Listen Up In-Class Surfing!

These are my favorite Listen Up videos!

Resurrection - this teen falls down the stairs, dies, then comes back to life and kills people! (This is the one we were freaking out about in class LOL)

Lil Thoughts - A homemade anime; a day-in-the-life video of a lesbian teen.

Queens of NY (Jen found this one!) - I didn't get to see it all, but it seems cool. Drag Queen scene of New Your City.

I Am Not A Boy (Jen Found this one too!) - Transgendered youth talking about her lifestyle.

(Sometimes you need to click the link more than once to get a good hit. Not sure why... but if you get a "page cannot be displayed message, then just click it again.)

Are there any other websites that do similar work to that of Listen Up? where can teenagers "talk back?"

I really don't think there are many outlets for expression for teens that aren't corrupted by the dominant discourse. Like I had said in class, media created by teens can exist all over the internet, but you really have to fish for it. Even then, when you do find it like Dr. Bogad said, much of it only serves to validate and uphold the prevailing ideology of teen as hellion. Listen Up provides a nice little space for teens to be themselves - creative, thoughtful, and responsible human beings and artists! Art is such a big part of this! Art is identity, and a new identity is just what teens need!

The whole topic about the infrastructure of the site, to me, is a moot point. I think we should celebrate the whole purpose of Listen Up, and give it some press! If anything, the sophistication of the site raises teens up a bit? Anyway, go Listen Up! It is a great idea! :)

More Thoughts on the Social Networking Revolution

I realized after my YouTube rant, that I had connected the YouTube readings to past texts, but not to the current readings. Let me discuss what I thought I thought of them:

Power's article about the YouTube course was really interesting! The fact that there is a college course specifically about YouTube and its role in our culture nowadays is really fascinating - and gutsy! A big kudos to the instructor, Alexandra Juhasz, for having the courage to pioneer this. Interestingly enough, Jusasz isn't that happy with YouTube in the way it is set up and its content as of late. She argues, and this is something I have often said, that YouTube is kind of clunky. It's not easy to navigate, and when you want to know more about referencing or motivations for creation, it's often difficult to do so. People leave comments, but it's usually flames (people spamming comments because they do not agree with the message) or something like "Good job" which is a cop-out. Regardless, I think a class about YouTube is both bold and vital because it is so entwined in our daily lives! A few years ago, Prensky would say that it was a site for digital natives, but at this point, few people haven't heard of this video sharing phenomenon! As I said in my last post, it's changing everything!

Danah Boyd and Henry Jenkins' articles on MySpace argues that MySpace, despite all of the negative press around it, was not destined to perpetuate what Hine called the"teenage mystique." Instead, they maintain it is merely a way for teens to have their own niche in a world governed by adults and, more importantly, a place to forge a social identity. They both argue that social networking places like MySpace and Facebook are just places for teens to "hang out" and interact with one another. They thrive on comments and discourse. The authors also caution that the attacks and hype about the predation of teens on these sites is largely unfounded. The truth is, predators lurk wherever teens congregate - whether it be in the real world or the virtual world. Boyd and Jenkins both feel that these sites are necessary as an outlet for expression and communication in a world where their identity is constantly being called into question.

My thoughts and opinions on YouTube and the social networking sites revolves around one key issue: privacy. While I agree with Boyd and Jenkins that MySpace and YouTube are important, and that YouTube is a revolutionary, they can also be dangerous. Maybe it's just the digital immigrant in me, but I don't think so this time. The internet not only facilitates communication between teenagers, but it also makes it easier for those would do harm to them. This compounded with the fact that adolescents go through significant hormone changes, is a really bad combination. I think we have to remember that no all parents/adults are deliberately trying to belittle their teenagers into a identity oblivion! The internet makes it hard for parents to protect kids, and that is why we have to proceed with caution. It's not just predation, though. Identity theft, scams, bullying, and many other negative situations can occur. The internet is fantastic, but left unchecked, can really hurt us. For all of its good, in my opinion, there are equal and proportionate negatives.

