| Previous | Contents References |
Next |
| |
Ethnicity, Class, And Gender In ParticipationWhile it has not been a central aim of this project, ethnic, class, and gender differences arose and are worth noting. Catherine's striking display of the relationship between gender and ethnicity has already been discussed, and previous work also discussed differences (Beaty, 2003). Worth and Adair (1972) noted that the African-American lower-class adolescents as compared to European-American middle-class adolescents and graduate students with whom they worked preferred to be in front of the camera rather than behind it. Chalfen (1992) related this specifically to class differences: “A behind the camera orientation would be more natural for people in more dominant or powerful positions in the social order” because manipulating “symbolic events” would be the preferred route to achieving a sense of control, while being in front of the camera could be viewed as a more direct method of control and would likely be preferred by people in less powerful social positions (p. 230). This corresponds with differences between restricted and elaborated codes that Bernstein (1971) associates with class. While these ethnic- and class-related observations are not supported, they are not entirely refuted either. What emerges as more important and key to the significance of ethnicity and gender is other aspects of the context and an elaborated notion of participation. The values promoted in the programs are negotiated with other school, ethnic, class, and gender values. Suburban High was the program with the greatest range of ethnicities and social class among its students, but social class differences, though frequently invisible, did not appear to be wide. Ethnic differences, by contrast, were usually visible and appeared to be meaningful in both the level of participation in whole class activities and the status of positions held in the advanced class. Course 1 had fewer European-Americans, especially in the second semester when only two white males remained. In general, the students of this course were quieter. One European-American, male student developed an ease in his relations with the teacher that exceeded that of anyone else in the class, and this can be attributed to his interest in pursuing a career in “sound.” Clearer differences in participation by ethnicity, however, were apparent in Course 2 where there was a greater variety of ethnicities. Self-segregation was apparent in seating arrangements, and European-American students interacted far more with the teacher, made their conversations more accessible to the whole class, and were freer in their use of the room. The clearest evidence of participation differences, however, was in the advanced class: There were fewer non-European-American students in general, and only one supervisory position was held by a Latino student, who frequently remarked on his being Mexican. Gender differences were also notable. Male students outnumbered female students in all classes, though it was not so apparent in the advanced class. There was only one female who regularly attended Course 1; a second student was observed only twice, though the teacher confirmed she had been enrolled throughout. Course 2 was more evenly distributed, having four female out of fifteen students. Differences in participation between girls and boys were not distinct though: Some girls barely participated in classroom activities while others were at the center of general class social activity and their video projects. In the advanced class, participation differences were highly visible, not in the level of participation but in the type of participation. All technical positions—such as camera operator, editor, and sound engineer were held by male students while most on-camera “talent” and non-technical positions were held by female students. This differentiation was not related to power: The executive producer, who was also an anchor and writer, was female, and one of the two producers was female. A frequent topic of conversation was the “blonds” who held the two anchor positions, suggesting that their ethnicity and gender were meaningful in student social relations. In general, gender and ethnicity mattered at Suburban High, but it was particularly the existence of stable positions for the news program that made it obvious. Participation patterns by gender and ethnicity were not clear at Urban High, in part because roles were not usually identified, but the lack of ethnic differences and more even gender distribution helped make such differences less possible, as well as making for extremely different contexts. Particularly in Media 1, the numbers of males and females were approximately equal. Latino and African-American students did not self-segregate as much, and no ethnic differences in participation were apparent. Self-formed groups had single gender and mixed gender composition as was true at all schools. Particularly in Media 1, attendance problems made following the groupings difficult, but students generally sat at large round tables with the people with whom they were working, dividing themselves when the teacher required smaller groups. The advanced courses were similar except that the classes tended to be smaller as was the proportion of female students. The girls only participated in production when they worked with male students in these courses. In Media 3, one table of all girls showed not interest in the class except to do some of the open-book quizzes and was ignored by the teacher, while two other girls in the class participated in productions, working in different groups. Thus working with mixed gendered groups coincided with greater levels of female participation in the two advanced classes at Urban High. It is important to note that while all three teachers at Urban High were European-American males, the Media 1 teacher had distinctly less stereotypically masculine ways of relating to his students, and as head of a student group for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students,” he was clearly perceived differently by students: For instance, there was rarely any “banter” or conflict with students, exchanges maintaining a far more positive tone. Gender was clearly more significant in the advanced classes than in the beginning one, but students’ tendency to be younger, in what was effectively a more “introductory” type of course, and with a teacher who was less clearly identified with the dominant culture were each part of the context. Boarding High students similarly presented ambiguously differentiated participation. There was, of course, only one ethnic group, though tribe and coming from a reservation versus an urban area may have been an issue. Gender seemed to be a salient issue in Course 2 because all the boys but none of the girls completed their projects, but this was influenced by the fact that both groups of girls were prevented from working when the necessary lap top was unavailable. The next course had two mixed-gendered groups and one all-female group, but participation levels were unrelated to gender. The problem, however, with examining whether students of any type preferred to be in front of the camera versus behind the camera is that all programs promoted the behind-the-camera position, though unevenly. A semester’s worth of camera work at Suburban High was so narrowly constrained that students who may have wanted to perform in front of the camera did not have much opportunity. At Urban High, the advanced teachers specifically struggled with students to focus on behind-the-camera activity: The Media 3 teacher directly told students—as he was trying to convince some to drop his class—that they would not be allowed to act. This could be due to an in-front-of-the-camera orientation, but the Media 1 teacher never raised the subject, and many of his students moved freely between positions. At Boarding High, the promotion of a behind-the-camera position was more subtle: The emphasis on art seemed to orient students more toward purely visual elements and away from personal performances. At all schools, some students demonstrated a desire to avoid appearing in the video, particularly girls. The question that appears to be more salient is not whether students were in-front-of or behind the camera; it is a question of the role the camera had in creating meaning beyond the simple documentation of events. Worth and Adair’s (1972) assertions about the effects of camera work on the meaning of events is not equally appreciated. Chalfen (1992), for instance, notes that the standard activity of home videographers is as a documenter who avoids having an impact. He defined the behind-the-camera position as the one in which symbolic actions occur rather than the immediately visible acts in front of the camera. The symbolic actions, as he describes, is what the manuals promote (p. 232). Text books, like manuals, aim to have students use cameras in symbolic ways—though with very little attention to their meaning—and whether or not students “get it,” most courses are intended to promote more symbolic uses. In Media 1, students frequently chose to select someone from outside their group to operate the camera or simply put the camera on a tripod while they did the “real” activity in front of the camera. Was this because of ethnic or class differences? If so, what was different about the advanced classes or the students from the other schools? The most noticeable difference between courses is the difference in context: Media 1 stressed the meaning of the project but did not promote video literacy in other ways. The students did what they thought they were supposed to do as well as what they knew best. The work on public service announcements was particularly demonstrative. Two boys, for instance, did a rap song because it was an activity they knew. The influence of the school context is, however, most visible in another project: Tiffany and Rachel sat at one of the round tables of their classroom, reading cue cards and having only a display of appropriate condom use as a “visual aid.” (See Illustration 5.) The camera acted as their audience—as a way to simply record activity in the same way that scientists and home videographers tend to use it. They were using the format of a class presentation rather than anything that resembled a PSA. The frequency of “performances” discussed in the next section do not suggest a significant difference between programs either. Therefore, the programs' promotions and lack there of clearly impacted student work, but particularly in terms of understanding videography as symbolic activity, ethnicity and class were not relevant. This will be discussed further when considering the role of agency. |
|
| Previous Contents |
Next References |