Academic Exchange Quarterly Spring
2004: Volume 8, Issue 1
Media
and Theory Through the Writing Process
Dion
Dennis,
Dion Dennis, Ph.D.,
is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal
Justice. He has abiding publication interests in media, crime, politics and
representational formats.
Abstract
Fostering critical and literate habits of thought
requires that teachers move beyond using learning strategies that compel
students to “binge and purge” information in the manner of the bulimic. Utilizing concepts from Levi-Strauss, Whorf, Bahktin, Barthes, Kristeva,
and Foucault, and Roland Barthes, this essay
theorizes about a counter-an applied pedagogy, one that
moves students from the position of subjugated vassal and passive knowledge
vessel to an active and engaged intertextual
creator. As an application of theory, a
discussion ofn a media-based
assignment follows on a media-based assignment.
Background
Too many Often, educational
practices emphasize due deference and imitation. From an early age, too many students
are routinely
taught not to love learning for its own sake, but primarily for
externally defined rewards. Students are
exhorted to "make" straight A’s and to
exhibit appropriate masks of docility.
Educational strategies that exclusively stress these qualities are
focused primarily on social control.
While developing a type of tractability, though, teachers, students,
parents, school boards, and even politicians too often frequently mistake
successful
short-term memorization for the ability to create, apply and
learn. By overemphasizing standards
based on rote
recitation and recognition, we have produced a generation of
college students who are may be obedient but
poorly equipped educational consumers. The results of the large-scale National Writing
Test attest to this outcome. .
The results of the test, administered
to a representative sample of 19,000 twelfth-grade students by the
National Center of Education, tells us that twenty-six percent of twelfth-grade
students do not write at a basic level of competency. Fifty-one percent write
at the minimal basic level of competence, while only twenty-four percent are rated as proficient or advanced. Not
surprisingly, twelfth-grade scores in reading, math and science have fallen in
tandem with the decline in writing. The conclusion of educational
professionals is unsurprising: “The twelfth
grade scores are a real indication that students aren’t ready to go to college
and do the work that’s expected of them,” according to Gaston Caperton,
the president of The College Board. Increasingly rare are
creative thinkers who are passionate about thought, and
rigorously self-reflexive. ***Unsubstantiated
generalizations. Provide evidence that
this is a real problem by citing original research or referring to
statistics and/or studies based on a
review of the literature on this topic
. Below, I
investigate the assumptions and strategies that produced this outcome. As a
prescription,Designed to develop the latent writing and
critical skills of students, I offer
up an educational antidote that refocuses exercise that refocuses
the e relationship between
media and critical theory. Although I
work in sociology and criminology, these basic principles apply across the
curriculum.
Theories
and Tactics
Toward reorienting my student’s’
understanding, I begin with the idea that social reality is constituted by
patterns of signification and that a malleable language shapes an equally
malleable and multi-faceted perception of reality. .***awk. I begin by showing students that
language does not function as a clear pane of glass to an objective,
taken-for-granted world. Rather, language shapes how people perceive and react
to their
world. To illustrate, I draw on Benjamin Lee Whorf’s linguistic
analysis of non-Western cultures. In its weaker form, the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis argues that language “shapes” perception. The stronger
form claims that language constitutes the ground for how we perceive “the
real.” For example, Whorf reports that the Inuit of Alaska have
twenty-one words for types
To dissipate
the initial and inevitable cries of bafflement, I often introduce students to
weak and strong versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The weaker form argues that language
"shapes" perception; the stronger form claims that language
constitutes the ground for how we perceive "the real." Linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf offers examples
from non-Western cultures epitomizing this notion. The Inuit of Alaska, Whorf reports, have
twenty-one words for types of snowflakes, as well as other words
for wet and powdery snow and snow with different crystalline patterns. Conversely, Whorf shows that the Hopi
language has no word for denoting a separate self, an "I." In its placeInstead, the Hopi
"self" is part of an ongoing and non-linear temporal event. The Enlightenment idea of "the
individual" who is uniquely endowed with "choice"--a notion
central idea to postmodern capitalist democracies--is alien to Hopi language,
perception, thought, and action (216). Given this kind
of example, Whorf's overall claim is that language does not function as a clear
pane of glass to an objective world.
