping, and their intersections. Students examined the characteristics of their own communities and the nature of their participation within these networks, looking at ELED, their friendship circles, their schools, and the neighborhood surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools. Using ethnographic fieldnotes, video footage, student-generated multimedia content, and baseline and endline survey measures, we found that this pedagogical framework supported a participatory learning culture in which students practiced NMLs and SELs. Importantly, it also facilitated students’ development of self- and collective efficacy.

[1] (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006)

[2] Recent studies have established a relationship between out-of-school spaces and learning outcomes (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse & Feder, 2009), as well as urged schools’ integration of Web 2.0 participation (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010). What facilitates learning in these informal, physical and virtual sites?

[3] (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004)

———————-

SPECIAL ISSUE: City Youth and the Pedagogy of Participatory Media

Felt, L.J. & Rideau, A. Pedagogy for appropriation: How Sunukaddu supports youths’, instructors’, and communities’ development by amplifying voices in Senegal.

KEYWORDS: Dakar, youth, pedagogy, media, voice, sustainability, skills

While the world’s urban population is expected to skyrocket 41% between 1950 and 2050, Senegal’s rate of urbanization has outstripped the average and is projected to ascend even more sharply, growing by 48% over that span[1]. Therefore, as global citizens consider how best to manage youths’ education within the volatile contexts of rapid urbanization, economic uncertainty, public health challenges, and technological shifts, a case study from Senegal can offer potentially useful insights. This article examines Sunukaddu[2], an instructional program in producing civic-oriented multimedia for Dakar youths.

Non-profit organization Réseau Africain d’Education pour la Santé created Sunukaddu in 2008 to support youths’ creation of digital HIV/AIDS messaging[3]. During the summer of 2010, staff redesigned Sunukaddu to facilitate its ease of appropriation. First, they established a collaborative curriculum design process that boosted instructors’ teamwork and ownership. Second, they increased participants’ hands-on exploration and access to local role models. Third, they adopted smartphones and encouraged sharing content online. Fourth, they addressed participants’ communicative capacities by harnessing new media literacies[4] and social and emotional learning skills[5].

Analysis of ethnographic photographs, participant-generated multimedia content, baseline and endline survey measures, participant focus groups, and instructor interviews suggests that Sunukaddu participation supported instructors’ professional development and facilitated youths’ holistic growth. This article argues that Sunukaddu’s design explains its success. Asking instructors and participants to personalize content and raise their voices[6] enriches the learning experience and helps to bridge the “second digital divide”[7] or the “participation gap”[8].  Nurturing fundamental skills[9] prepares individuals for productive negotiation of varied contexts. Finally, leaving open-ended specific activities and technology requirements respects the unpredictability and/or modesty of funding streams as well as the swiftness of social and/or technological change. Thus, Sunukaddu’s adaptable format should ensure its long-term viability — both an important ethical consideration and key development imperative.

[1](WORLD: 1950: 29% urban, 2050: 70% urban; SENEGAL: 1950: 17% urban, 2050: 65% urban; (United Nations Population Division, 2009)

[2](“Our Voice” in the indigenous language of Wolof)

[3](For a review, see Massey, Morawski, Glik, & Rideau, 2009; also Massey, Glik, Prelip, & Rideau, 2011; also Felt & Rideau, in press)

[4](Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006)

[5](Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004)

[6]via writing curriculum and producing documentaries, graphic novels, posters, songs, news reports, etc

[7](Somekh, 2007)

[8]which Jenkins et al (2006) define as “the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow” (p. 3)

[9]e.g., NMLs and SELs