Worried About the Wrong Things

by Jacqueline Ryan Vickery

  Javier (18 years old, immigrant from Mexico)

  “Do you ever share your films on YouTube,” I asked an 18-year-old senior named Javier one afternoon after school. Javier had written and produced several short films, some as part of the Cinematic Arts Project, and others with his older sister (an alumna of Freeway High currently attending in film school in Mexico). Javier spent his evenings watching foreign films on YouTube because he enjoyed learning different cinematography techniques. He was technologically savvy, took pride in his films, and valued feedback and collaborative learning. He was passionate about pursuing a career in filmmaking and was planning to apply to film school in Mexico after graduation. I was surprised when he told me “No, I don’t ever post what I have created.” This was not how I had expected this mature and confident aspiring filmmaker to respond.

  As it turns out, Javier’s response was part of a broader trend among the young media makers I got to know at Freeway High. Time and time again, students who were heavily invested in online participatory cultures (e.g., Tumblr, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo) revealed that, although they enjoyed consuming amateur and professional media online, and although they were actively producing creative media content, they were not sharing their creations online. This surprised me for several reasons. First, many of these students were accustomed to sharing their creative media content formally in technology classes and informally with peers in after-school clubs. Second, many students actively sought feedback and support from peers and teachers, and they had expressed a preference for informal, peer, and collaborative learning styles. They spent a lot of time watching and commenting on amateur films, and they relied on tutorials, music, and images that they could access within online amateur communities. Many of the students I met expressed explicit interest in pursuing careers in film, photography, music, or video game production. They worked to actively construct entrepreneurial identities and aimed to transcend the role of media in their lives from mere hobby to a pathway to a future career (see chapter 7). I had mistakenly anticipated that such students would be actively consuming, producing, and sharing their creative media in the spaces in which they appeared so heavily invested. The scholarship I was familiar with about young media makers and participatory cultures indicated a trend or an expectation that young people wanted to share their projects online. But for the most part, that was not the case with the teens I got to know at Freeway High. This is in direct contrast to narratives of young people that expect them to innately possess both the desire and capacity to network and share their creative media content online (Bennett, Maton, and Kervin 2008; Prensky 2001 2005; Tapscott 1998).

  Why were these technologically savvy, ambitious, creative, and (somewhat) digitally connected teens consuming and producing media, but not actively sharing and networking online? And is it important? Was it merely a matter of individual personality? If so, was it sheer coincidence that this was common among the working-class, minority, and marginalized teens in the study? Was it that they simply lacked motivation to participate in that way, or was there something else embedded within their practices that inhibited these young media makers from more fully participating in the online worlds they enjoyed inhabiting? By “practices” I do not simply mean what teens are doing; I also mean the context that renders participation meaningful (Wenger and Lave 1991). “Practices,” Harlan, Bruce, and Lupton argue (2012, p. 570), “are more than the visible enacted actions; they include the values, unarticulated roles, sensitivities, and worldview of the context [of the action].” Questions of how, who, when, and where young people participate are pivotal to understanding how class, identity, literacies, and institutional and adult support structure the practices of young people. If we believe that digital technologies and participatory cultures have the potential to leverage more equitable opportunities for youth, then we must pay serious attention to why some teens publicly share and network online and why others do not.

  Schools such as Freeway High provide significant opportunities for young people to explore and expand their creative identities and skills by producing media. Yet, as I will explain, technical skills and competencies are a necessary, yet not wholly sufficient aspect of becoming digitally literate participants in today’s networked publics. I am certainly not the first or the only researcher to make this argument (I will explore this momentarily); however, what I want to explore here are the barriers that inhibit some young people from developing the literacies and confidence necessary to meaningfully and fully participate in the creation of their own mediated spaces. In more positive terms, what are the necessary conditions that facilitate the development of participatory literacies? In this context, I am specifically addressing teens who are actively creating media—thus participating in their own mediated cultures—yet are not going a step further to share their own practices in networked publics.

  I want to back up and contextualize my analysis within a broader literature related to digital literacies and participatory cultures. I will situate this particular population within a larger discourse of young people as media makers, a discourse that is seemingly at odds with, and yet wholly situated within discourses of visibility and risk. And I provide more context about the structure of the after-school media clubs. With these contexts established, I analyze the ways in which several creative media makers at Freeway High navigated opportunities and barriers to participating online. Their stories highlight the structural, cultural, and personal conditions that inhibit or facilitate networking and sharing in online creative environments.

