Thursday, March 6, 2008
Transmedia Science!
While preparing for the midterm I came across a section in Convergence Culture chapter 5 about public schools or libraries that have scheduled events or classes in which they had speakers come and play rolls as if they were giving a lecture on some topic of the muggle or wizard world. I cannot believe I missed this connection the first time I read it, however, this time I was quickly reminded of some volunteer work I had done in my high school years. The summer before my senior year I volunteered at a place called Sciport in my hometown Shreveport. Sciport is a science discovery interactive meusem for children. Three storys, huge interactive stages and demostration rooms, large floor areas with hundreds of engaging science - oriented activities that school age children can learn from and also have fun! During the summer they would do day camps, each having a different theme but all closely related to science. I was assigned the Harry Potter camp. We were to wear robes; we got sorted on the first day; we brewed up some very interesting 'potions' which were mainly just very basic science demonstrations that are typically performed in labs with a little extra imaginiative boost; we constructed our own wands; we even played quiddich! I didn't give it much credience at the time because I was not a very big Harry Potter fan (in fact I am still not very fond of the Harry Potter stories in general - sorry), but now looking back through the eyes of Jenkins I can see a perfect example of transmedia, and in this case ever trans-academic storytelling as Harry Potter steps out of the world of literture and into the world of imaginiative science learning!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Can a Man Teach Bronte?
I am currently taking an English class whose main focus is the works and lives of the famed Bronte sisters: Emily, Charlotte, and Ann. Women- all of them. This class is taught by professor Michie, a woman. Roughly 25 students are enrolled, 22 of whom are female. I am one of three males in the class. Here, predominantly women are studying the works and writings of other women. If I decided to continue my study of the three sister (which I can assure you I will not) into Grad school, obtain a post-graduate degree having the Bronte sisters at the center of my studies, would I then be qualified to succeed Michie as professor of this class upon her retirement even though I am a male?
In class we talked about Males teaching courses of feminism or Anglo-Americans teaching courses on African-Americans. Should it work? Does it work? What kind of bias does this create? What kind of bias does it prevent? How about a female teaching a course on feminism where there are male students? Does the bias not flip-flop and take on a different dynamic all together?
This issue pops up most often for me in political conversation. I am outspokenly pro-choice when it comes to the political issue of abortion. Of course this stance elicits passionate opposition from males and females of a different ideological stance. Often times when it is a female that wishes to debate the issue, she will make the point that because I am a man, I shall never know what it is like to become pregnant and therefore should have no right to an opinion on the matter!
Preposterous! Here’s my take: The beauty about being human beings is our ability to transcend our own motions and ideas to express them in a symbolic order. This order (specifically known as language) works to connect humans together and allow a common playing field to express experiences that other humans can liken to their own experiences and therefore come to a generalized agreement about which it is you’re thinking (anger, happiness, sadness, hunger). No, I will never know what it is like to become pregnant (unless biological science makes some seriously huge leaps in the next 80 years), but I can talk to women – pregnant or not- and I can come to an understanding of what it is, and what it come be likened to, and therefore can understand it on common terms. Feminism, African-American studies, and Bronte sisters are no different. Though I may not be a woman and I just happen to be an Anglo-American, this does not work against me but for me. I have an experience that I can share for others to understand and likewise I can find that common understanding of their experiences. People get so hooked on the color of a person’s skin or the reproductive organs a person possesses and most often times forget that we are all persons. It would be unfortunate for such breaks in our understanding to work against the expansion of knowledge to all peoples.
Non-Jewish people must help teach of the Holocaust. Non- African Americans must help teach about slavery. Non-female people must help teach of the historical suppression of women. These things are not injustices forced upon only Jews, Africans, or Women – they are injustices forced up humanity. What do you think?
In class we talked about Males teaching courses of feminism or Anglo-Americans teaching courses on African-Americans. Should it work? Does it work? What kind of bias does this create? What kind of bias does it prevent? How about a female teaching a course on feminism where there are male students? Does the bias not flip-flop and take on a different dynamic all together?
This issue pops up most often for me in political conversation. I am outspokenly pro-choice when it comes to the political issue of abortion. Of course this stance elicits passionate opposition from males and females of a different ideological stance. Often times when it is a female that wishes to debate the issue, she will make the point that because I am a man, I shall never know what it is like to become pregnant and therefore should have no right to an opinion on the matter!
Preposterous! Here’s my take: The beauty about being human beings is our ability to transcend our own motions and ideas to express them in a symbolic order. This order (specifically known as language) works to connect humans together and allow a common playing field to express experiences that other humans can liken to their own experiences and therefore come to a generalized agreement about which it is you’re thinking (anger, happiness, sadness, hunger). No, I will never know what it is like to become pregnant (unless biological science makes some seriously huge leaps in the next 80 years), but I can talk to women – pregnant or not- and I can come to an understanding of what it is, and what it come be likened to, and therefore can understand it on common terms. Feminism, African-American studies, and Bronte sisters are no different. Though I may not be a woman and I just happen to be an Anglo-American, this does not work against me but for me. I have an experience that I can share for others to understand and likewise I can find that common understanding of their experiences. People get so hooked on the color of a person’s skin or the reproductive organs a person possesses and most often times forget that we are all persons. It would be unfortunate for such breaks in our understanding to work against the expansion of knowledge to all peoples.