Rather, language constitutes how people perceive and react to their
world. For PR spin-doctors ***avoid
abbreviations and clichés/jargon in academic writing in favor of greater
precision & clarity, it's a taken-for-granted notion, but the
same is not necessarily true for students.
When the situation dictates, I'll ask them specific questions about how
local discourses shape what is seeable, sayable ***speakable?,
and doable. The idea is to lead students
toward recognizing how discourses enable and constrain. They investigate, in short, how they have
come to know what they know. ***i.e., epistemology?Students, then,
apply this insight to their own language by asking questions about how local
discourses shape what is seeable, speakable and doable. The
process should lead them to ask how they have come to know what they know,
and how discourses simultaneously enable and constrain
thought and behavior. The activity is an unannounced exercise in
epistemological reflexivity.
In S/Z, Roland Barthes
discusses how, when a denotation fixes a dominant or primary meaning, the
result is often ruse or even fraud. Over emphasis
on the denotative is akin to an authoritarian policing of perception. To privilege the denotative, and to exclude
or dismiss the connotative, shuts down creativity and plurality in the name of
imposing a politically orthodox singular meaning. "Denotation," Barthes
says, "is not the first meaning, but pretends to be so [. . .] [producing]
illusion" (9). For critics like Barthes and Mikhail Bahktin, the
continual production of connotative meanings, emerging from the cauldron of the
wider and constantly changing social order, acts as a significant indicator of
human freedom. Connotation, Bahktin says, sensitively reflects and refracts the changes
in social systems. Active signs thus
embody the very real tensions between stability and change, self and other
(19).
Related to the Bahktinian
notion of words as a kind of symbolic and linguistic carnival is Julia Kristeva's notion of intertextuality. For Kristeva,
"any text [that] is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text [that]
is the absorption and transformation of another" (37). In another passage, she describes the concept
as "the transposition of one or more multiple sign systems into
another," with the production of new accretions of meaning (36). In everyday language, the notion of intertextuality means that pre-existing texts
acquire new meanings with [*** “in”? i.e., “in new
contexts, texts acquire new meanings”? clarify] as they are
placed in new and changing contexts. Living texts are neither isolated
"things" nor possessed of static and unchanging meanings.
To illustrate the relevance of linguistic analysis to
my students, I sometimes sing the end to The Flintstones' theme song:
"When you're, with the Flintstones / Have a yabba, dabba, doo
time / A dabba doo time /
We'll have a gay, old time!" (Curtin, Hannah, Barbera)"Words" ***best
to find the name of the lyricist here). Written in the early 1960s, the sentence did
not mean that Fred and Barney were going to the bathhouse or planned to enter
San Francisco's Emperor Norton (and his Court) Contest. Rather, the political identity of the term “gay”
emerged only after the Stonewall Riots in the 1970s combined the previous
denotation of a happy, perky demeanor with the buoyant and chatty affect
attributed to male homosexuals.
Ultimately, this emergent connotative meaning became the denotative,
reflecting the realities of late-twentieth-century identity politics. And so, the Flintstone's promise of a
"gay old time" can now be plausibly bebe
heard as something other than what creators William Hanna and Joseph Barbera intended.
