ExtendingDeCerteau

Extending De Certeau

Students’ uses of a video camera are remarkable because of the freedom it provides from some of the normal constraints—particularly the constraint upon movement—empowering them to reveal and change their positions within the school. Thus far, the discussion has focused on how the choice of position and changes over time in position suggest new information about the schools and development, but these merely demonstrate a material presence; it assumes that a position determines the meaning when it is how students use their placement that more accurately defines the meaning of relations at that time in that place. As de Certeau wrote, “‘Trajectory’ suggests a movement, but it also involves a plane projection, a flattening out. It is a transcription” (1984, p. xviii). And transcriptions can distort what is seen. In using de Certeau’s distinction between strategies and tactics, a deeper question about how students use video cameras within school can be asked; this basic distinction is a beginning point from which uses can be elaborated upon, patterns and exceptions to the patterns sought, and changes in student activity traced.

At the same time, de Certeau’s assertion that power is associated with the delineation of a place can be investigated. To what extent does a place limit the power of the people who merely occupy it? To what extent can individuals gain power through strategic placement in institutionally defined places? To what extent can innovations like video cameras re-write the limits on the power afforded by a place? Are their aspects of position, such as height, that affect the constraints imposed by a particular place? And what of the other relational quality asserted by Hodge and Kress (1988), solidarity? Do places and positions within them constrain and promote levels of solidarity?

The distinction between strategies and tactics is a starting point for answering these questions. It is particularly useful because it mirrors the use of power by schools to constrain and promote particular activity: Strategies and tactics are two approaches to the constraint and promotion of student activity with constraint being more strategic and promotion containing tactical qualities (i.e. nurturing solidarity to promote concern for equipment). The distinction between strategies and tactics when applied to student actions demonstrates moments of appropriation, evasion, resistance, and cooperation on the part of students and potentially reveals the microgenesis of activity.

Activity with a video camera changes student participation by forcing a level of observable activity on students who choose to participate, simultaneously offering them new affordances for communicating power and solidarity. Students take on new roles and can alter the meaning of places for at least the duration of their recording. The use of a video camera, though at heart a tactic, can be used in both strategic and tactical ways. But defining what should be considered a strategy or a tactic became increasingly difficult as more video was considered, particularly when elements of strategies and tactics were combined. De Certeau’s own inattention to concrete strategic activity further clouds the issue. It is speculated that this was due to the impossibility of an individual acting in an entirely strategic manner, the “system” being under the control of no one. Individuals clearly asserted power in their use of video cameras, however, and these assertions can be conceptualized as strategies regardless of the power formally accorded this person.

The extension of de Certeau’s (1984) definitions were grounded in his analysis of “walking in the city,” which was contrasted with standing atop the World Trade Center.

To be lifted to the summit of the World Trade Center is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp. One’s body is no longer clasped by the streets that turn and return it according to an anonymous law; nor is it possessed, whether as player or played, by the rumble of so many differences and by the nervousness of New York traffic. When one goes up there, he [or she] leaves behind the mass that carries off and mixes up in itself any identity of authors or spectators. An Icarus flying above these waters, he [or she] can ignore the devices of Daedalus in mobile and endless labyrinths far distant. It transforms the bewitching world by which one was “possessed” into a text that lies before one’s eyes. It allows one to read it, to be a solar Eye, looking down like a god. (p. 92)

The visual nature of this example makes it particularly salient in the analysis of video. The video camera allows students to select between perspectives that—as in standing atop the World Trade Center—strategically display the organization of a place or that tactically demonstrate the use of a place. Professional movies will often contain clear displays by using an “establishing shot” that locates the events that follow, but the way actual events are shown rarely have a truly tactical quality. One exception that was mentioned by Luke was the movie The Blair Witch Project that inserted the videographer’s non-communicative movements, thus communicating an individuality and presence in the camera operator that is usually not included in films.

Shots that clearly established a location with a strategic display or that truly related the experience of the camera operator were more common in pilot data than in any of the programs included in this research, suggesting that the constraints of the programs led to a narrower range of camera uses even if the range of genres employed was far wider. A few clear examples of strategic displays and tactical uses can be found. Illustrations 14 and 15 provide an example of each from Wicket and Jerome’s project at Boarding High. Most events, however, are ambiguously between these extremes, sometimes including elements of each.