Listen Up! It's Listen Up! Oh my, that's Lame...

Finally, a median for teenagers to express themselves artistically with the support, yes support not control, of adults. The website Listen Up is much like a YouTube, but I noticed that the quality of the videos are far better and so is the site's mission:

Listen Up! is a youth media network that connects young video producers and their allies to resources, support, and projects in order to develop the field and achieve an authentic youth voice in the mass media.

Instead of some website or film company exploiting the image and identity of teenagers for the almighty dollar, it seems that we have stumbled upon a haven for adolescent artistic cultivation! It's like a breath of fresh air. I get really positive vibes from what I read on here. For example, right from the homepage, you can see the headings "Educators," "Producers," and "Media Partners" which, to me, already gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Seeing collaboration to hold up the teenager, rather than keep him/her down, is something we all have been waiting to see this semester.

The teenagers depicted on Listen Up must have something wrong with them. Every single one. Never in my life have I ever seen teens so motivated, hard working, creative, and thoughtful in all my life! Everyone knows that teens are just the opposite. I refuse to believe that Listen Up really would want to portray teens in a positive light! What do they get out of it? Stupid and idiotic acting teens means cash! Just look at Superbad!

Ok, ok, I'll turn the sarcasm off now! I am reminded of Christensen's discussion of how the untruths created by the media distort what really happens. I remember one of our first classes, when we talked about the dominant discourses and how we need to wear different glasses. In the case of Listen Up, we can read the text as is. It gives teenagers a voice in cultural vaccum, where their perspectives, thoughts and ideas are irrelivent or distorted. The website is genuine. For that reason alone, it should be applauded.

But if I may head down a differnt path for a second, there is something else that I liked about Listen Up. It's not only about kids, it's also about art. In a time where anything art related is on the economic chopping block, a website embracing youth art is just so great to see. The site also provides information for educators, should their school districts actually have any interest in the fine arts... *Sigh*

YouTube and American Democracy

You name it, you can find it on YouTube. Commercials, snippets of programs, home videos, artistic expressions, and so much more can be found on the world's favorite video library.

But when it comes to politics, YouTube has changed the rules of the game. Now people who either support or oppose certain candidates can make videos and post them for all to see - over and over and over again! Any political misstatements or gaffs are also fodder for YouTube. Stop for a second and try to think of one. Perhaps it was the infamous "Macaca" comment made by Senator George Allen of Virginia to an Indian political opponent, or more recently, the whimsical Obama Girl "lovingly" throwing her support behind her man.

All of this puts tremendous pressure on political candidates to be completely flawless, all the time. In fact, what is one of the most common statements people not into politics make about people running for office? The all sound the same! They talk out of both sides of their mouth! They all make the same promises they never keep! I argue, much like Lauren Greenfield argues the media is a homogenizing force for teenagers, that YouTube compounded with the twenty four hour news channel, has homogenized America's political candidates.

What happened to the days when politicians had character and weren't afraid to be tough and speak their minds. Like, when I see Hilary Clinton continually dodging the "Do you regret giving the Bush administration authorization to invade Iraq?" I want to jump through the screen and give her a piece of my mind! Tell us the truth! You thought it was a good idea at the time, but NOW YOU DO REGRET IT! The problem is, because of digital vortexes like YouTube, the moment she says it, it will be forever there at the forefront. There is no end of the news cycle with YouTube... it is perpetual, never ending. What it creates is a new breed of weak politicians who cater to the cameras and we never see who they truly are.

I love YouTube, I really do. I do think, however, that it is acting like a homogenizing force for people running for elected office in the United States. When we obsess about every mistake and gaff that a politician makes, two people running for the same office appear to be each other's ideological doppelganger.



Were Allen's comments worthy of him being blasted by the media? You bet! But without YouTube, I think there is a chance he'd still be in office. Now what happens when the comments are less inflamatory, but its still a "political mistake?" Does that pretend Senator deserve to lose his job? Thoughts?