,I like to use popular culture in
teaching the practice of intertextual allusions. Much as I donot only with theBesides this
familiar Flintstone's song, I like to use popular
culture in teaching the practice of intertextual allusions,, I also
demonstrate the reality of intertextuality this timebut also withby using
another
cartoon sitcom family, Matt Groening's
The Simpsons. [*** awk./clarify: Both
are instances of using pop culture in teaching.]. The Simpsons is part
of a long parade of sitcoms detailing the travails of working-class families, a
parade that ranges from the The HoneyMooners
(1950s) to All in the Family (1970s) to the more recent Malcolm in the Middle (1990s). As a cartoon, The Simpsons
shares its format with cartoon families of the 1960s, such as notably theThe
Jetsons. Like
Saturday Night Live, the visual images, rhetorical puns, and plots of The Simpsons satirize contemporary and historical political
figures, music, and film, as well as other television shows. Full appreciation and enjoyment of The Simpsons depend on recognizing how and where the show's
clever citations and recontextualization of previous
cultural texts have occurred. Also, its
durable popularity is attributable to the way viewers can construct their own
novel intertexts, bringing their own histories,
cultures, and sensibilities to interpreting the show. In this larger sense, the human agent in
these practices resembles what Claude Levi-Strauss called the bricoleur--that
is, the self who assembles and reassembles cultural and material elements from
disparate sources. The bricoleur
practices bricolage,
a technique by which people use the icons, objects, and texts around them to
develop and assimilate ideas. It's in
a creative and active process of self-discovery and self-invention (7).
The sweep of the aforementioned theories funnels into
two final concepts. The first is theRoland Barthes’ Barthian [*** This could be very
confusing given that “Barthian” normally refers to
the work and influence of theologian, church leader and anti-Nazi activist Karl
Barth] notion of changing everyday habits of
interpretation from the passive reading of a text (that Barthes’ termed a “readerly”
text) to readerly [reader-oriented?]
toactive and imaginative engagement (that Barthes termed a “writerly”
text). the writerly [writer-oriented?
Avoid jargon / “buzzwords” in favor of precision & clarity for those
readers outside your immediate field] text. The readerly text
is formed by the habit of absent-mindedly embracing the most conventional
narrative interpretations (4-5). It's
often the product of what Walter Benjamin called reception in a state of
distraction (239). We naïvely digest
prefabricated meanings. In contrast, the
writerly text emerges when the receiver of the
communication probes and analyzes the content and format of messages. The meaning that an active reader/viewer
generates is a spontaneous and plural intertextual
product. Finally, my pedagogy embraces
Michel Foucault's notion that theory is continually emerging from and
descending into the details of everyday life (67). Practiced as integral to the art of living,
theory is therefore an expression of freedom.
Below, I explain
David Mamet's Glengarry
Glen Ross
Critical
Pedagogy
Putting these
ideas into practice, as a strategy for teaching an upper-division course on
theory, was a challenge. After some experimentation, I initially used Glengarry
Glen Ross. The film offers an insider’s look at the
world of telephone/real estate boiler rooms. Set in the late 1980s, the film
depicts the activity of selling quasi-worthless real estate. In this world of
white-collar crime, the only real skill the men possess derives from a lifetime
of cold sales calls. In all, the film is well suited for analysis across
a variety of theories, from the conventional to the radical. Also, the
script is available on-line. What follows below is a
discussion of this particular assignment, followed by a discussion of
student responses. However, please note that with some creativity, any number
of films can be adapted into the dialogic format, across a
range of ideas and disciplines. [***transition?
This seems abrupt]
Weaving strands
of theory into a writing assignment for an upper-division course offers both
challenges and rewards. In particular, I
like to use the 1992 film adaptation of David Mamet's play, Glengarry Glen
Ross ("GGR"), which offers an insider’s look at the world
of telephone/real estate boiler rooms.
Set in the late 1980s, the film depicts the activity of selling
quasi-worthless real estate. In this
world of white-collar crime, the only real skill the men possess derives from a
lifetime of cold sales calls. In all,
the film is well- suited for analysis across a variety
of theories, from the conventional to the radical. To boot, GGR’s theoretical
availability is matched by its ubiquity at video rental stories. The script, moreover, is even
available online. Elements of the
assignment are below, followed by a discussion of student responses.