The ambiguity of de Certeau’s general distinction when applied to most of the video obtained for analysis led to the dissection of the concepts strategy and tactic in terms of video. Table 9 lists the criteria arrived upon and shows how they are theoretically aligned. The aim in this discussion is to consider how—in the abstract and in the focal videos—these criteria are meaningful and under which circumstances they are not. The purpose is to develop a methodology for tracing the microgenesis of social relations and eventually for connecting these series of moments with the level at which students are more commonly evaluated—in terms of their general performance—but such conclusions are made only tentatively at the present.

The visual display of a place’s structure and its opposite—the movement of the camera through space such that the experience of the “pedestrian” becomes visible—are theoretically distinct, but the vast majority of shots from this study do not fit clearly into either category. Most camera actions as promoted in courses and manuals are displays on a smaller scale. They display a particular activity, person, or object without any interaction. This notion of display dominates in professional uses of the camera. Students are taught to set up the camera and the scene to make the clearest and truest image, placing all the attention on technical aspects. The use of a tripod—thus constraining movement—is encouraged: “Unmotivated” movements should be avoided (Zettl, 1995, p. 89). But all motion, including the pan in the shot from Illustration 14, bare some resemblance to the enactment of normal pedestrian movement. As Gibson (1986) described it, moving pictures are like our experience of the world: The movement of a pan is like the turn of a head, a tilt is like the tilt of a head, a dolly or a truck is like taking a few steps in one direction or another, and even a zoom resembles the narrowing and widening of attention. For this reason, events with only clear qualities of strategic display or tactical movement are thus categorized and the rest are considered only in terms of having these elements.

The elements considered are listed in Table 10. Their strategic or tactical nature is theoretical, based on de Certeau’s (1984) examples or the criteria considered by Hodge and Kress (1988). A downward or upward tilt, in this study, was found to be only a result of the camera operator’s height as compared to the subject, but this is not necessarily so and does not negate the possibility that it has an effect. Similarly, whether or not the camera frame was aligned with the structures in the environment, for instance when an additional frame was created by the inclusion of a door frame, seemed to be largely accidental, and the frequency of shooting where the built structure provided many straight lines to be either reflective or contradictory of the camera frame obscured any potential meaning. The four ways in which distance—actual or apparent—could vary creates some potentially rich meanings, though it is not clear whether it relates more to power or solidarity. As Hodge and Kress (1988, p. 41) indicate, a close-up or being near the subject can be a sign of “intimacy” but it can also be a sign of “hostility” while long shots or actual distance can be a sign of “respect” or “deference.” In pilot data, extreme closeups gave an absurd look to some shots, but in this study, the use of distance generally seemed void of meaning. An examination of other shots and the context provides evidence of when such elements are meaningful.

Returning to the list of strategic and tactical camera actions in Table 9, “visual marking” was found to be a frequent companion of visual displays. The example given in Illustration 14 is described as containing a zoom out from the previous subject, followed by a pan right to and pause on the honors dorm. Not described was an abrupt but small zoom-in after the pause. The abruptness of the zoom-in suggests it may have been an accident, but the pause and small zoom-in are consistent with a pattern that appears to mark the subject—to distinguish the subject from the background. The techniques visually indicate what should be looked at. On the tactical side, there are several ways in which the meaning of a place is distorted or overcome. Wicket, in particular, had a distinct technique for distorting the appearance of his subjects; he zoomed in and out rapidly and repeatedly in a way that resembled the use of special effects in pilot data. Overcoming boundaries was first noted in the pilot data when students got past closed doors and school perimeters by shooting through windows and fences. There were also examples of these in this study. The “evasion of structure” was added in an effort to seek similar but distinct acts. Several events are noted in this study in which a place is stripped of its usual meaning by cutting parts out, rearranging furniture, and creating sets.

Another way of marking or defining the structure of a place is to do so orally. The voice becomes a tool of the camera operator for affecting how events are perceived, a tool that can articulate institutional power or subjective experiences. The strategic display example (Illustration 14) also contained this technique; Jerome said simply, “For the honor students.” If he had stopped there, this would have been a thoroughly strategic event, but he quickly added, “Smartass motherfuckers anyway,” tactically introducing a subjective experience that alters the intended institutional meaning of the place. Thus Jerome used both a strategic and tactical narration, giving voice to both institutional and personal ideologies and providing two sides of the ideological complex. While it was not common for narration to so rapidly include both a strategy and a tactic, it frequently became clearly recognizable as one or the other.