Perspectives on Kid Nation

Just a disclaimer: I have never seen a single episode of Kid Nation, but from what I gather, this is pretty accurate.

From the official website:

In the end, will these kids prove to adults everywhere--and to their own parents--that they have the vision to build a better world than the pioneers who came before them? Just as importantly, will they come together as a cohesive unit, or will they abandon all responsibility and succumb to the childhood temptations that lead to round-the-clock chaos?

In this seemingly harmless explanation of the reality television show Kid Nation, CBS capitalizes on the perceived mental and physical weaknesses of teenagers created by American society, and perpetuated by the American mainstream media. Based on all the negative press swirling around this program, I can deduce that the teenagers that participated were unable to form that "cohesive unit" discussed in the summary, and opted to be stereotypically crazy and reckless teenagers. While it seemed that CBS wanted to prove that teenagers were able to be rational and self-sustaining, even if the program ended on such a chord, it is likely that this program did more harm than good. In fact, based on this week's articles, this program may have been disastrous!

According to Ellen Goodman's 'Kid Nation': CBS' New Reality Show Creates Little Capitalists (Found on AlterNet, which I love!), in addition to upholding that negative view of teenagers discussed earlier, it taught the participants how important the separations of class and labor are in a society. From the get go, the group was split into a sort of caste system: the upper class (Goodman could have easily interchanged this term with capitalist class), merchants, cooks, and finally the bottom of the barrel, laborers. Goodman feels that we shouldn't be surprised by these divisions and the fierce sense of competition, as it is merely a microcosm of the society that we live in today! A society where a small fragment of the population has a monopoly on the economic, social, and political capital. I agree wholeheartedly with her!

But, why would parents allow their children to participate in a television programs that explicitly portrays teenagers as imbeciles and comic relief, while implicitly validating the grossly unfair class system in the United States?! Oh.... duh!

I loved this quote from the Daum article:

A few decades ago, these same folks might have been pushing their kids to win a science fair. But now that the culture of celebrity worship spans several generations, and because it's a biological imperative for parents to want for their children what they couldn't attain themselves, it makes perfect sense that some may want to see their kids on reality shows more than they want them becoming doctors.

Who cares about a science fair or becoming a doctor when my child can be on a reality television show! Parental motivation for this, Daum argues, is that they feel that exposure of their children through the media protects them against "invisibility." She believes that its not just about achievements, but rather public achievements would be far more fruitful in the long run.

I really wished I had watched this show. I feel guilty saying that after bashing it... but it does sound funny :P I am interested to find out the racial and economic backgrounds of the participants, and the eventual winner(s). I'll bet you a dollar the winner(s) were mostly white and male...

Bad, Badder, Baddest! Teenagers in the News!

So last night, while I was searching the internets for some news articles about teenagers, I came to the realization that there are hardly any that depicted teenagers in a good light! Every headline was "teen killed in a freak accident" or "teenagers did something dumb." The stories were all about how teens are morally weak or lacking judgement and in dire need of some sort of guide.

The assignment we were given was to examine three news articles that were somehow related to teens, taking into account how society has constructed and connected the negative connotation of youth and inexperience to adolescence. I picked three random articles: the first was an ABC commentary called Why Teens Act Like Teens, Breaking it Down: Beware the Teenage Brain, the second was from a Minnesota television station KARE called Teen Pregnancy on the Rise in Minnesota, and finally I went international and looked at a melancholy Reuters UK article named Teenager Accused of Murder of 14-year-old.

First, and my favorite, was the ABC article Why Teens Act Like Teens because it buys into all the negative stereotypes about teenagers. According to the commentator, who isn't named anywhere on the article, there are scientific reasons why teens act the way they do. Of course, it's full of sarcasm. Like this tidbit, "Sometimes I want to throw up my hands, grab my hair and shout in exasperation: TEENAGERS!!" The article argues that judgement and self-control is impaired during the adolescent phase, but we should we compassionate because "their brains have not yet caught up with their bodies." I really don't know what to make of this, and I question any science without seeing the results myself.