Non-Jewish people must help teach of the Holocaust. Non- African Americans must help teach about slavery. Non-female people must help teach of the historical suppression of women. These things are not injustices forced upon only Jews, Africans, or Women – they are injustices forced up humanity. What do you think?
In Response to bell hooks
I believe that in this article bell hooks has forgotten to considered many different aspects of what cultural studies is, how it is exercised, and for what purpose it serves. Understandably, there are many attempts at Cultural Studies that often undermine the objectives of the inquiry, leading often times to material that does in fact work to suppress, marginalize, and/or exploit its subjects. This is what anthropological fieldwork (otherwise known as ethnography) attempts to combat. A better understanding of the driving forces behind ethnography would, in my opinion, allow bell hooks to be slightly less oppositional to its practice.
For starters, contemporary anthropological theory has completely rejected the entire idea of ‘race’. Such a thing does not exist and only exists within our cultural classification systems and has no connection to biological differentiation. There is a descent pattern from the first of our species that can be traced along historical and geographical paths, allowing for human adaptations to different climates and environmental pressures (i.e. Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa have darker, tougher skin for sun protection while those humans who migrated north to the shady landscapes of Europe have lighter skin as they had more external protection from the sun). These types of adaptation have no biological determinacy- meaning there is no point in the human DNA record where ‘blacks’ can be officially fissured from ‘whites’ creating a new “race”. This however, does not help much with the matter at hand other than to say from a very basic beginning point, an ethnographer should not even examine his own ‘race’ as opposed to that of her or his subjects and this should be reflected in his or her data. (I say ‘should’ because obviously there are those who do not perform ethnography in what is considered the most ethically upright ways).
Secondly, ethnography has one main focus: the revision, maintenance, and continual compilation of the ethnographic record which is the entire body of work of all ethnographers since the onset of anthropological inquiry. As cultures are studied, their ethnographic data is included in this ethnographic record creating a database of cross-cultural information. From here, ethnologists take this record and perform their services of ethnology: the study of and articulation of cultural patterns, cultural variables, and cross-cultural significance. Here is the heart of ethnographic research. Anthropologists are searching for cultural data that makes us human, makes us like other humans, and will further our understanding and cooperation of every manifestation of human symbolic culture! Bell hooks is correct when she implies that it should be the people of her culture (not her black people but the actual people that make up her cultural background in which she is immersed) that should represent themselves through their own means as a culture. It is not the place of ethnography to attempt to outdo or nullify or replace her culture’s self representation, but rather it is the attempt of ethnography to study, attempt to understand, and classify this cultural representation within the context of an ethnographic record.
Finally, there are black ethnographers. There are white ethnographers. There are ethnographers of an array of diversity. Although it must be conceded that American Anthropology is dominated by white scholars, it is important to understand that the ethical and objective theory behind ethnography works to subvert and extinguish the threats of bias study aiming for the most objective view of humans and their culture around the world. In this manner, I believe that bell hooks would have much less trouble with the practice of ethnography. Let me know if you think I’ve over shot the benefits of ethnographic work.
For starters, contemporary anthropological theory has completely rejected the entire idea of ‘race’. Such a thing does not exist and only exists within our cultural classification systems and has no connection to biological differentiation. There is a descent pattern from the first of our species that can be traced along historical and geographical paths, allowing for human adaptations to different climates and environmental pressures (i.e. Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa have darker, tougher skin for sun protection while those humans who migrated north to the shady landscapes of Europe have lighter skin as they had more external protection from the sun). These types of adaptation have no biological determinacy- meaning there is no point in the human DNA record where ‘blacks’ can be officially fissured from ‘whites’ creating a new “race”. This however, does not help much with the matter at hand other than to say from a very basic beginning point, an ethnographer should not even examine his own ‘race’ as opposed to that of her or his subjects and this should be reflected in his or her data. (I say ‘should’ because obviously there are those who do not perform ethnography in what is considered the most ethically upright ways).
Secondly, ethnography has one main focus: the revision, maintenance, and continual compilation of the ethnographic record which is the entire body of work of all ethnographers since the onset of anthropological inquiry. As cultures are studied, their ethnographic data is included in this ethnographic record creating a database of cross-cultural information. From here, ethnologists take this record and perform their services of ethnology: the study of and articulation of cultural patterns, cultural variables, and cross-cultural significance. Here is the heart of ethnographic research. Anthropologists are searching for cultural data that makes us human, makes us like other humans, and will further our understanding and cooperation of every manifestation of human symbolic culture! Bell hooks is correct when she implies that it should be the people of her culture (not her black people but the actual people that make up her cultural background in which she is immersed) that should represent themselves through their own means as a culture. It is not the place of ethnography to attempt to outdo or nullify or replace her culture’s self representation, but rather it is the attempt of ethnography to study, attempt to understand, and classify this cultural representation within the context of an ethnographic record.
Finally, there are black ethnographers. There are white ethnographers. There are ethnographers of an array of diversity. Although it must be conceded that American Anthropology is dominated by white scholars, it is important to understand that the ethical and objective theory behind ethnography works to subvert and extinguish the threats of bias study aiming for the most objective view of humans and their culture around the world. In this manner, I believe that bell hooks would have much less trouble with the practice of ethnography. Let me know if you think I’ve over shot the benefits of ethnographic work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
