Notes on:
Buckingham, D. (1990) 'Media Education:
From Pedagogy to Practice'. In Buckingham,
D (Ed) Watching Media Learning. Making
sense of media education.
Basingstoke: Falmer
Dave Harris
One common approach involves taking theoretical
ideas and trying to operationalize them, but this
enshrines existing knowledge, and minimizes the
effect of strategies [involved in theoretical
knowledge? Involved in selecting particular
theoretical ideas? My notes, referring to
media education as a moral crusade, suggest the
latter. These days, I would probably think
of pedagogic or assessment strategies as being
important as well].
Media education has been overshadowed by the
requirements of higher education, leaving teachers
as mere implementers. This is one of the
affects of Screen Theory. This
developed a privileged theory, following
Althusser, which saw the film as an ideological
state apparatus. Its pessimism was
enhanced by a certain psychoanalytic pessimism
connected to the notion of the subject. A
kind of avant-garde rejection of convention seemed
to be the only alternative stance. Screen
theory became increasingly authoritarian in the
1970s and attempted to police the correct line,
leading to an elitist pedagogy.
Teachers were seen as needing to become part of a
theoretical vanguard aiming to attack the
pleasures of the audience, and in this, they came
to resemble elite critics like Leavis.
Screen Education faced particular dilemmas,
since the education system is also an ISA,
[leading to the sort of paradox mentioned by Alvarado].
Teachers were assumed to have a role as 'socialist
intellectuals' in the struggle [a common delusion
in gramscian media educators as well, both good
examples of the kind of elitist emancipatory
education condemned by Rancière].
As a result of these theoretical and political
struggles, there is a considerable absence of
discussion of practice, in favour of a strong
pedagogic line, directed as much against the
liberal left as against right [again picked up by Alvarado in his
critique of progressive methods]. This
legacy remains, and can be seen in the development
of a number of basic readers with summaries of
potted concepts [including the BFI one?
Cook?]. If anything, discussions about
pedagogical practice were drawn from progressive
English teaching, where there were far more
discussions and debates. We can still see
contradictions, though, for example when Masterman
still describes media in terms of dominant
ideology, requiring 'radical information' and
demystification, but he also advocates 'democratic
teaching methods'. These are still based on
the assumption that the children will eventually
see the errors of their ways [which reminded me of
discussions of the stage management of discovery
learning]. His approach still minimizes
different readings and the struggle for meaning.
The problems are especially acute in areas like
'race'. Examples of depictions of people
from ethnic minorities are often seen as self
evidently racist. Students are supposed to
reach this conclusion and 'explore the
contradictory pleasures'. Similar
simplifications are found in the treatment of
teenage magazines, which are 'sexist', and not
even pleasurable. Here we see the teacher
playing the traditional role of 'moral guardian'.
There has been a debate, still at a theoretical
level, like the one
between Alvarado and Masterman. There is
still a little examination of what actually
happens in classrooms though, apparently [one
example seems to be won by Williamson in Screen
Education 40]. Williamson says that
pupils can be instrumental, for example or agree
that the images are sexist while still thinking
that girls are stupid for believing them
(9). The notion of ideology for them is
something abstract and academic, relating to what
other people think. There is also some
evidence of working class resistance to the
radical line, and this can, ironically, be seen as
a form of class struggle between working class
pupils and middle class teachers.
Newer work emphasizes the diversity of the media,
and the frailty of Media Industries [apparently,
Fiske is typical here]. There is also a new
emphasis on the media audience, sometimes from an
excessive populism, detectable in work like
Morley, Hobson, or Ang on how meanings are
produced. Here, kids are no longer cultural
dopes, and even some members of the left were able
to see some popular television as progressive [as
I recall, MacCabe uses this term in discussing
some socialist realist pieces such as the
legendary trotskyite soap opera Days of Hope].
Media education is certainly growing quickly in
schools, especially since the GCSE. Even the
more vocational curricula run by the [defunct
Manpower Services Commission] MSC, including [the
now abandoned] TVEI and Btec included some work on
media. There is still no close link between
GCESs and undergraduate courses or a career
structure. The GCSE is still based on
academic theories of media, but it is now much
more diverse, and practical work is more
important—this has been condemned by Screen and
neglected by the likes of Masterman [surely not in
the later editions?]. Generally, there is a
move to attempt to be active and student centred,
and to adopt the sort of pedagogy found in primary
schools.
More education studies
|
|