The second news snippet was Teen Pregnancy on the Rise in Minnesota and is basically self-explanatory. While the author Jenna Healy writes this article in an objective manner, the state officials that she interviewed clearly do not. The official named blames the "fighting about what kind of information teenagers should get in this internet era means we are clearly behind the times." Is this person blaming the internet for the failings of the state government? Hmm. Another interesting point in this article was the raw statistics. Not surprisingly Hispanic/Latina groups had the highest rate of teen pregnancy, American Indian, African American, Asian, and White respectively. Of course, the article does not talk about the possible reasons that minority ethnic groups have higher rates - like... heath care access?!

Finally, was the terrible UK article called Teenager Accused of Murder of 14-year-old. Apparently, a 17 year old boy killed fellow teenager over a $10 debt. This article would be straightforward and to the point if they didn't put the part in about the nationality of the perpetrator's family. I fail to see why mentioning that the boy's family was from Egypt has anything to do with the crime. This article feeds into, perhaps indirectly, the stereotype that Muslims are dangerous.

It would be remiss if I didn't say that there were indeed some articles mentioning teens in a good light, but they were few and far between the death and destruction!

Lauren Greenfield's "Fast Forward"

"Although trends come and go, especially among teenagers, I was intrigued by the role of the media as a homogenizing force. Against the foil of obvious material and cultural differences, I began to explore the ways in which young people from diverse backgrounds are similarly influenced by a popular culture they share."

To think that all teenagers all have something in common because of the influences of popular culture, regardless of cultural and economic differences, is a really interesting thought. I know that pop culture does influence us, but Lauren Greenfield takes it a step further and says that it "homogenizing force." A claim like that certainly warrants some evidence, which she lays out in Fast Forward. To defend her hypothesis, Greenfield took a video journal of teenage students from her Alma mater high school in Los Angeles. The pictures are a candid and vivid affirmation of her claim, that what teens see and hear will ultimately draw them to make similar choices. These choices, Greenfield argues, kind of makes all teens dress, act, and desire all in the same ways.

The photos that Greenfield puts forward in her journal, to me, suggest two things: first is that teens are growing up way too fast, and second they are terribly lazy. Perhaps the best example of this is the boy who had belly dancers at his bar mitzvah. I don't know how old he is exactly, and maybe I am being culturally insensitive by saying this, but I think it is inappropriate to have scantily clad women frolicking around young kids. I think Greenfield is trying to tell us here that even if the child did want the belly dancers, the fact that the parents allowed it means that they too have been influenced by this force of popular culture.

Another moving (and a little disgusting) photo was the plastic surgery on a teen's nose. In a world where there are television shows called Nip and Tuck where plastic surgery is just another thing, these teens feel that it is necessary to alter their physical appearance to fit in, to strive to be the normative teenager that the media depicts are "beautiful."

But what did Greenfield mean when she said that the media served to homogenize teens even across class lines? In one of the photos, a Hispanic teen is standing outside his modest home all decked out in his tuxedo. It was the day of his senior prom. The media teaches us that it is important to go all out on your prom night, even if it is beyond your economic means. It is clear from the photo that he comes from a working-class home, so this prom was extra special. He probably worked really hard to save money for that night. As a result, it was a family affair to see him off. His whole family was out in front of his house to see him off. Would this have occurred if the young man was rich? I forgot who it was, but someone in our class had said that the prom was just another day for one of their friends because they were used to formal events. Clearly, to this boy and his family, it was much more.

Now, when he arrived at his prom, it is likely he was just another kid, and all of those class differences were left behind. Everyone was likely dressed the same, all had a limo, all danced to the same music. It homogenized the entire group. If just for a moment, he was equal with all of his peers.