The
Assignment
The assignment [***Another jarring
transition here. Perhaps revise this section to avoid the use of second person pronouns. Suggestion: Describe/summarize the assignment as
one teaching professional to another rather than using the second-person
as in a student syllabus.]
Youris toconsists of
constructing
a dialogue between two or more viewers involved in interpreting Mamet's GGR from different theoretical perspectives. YouTheir dialogue may
be set in almost any setting--a conference, coffee house, home, bar [. . .]
whatever. PleasI ask students
toe use a transcript-like style, clearly
identifying each speaker (and, in some way, the position they represent). Possibilities from traditional sociological
theory usually include anomie/strain theory, differential association, labeling
theory, rational choice, neutralization/drift, and social control. A second category is also included, and
encompasses critical/radical and feminist theories.. They must represent the voice of at least one
theory from each of the two groups (though more than one each is certainly
permitted).
The purpose of the exam has never been not to come to
any "final" or "official" definitions. Rather, it is meant to be an event for
developing student abilities to think about and represent complexity. As their professor, I assess the accuracy of
the positions described, the inventiveness and plausibility of the dialogue,
and the degree of insight into the various positions and possible points of
confluence and divergence of these imaginary speakers. I tell them that they are the "puppet
master" of this discourse. I urge them to be plausible, imaginative,
skilled and attentive to detail.
Student
Responses to the Assignment
Because the assignment emphasizes student construction
of plausible intertexts (between personal experience,
imagination, the film script, and social theories), the exercise steers far
from the denotative in all its "correct answer" mantra. Additionally, because the format requires
active, multiple readings and theoretical voices, a successful response to this
exam means that students must produce a self-constructed "writerly” text.
Finally, Foucault’s notion that theory is something emerging out of and
returning to experience is embedded in the very spirit of the exam.
Student responses vary greatly. While some students embrace the inventiveness
the assignment offers, others find it a source of anxiety and uncertainty. The resulting less-than-successful first attempts
at this task may exhibit one of the following coping strategies: First, I often
receive dual or triadic monologues.
Speaker "A" espouses one theory, sometimes with little or no
reference to applying his or her particular theory to the text of the film or
to the comments of previous or [imagined] subsequent speakers. Speaker "B" reprises this strategy,
and so on. An absence of personal or
ideological interaction, let alone conflict, defines this adaptation.
An alternative response is the "fill it up with
noise" approach. Because I invite
students to invent, in essence, a script within a script (imagined characters
discussing the action in a script, which itself is imaginary, even if informed
by reality), some students create overly elaborate imagined setup scenes and
florid interactions. Such scripts go on
(and on) about the local ambience, the qualities of various alcoholic
beverages, and the nature of imagined relationships, etc. When theory and film do emerge, it is an
evanescent event, like a hummingbird's landing on a flower barren of pollen.
Yet another strategy is what I call the "dumb it
down" approach. If the student
doesn't want to make the effort needed to master the assignment, this strategy
consists of creating characters so "dumb," so stunningly inarticulate
that they do not have the linguistic ability either to evoke the necessary
background scenery nor to describe or apply theories. Although this approach is not so common as
the other less-than-successful approaches, it is always very striking when
superimposed on the literary quality of GGR.
Less frequently, I’ll find myself on the receiving end
of the "I'll tell you right now all about the heroic and tragic struggles
of my life" approach. Usually, this
takes the form of a tortured personal confessional. Desperately, students misapply the theories
to the most intimate details of their lives.
These students exhibit the greatest angst and often are very candid
about how the assignment raises their fear of failure. That said, the energy level triggered by the
assignment may drive these students through their distraction to marked overall
progress.