  Participatory Cultures

  Be it a professional-looking short film on YouTube, a silly meme on Facebook, or a funny remix or political mashup on Tumblr, we know that teens are actively creating and sharing creative media across many different online platforms. Data from the Pew Research Center reveal that the percentage of teens uploading their own content online has continued to go grow; as of 2012, 30 percent of older teen Internet users had recorded and uploaded a video online, up from 14 percent in 2006. Further, it was found that frequent social media users were more likely to record and share videos as in comparison with teens who were not active on social network sites (Lenhart 2012). Some teens are creating wholly original media in the form of music, films, and photography, while others participate in a practice known as remix. Remix uses existing content and then adds to, mixes, or otherwise alters the text, sound, or images to create a new iteration of the original creation, often with a different meaning, message, or purpose. Technological advances and evolving cultural practices have lowered the barriers for participation in a mediated culture. In the academic literature, the current media environment is often referred to as “participatory culture” or a “remix culture” (Jenkins et al. 2009).

  Lessig (2008) makes the case that through most of history people lived in a “read/write” culture. Individuals and collective societies actively participated in “reading” and “writing” cultural artifacts and practices. Think about telling stories around a campfire, singing popular songs together, dancing the waltz or the macarena, or playing musical instruments together in one’s own home or church—in all of these examples, cultures relied on well-known tropes, folktales, and melodies that they themselves may not have created, but they incorporated into their own practices and imbued with localized meaning. Society was both “reading” (i.e., consuming) popular culture (which is always localized within particular places and time) and simultaneously “writing” (i.e., producing) culture by actively participating in story-telling, singing, dancing, and music-making.

  With cultural and technological developments from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, society began to increasingly shift from a primarily read/write culture to what Lessig refers to as a read-only culture. The majority of individuals began to spend their time consuming media and popular culture, but they were not as likely to actively produce their own media or culture. This is not to suggest that only professionals and corporations were creating content; h
owever, there was a significant shift in who had access to the capital, skills, and prowess to produce content. This is due in part to technological changes in media production—clearly it costs a lot of money and requires a lot of skill to create a film or a television show. Additionally, media ownership was increasingly consolidated and corporatized, thus limiting the public’s access to community stations, amateur presses, and distribution outlets. This shift coincides with the birth of what we typically think of as “mass media.” As a society people consumed much more media content than they created; they “read” culture and media, but were less likely or less encouraged to “write” or create cultural artifacts and media. We were not passive recipients, yet we were not invited to participate in the creation of mediated culture.

  With the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web, affordable personal computers, and high-speed Internet access, the media landscape evolved in notable ways—both technologically and culturally. Lessig contends that the Internet provides the opportunity for a potential revitalization of a read/write culture—one in which the majority of citizens can again consume and create (read/write) a mediated culture. The barriers to participation—that is, the requirements for material and capital resources and skills and competencies—have been lowered significantly. Additionally, the Internet provides an outlet for amateurs to distribute their media, and also opens up spaces for consumers to “speak back” to media culture (e.g., reviewing films, commenting on a news article, or posting a video response to someone else’s video).

  In a similar vein, other scholars refer to the present media landscape as part of a “participatory culture.” The media scholar Henry Jenkins has written extensively about participatory cultures, though he is cautious not to attribute the cultural shift entirely to changes in technology. He points out that even within “read only” cultures people still found ways to participate in popular and mediated culture—for example, “Trekkies” organized conventions for Star Trek fans to come together and participate in mediated fan cultures (Jenkins 1992). Invested fans of a particular show, band, film, book, or genre have always found ways to connect and participate in ways that transcended merely consuming a media text. Jenkins is also acutely aware of the ways in which the Internet, affordable personal computers, and mobile technologies democratize the ability of fans and citizens to participate in the creation of media culture. According to Jenkins et al. (2009, p. xi), participatory culture is defined as “a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s own creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).” With Sam Ford and Joshua Green, Henry Jenkins also discusses how commercial corporate media are responding to new modes of consumption, distribution, and creation; they correctly point out that participatory cultures do not exist outside of or necessarily in conflict with corporatized conglomerate media structures, but rather they function alongside and within more traditional models of media production and distribution. (Jenkins, Ford, and Green 2013).1

  What is exciting about online participatory cultures is the potential to democratize media production and distribution. In a corporatized commercial media culture, the very few create and disseminate media for the very many to consume for a price (i.e., production is nearly always driven by profit). However, online participatory culture opens up opportunities for amateurs and those without millions of dollars, a film degree, or Hollywood connections to create their own media content and to disseminate it to potentially large audiences. As a society we have increasing opportunities to hear, see, and amplify the voices and bodies of those who are marginalized and silenced within a commercial model of media production (i.e., populations not easily capitalized upon in a corporate media system).