Rose and "A Style and Nobody Can Deal With: Politics, Style, and the Postindustrial City in Hip Hop"

If you can't tell by my last post, this article was tough to digest. I found myself reading, then re-reading passages over and over again. Not going to lie, the article left me in left field many times. It's Ok though, I got through it!

Rose discusses the history of hip hop culture in postindustrial America, focusing greatly on New York City. Many people think of hip hop as specifically rap, but Rose argues that rap is only a small part of a larger cultural phenomenon. She explains that the importance of the hip hop properties of flow, layering, and rupture reflect and contest the social roles accessible to inner city youth. (402)

The concept of identity was also an important topic in her discussion. Compounded with the economic and social problems facing lower income and minority areas, many young people turned to a new community dynamic - the formation of gangs as a means of support in a very complex and unyielding environment (407) Hip hop became synonymous with gangs, and was used as an expression the societal norm.

While I struggled with the wording, I really liked how she dismantled hip hop and urban life in a academic way. This would be the first time I have ever seen an analysis of urban culture. I found it quite interesting. I really like how she says that because people in urban areas struggled to fit in the greater cultural mold because of deindustrialization they, in essence, created their own culture. I think people outside that culture, me included, sometimes do not understand the positive messages that hip hop gives young people. We automatically assume that "rap is bad," when much of it does indeed give messages of hope to kids living in pretty dire circumstances.

The Past vs. The Future "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" by Marc Prensky

Just reading the title of the article, I thought it was about something completely different. Needless to say, I was way off!

In Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Marc Prensky argues that there is a fundamental disconnect between teachers and students in contemporary society. He maintains that teachers from previous generations think and learn differently than people born in this generation because of the abundance and accessibility of technology. Prensky hypothesizes that the prominence of digital devices, computers, and the internet has physiologically changed how young people learn. Such an interesting theory! He categorizes young people as “Digital Natives” because they were born in this fast paced world of technology, while older generations are “Digital Immigrants” because they retain “accents” or characteristics of a world with less technological advancement.

I feel that his argument is quite sound for several reasons. In my experiences, professors fear technology and avoid it whenever they can. While I can also say that Rhode Island College, as an institution, fails to promote the widespread use of technology in the classroom (or anywhere on campus for that matter), there are few instructors that use more than the overhead projector. Even that is a stretch sometimes! I think students are really bored with the way information is taught. In a world where everything is literally at your fingertips in the internet, students don’t want to go to a library and trudge through microfilm for some tidbit of information! I’m sorry, but it’s true. I personally don’t feel that way (for reasons I will discuss later), but I can certainly sympathize with those who do!

Well, sounds easy to fix right? Just put together some workshops and everything will be all set! Teachers will manipulate information into games so that students of future will be able to learn old information in more appealing ways! Right? No, not that simple. Prensky does not pretend that it will be an easy transition from the old methods of pedagogy to the new exciting ways he proposes.

But, in my opinion, his prescriptions are not at all viable. He thinks that everything can be turned into a game. I consider myself between his “Digital Natives” and “Digital Immigrants,” so I can appreciate both – which puts me in a good position to judge. While I feel that technology isn’t being used enough and students are indeed learning differently, to say that we can transform all disciplines and topics into some sort of first person shooter game is pretty ridiculous. I mean, what’s next? Are we going to make traditional research more like a game of Halo?

I think that making use of technology in more liberal and exciting ways is an important first step. Lets not get all crazy here…. Doom anyone? And for God’s sake, embrace teh internets!

Oh No! It's Ursula the Octopus! Linda Christensen and "Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us"

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire

This article was so great! I have always thought that Disney was a terrible influence on children!

Linda Christensen argues, and I say rightfully so, that cartoons, movies, and literature establish a conceptual framework for stereotyping in young people’s minds. She argues that these hidden messages serve as a “secret education” that validates certain behaviors and perspectives as the social norm, while contemporaneously fostering certain degree of social inequality.