These are understandable responses to an assignment
that destabilizes both the standard pedagogical format (with student as vessel)
and the associated power relations (with student as vassal). Sometimes in shock, frequently in self-doubt,
students find the assignment bridges the passive and active, the consumer and
the producer, thus exposing the false dichotomy between experience and
practice. Occasionally, the assignment
becomes a catalyst for individuals to experience their own micro-Copernican Revolution.
They begin to realize how ethnocentric their understanding had been.
In class, I discuss the problems associated with these
approaches. Sometimes, I offer students
a chance to re-write the assignment. In
all cases, the weight of the first assignment is less than subsequent assignments
in this format. Generally, students
struggle with this format, but what began as a grudgingly undertaken task of
actively interpreting both film and theory ends with a transformation of
perception.
In fashioning and using this assignment, I face two
issues with each group of students I teach: What does my students' resistance
to an active use of theory represent? How has such docile and literalist
thought and behavior been produced? In
response, the dialogic format of the assignment deliberately inverts the
standard choreography of teaching and learning.
Indeed, standard notions of teaching/learning social theory function
like an academic version of bulimia.
Students are expected to "binge," obediently taking in
"foreign" ideas and then ritually purging in a frenzy of test- taking. Like the bulimic, they are relieved when the
process is over, the ballast expelled. The mechanical choreography of this
experience is obedience-based. When the
educational experience and process are not inherently rewarding, students
"buy into" the idea that rewards--a good grade, a college diploma, a
good job--come from "playing the game well." They learn obedience, deferred gratification,
yes,
but not the joys of discovery and self-transformation. Neither are they well- equipped
for negotiating the ambiguities of a rapidly changing social world. Writing in a dialogic format about theories
they can observe in a product of their culture (the movie) helps students
recognize and move beyond these common pitfalls of their education.
Films like Glengarry Glen Ross offer rich sources for
constructing theoretical intertexts. To perform well, students are compelled to
explore where and how to recognize, apply, and advocate multiple theories in
creating their interpretations of the script.
They must construct multiple, unique and interactive voices. This is not a process amenable to rote
memorization and subsequent forgetting.
Rather, it is a process intended to produce insight even as it develops
the ability to think strategically.
Theory becomes practice, and practice become theory. Somewhere, I hope, Michel Foucault is
smiling. When this and other assignments
do their work, the result can be a new understanding of the relationships among
representation, perception, thought, and social reality. After the course is over, many students tell
me that these dialogic assignments have permanently altered their perception of
media products and of the relevance of theory. And, although it represents only one set of
tactics, the dialogic essay is among the most successful. Moving from the "readerly"
to the "writerly" in the course of one's
life is a basic act of empowerment. In
that light, somewhere, I hope, Roland Barthes is also
smiling.
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. (1974). S/Z: An Essay. Trans. Richard Miller.
Benjamin, Walter. (1968). "The Work of Art in the
Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, 217-51.
Curtin, Hoyt,
Hanna, William, Barbera, Joseph. (1960). Meet the Flintstones.
Foucault, Michel. (1988) "The Ethic of Care for
the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview." The
Final Foucault.
Mamet, David. (1992) Glengarry Glen Ross.
Henry, Matthew. (1994). “The Triumph of Popular Culture:
Situation Comedy, Postmodernism and The Simpsons.” Originally published in Studies in Popular Culture 17.
<http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/annex/comm/english/mah8420/TriumphofPopCulture.htm>.
Kristeva, Julia. (1986)
"Word, Dialogue and Novel." The
Kristeva Reader, 34-62.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. (1966). The Savage Mind.
MSNBC.com. (2003)
“Students
Writing Could be Better.”
<http://www.msnbc.com/news/937565.asp?0dm=C29CN&cp1=1>
Volosinov, V. N. (Mikhail Bakhtin). (1986). "The Study of Ideologies and
Philosophy of Language." Marxism and
the Philosophy of Language. .
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1956) "Linguistic Factors
in the Terminology of Hopi Architecture."
Language, Thought and Reality:
Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, 199-206.