  We have made some advances, yet research reveals that commercial media are still predominantly produced by, and representative of, white men. For example, women make up 51 percent of the US population, but hold less than 7 percent of all TV and radio station licenses. People of color make up more than 36 percent of the US population, but hold just over 7 percent of radio licenses and a shocking 3 percent of TV licenses (Diversity in Media Ownership 2015). Only 23 percent of US films feature a female protagonist, and only 31 percent of speaking roles are for women. (Puchko 2014). Women represent less than 20 percent of Hollywood producers, editors, writers, and cinematographers, and numbers are even more dismal for women of color. The dominant white male problem is evident from writing, directing, camera and set work, to on-screen representation (Hollywood Diversity Report 2014). A particularly poignant Tumblr page created by the writer and performer Dylan Marron called “Every Single Word Spoken” highlights the problematic representation of minorities in feature films by cutting them down to only the lines spoken by a person of color. Entire feature-length films are reduced to minutes, or even seconds. For example, E.T. is reduced to nine seconds and Jaws to seven, and the entire Harry Potter film series only includes 5 minutes and 40 seconds of talk time for people of color in all 1,027 minutes of film (Marron 2015).

  The reasons for the lack of diversity in media production and representation are historically embedded within systems of discrimination, nepotism, and xenophobia; solutions are complex and will take time. A democratized participatory media culture has the potential to disrupt a media model that privileges the interests, voices, bodies, and experiences of white, straight, male culture. Changes in technology have led to increased opportunities for people of color, women, young people, immigrants, queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized populations to create and distribute their own stories. Struggles for more equitable media production, representation, and circulation have long been the focus and advocacy of media scholars invested in social justice, and participatory culture reignites such debates. Jenkins, Ford, and Green, writing about participatory culture, contend:

  If we see participatory culture, though, as a vital step toward the realization of a century-long struggle for grassroots communities to gain greater control over the means of cultural production and circulation—if we see participation as the work of publics and not simply of markets and audiences—then opportunities to expand participation are struggles we must actively embrace through our work, whether through efforts to lower economic and technical obstacles or to expand access to media literacies. … [Research suggests] our public sphere has been enriched through the diversification of who has the means to create and share culture. (2013, p. 193)

  It is easy to be optimistic and hopeful about the potential of participatory culture to revolutionize the limited commercialized media markets, especially when we consider the growing numbers of young people creating and circulating grassroots and user-generated media. However, disrupting the status quo of a hegemonic corporatized media culture is much more complicated than merely providing alternative options for media production, we must also equalize opportunities and access to the literacies that often preclude the most marginalized from equally participating.

  Unequal Participation

  Not all media ecologies are created equal; within participatory culture there are divides and gaps in access and participation. As was noted in the introduction, early scholarship on the “digital divide” focused on the “haves” and the “have nots”—that is, who did and did not have access to computers and the Internet. Over the past two decades within the United States the digital divide has been significantly reduced across income, education, gender, geography, and ethnic divides. This is due in part to government initiatives which have provided subsidies for libraries and public schools to acquire computers, Internet access, and other digital technologies. Additionally, the lowered cost of personal computers, and more specific
ally mobile technologies, have enabled low-income individuals and households access to the Internet. For youth of color and youth in low income households, mobile technologies are more likely to be the primary access point to the Internet (Smith 2015). Mobile phones are less expensive than personal computers and pay-as-you-go plans do not require credit checks or contracts that bar some from attaining home Internet. Mobile phones alleviate gaps in access and are increasingly providing greater opportunities for media creation (e.g., Vine, Instagram, Snapchat), but they nonetheless are limited in terms of software and ability to create and edit professional content (e.g., it is still much easier to type a long term paper on a laptop than a mobile device). Watkins poignantly asks us to consider the limitations:

  While mobile phones can be a tool for creativity, learning, and civic engagement, credible concerns have been raised that teens who are restricted to mobile phones for home Internet use may also be restricted to media ecologies and social networks that rarely, if ever, afford access to these kinds of experiences. Although only a small percentage of young people are using mobile devices as a powerful learning tool today, the percentage is growing. The issue is not whether rich and meaningful mobile learning ecologies will develop. … Rather, the real question is, will these mobile learning ecologies be distributed in ways that close or maintain America’s learning divide? (2012, p. 7)

  Closing gaps in access is an important step in creating a more equitable society, but it would be fallacious to assume that access alone can eradicate inequalities. The assumption that technology in and of itself will eliminate inequalities relies on a technologically deterministic perspective—one that assumes the mere availability to technology will solve problems. This access-only perspective ignores the literacies, incentives, and systems of support that are necessary to effectively and meaningfully use technology. A myopic focus on access also overlooks the cultural values embedded within practices; access alone does not mean everyone will use technology in democratic, empowering, and educational ways. As the access divide has become less substantial, scholars have correctly shifted focus from access divides to “participation divides” (Hargittai and Walejko 2008) or the “participation gap” (Jenkins et al. 2009; Watkins 2012). A lens of participation requires us to consider how different populations use digital media technologies in different and unequal ways, and to what effect. Participatory culture necessitates the development of particular competencies and literacies in order to engage and participate in an online culture.