Now, I have a hard time believing that after reading this, anyone can say that it isn't true! Let’s take Disney for example. The clear majority of villains in Disney’s animated movies are women. And if they aren’t, they are like Aladdin’s Jafar who, while male, has been clearly created in feminine way. Is this deliberate? Oh, you bet! Why was Aladdin Caucasian? Why didn't he have an accent? Why was the villain in The Little Mermaid, Ursula, old, fat, evil, and dark female? I could go on and on. If you feel that Disney was completely inncocent of these hidden message, I urge you to take another look. If you still don't believe it, I agree to disagree.

I really like some of the assignments that Christensen gave her class. Chief among them was the grading cartoons after their eyes had been opened to what was really going on.

I thought she was a bit over the top when she concluded with this:

“But more importantly, students saw themselves as actors in the world. They were fueled by the opportunity to convince some parents of the long-lasting effects cartoons impose on their children, or to enlighten their peers about the roots of some of their insecurities. Instead of leaving students full of bile, standing around with their hands on their hips, shaking their heads about how bad the world is, I provided them the opportunity to make a difference.”

I think it’s really great that she exposed this problem to her students, but don’t make it sound like you saved the world. There is still much to be done!

Solidarity Forever!
NAU

Hine's "The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager"

Again, the spell check is a current known issue, so be gentle!

My last post on Hine kind of went off into left field, so I decided to make this post to ground me a bit. I don't know, I still liked what I wrote, it was my reaction at the time I suppose. I tend to go off into rants about social injustice, ask Jen!

In his The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, Thomas Hine laments the sociocultural status of teenagers in the United States. He argues that teenagers are wrongly lumped into some artificially constructed group that is incapable of making rational decisions on its own. Hine maintains that teens are actually able people, but because this label is placed on them it becomes "an impediment that has kept them from becoming the people they were ready to be."

If we look at Hine's ideas and stories, then we look at the in-class project with the Life magizine cover and the actress (whose name escapes me at the moment) you can see just what he is trying to say. The magazine's cover basically glorifies the fact that the actress had acended out of the abyss of teenagerdom, to emerge some new and better being. We know this to be false. A person's teenage years holds great sway over their future.

In the end, Hine states the teenagers and parents alike need to bridge the generational divide. Communication and parental involvment, in a constructive way, can be the "most powerful factor that determines the well being of young people." He concludes by saying that the "teenage mystique" is in fact, the culmination of constant change young people experience - both physically, emotionally, and culturally.

I'd like to see what Hine suggests for specific prescriptions to the problems we, as a culture, face in regards to teenagers.

That's all for now. See you Monday PM!

In Solidarity,
NAU

Perspectives on the "Dominant Discourse"

After a rocky start, I finally have my semester on track! I was sick the entire second week of the semester so I have a lot of catching up to do... like... this blog!

Anyway, I had a great time in our class last night. Who would have thought that feminine products or even medical textbooks are subject to the "dominant discourse" of our culture? While I feel that patriarchy is an imporant sociocultural construct that deserves to be torn down, let us not lose sight of the fact that there are other groups that are also frowned upon by the high media. More specifically, I am referring to the way the media depicts the working class.

I made a connection to social class when we were discussing this quote by Hine:

"Teenagers spend much of their time dealing with people who do not know them as individuals, and under the control of institutions that strive to deal with people uniformly. Once they leave the house, they are at the mercy of a battery of bureaucracies."

While Hine discusses how society mandates teenagers attend school, essencially save them from themselves, I am reminded of an article by Jean Anyon called Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. Here she argues that schools are desigened to recreate social class. Schools in working class neighborhoods teach childern to be followers, where schools of the capitalist class teach childern how to be thinkers and leaders utilizing increased social construcivist activity. I urge everyone to take a look. I may be crazy, but I think that the two authors have two arguments that complement each other quite well.

Well that's all for now, I will write more later. Nice to meet you all and happy Super Tuesday!


PS: I apologize for any spelling errors, for whatever reason the spellchecker isn't working! :O