The position a camera operator takes is also important. Table 10 considers possibly relevant elements, but places are imbued with the power of the person or people who generally occupy them. To some extent, this has already be discussed, but it is worth noting again. People refer to the “Oval Office” to refer to the power of the United States president, for instance. By occupying a place that is associated with power or a lack there of, a person’s authority in a given activity is potentially influenced.

The criteria in the last row of Table 9 are distinct from the previous ones. They concern specifically the relation of the camera operator to the activity—when such exists—in front of the camera, and these criteria are different because, no matter whether the camera operator acts strategically or tactically toward places and objects, the subjects are not directly impacted. When the subject is animate, there is the potential for activity to be directly affected by the actions of the camera operator. There is the potential for control, manipulation, and reinterpretation that affects the relationship and the actant itself. Direct or strategic actions are those that immediately result in a change or limit on real-time activity, whereas indirect or tactical actions merely affect how the activity is perceived on the video. Note that acts which may be categorized as strategic according to other criteria, i.e. labeling a person, can be categorized as a tactic according to this criteria. Thus the impact on in-front-of-the-camera activity is a separate though closely related question. Most of the criteria relate to the question of how the camera operator is positioned in relation to the audience; it is a question of whether the camera operator embodies what is proper or what is idiosyncratic within the video. The question behind these last criteria concerns the relationship of the camera operator in real time to other participants.

This question raises again the subject of symbolic activity in a behind-the-camera orientation versus the direct activity of an in-front-of-the-camera orientation discussed in the previous chapter. These orientations have been considered as potential indications of development and as a reflection of culture. By adding the issue of power yielded within the recording context, these differences are viewed in relational terms rather than as the orientation of a person or culture. From this perspective, the options that are available and the choices that are made are understood as acts in an ongoing dialog rather than as a reflection of personal or cultural idiosyncrasies. Additionally, the criteria are distinct: Worth and Adair (1972) and Chalfen (1992) discussed the location of activity, and the strategy-tactic distinction leads to a focus solely on what the camera operator does, and without an in depth analysis at this point, these appear to be independent questions. Additional analysis can more specifically address the similarities and differences.

A number of actions were found within the direct-indirect effect distinction. Students frequently used speech to tell people what to do or to provoke a reaction. Speech also was used to define a person or activity without the actors being aware of the pronouncement. The power of the camera was frequently flaunted by showing people who attempted to hide or who protest being shown in some way, and a pan or stopping the recording led to people being cut out who wanted to be recorded. On the tactic side, people were often recorded without knowing they were being recorded and could conceivably be cut out without knowing it, though there are limits on classifying such actions because the camera operator’s beliefs about the subject’s awareness are critical.

The pilot data, in particular, contained dramatic instances of solidarity—expressions of similarity or alignment—and assertions of difference and disagreement. Though there were fewer such expressions in this study, the criteria for following them were refined and are distinct from the strategy-tactic dichotomy. Table 11 lists the criteria. The need to consider solidarity apart from power arose in the conceptualization of cooperation. Cooperation with a powerful other can be viewed as a tactic. The person who chooses to cooperate gains something that is unrelated to the activity: The relationship is strengthened, trust is perhaps gained. Whether or not this is eventually exploited in any obvious way, the “good” student gains by experiencing a more positive environment. But to classify cooperation simply as a tactic fails to specify its immediate impact. The dynamic and complex relationship between solidarity and power demands that solidarity be considered in its own right. Thus issues such as identity, intimacy, and isolation can be traced at the microgenetic level.

Although less dramatic as a whole than in pilot data, this study included instances of each criterion. Compliance was both more subtle and more common, but students were not always cooperative—particularly with one another. The distinction between acts that impact the activity and those that do not is again significant, but they are in some cases more difficult to separate. Cooperation, for instance, is not always expressly perceived by the others involved, and ignoring an instruction is frequently invisible to the instructor. This distinction is made in the list of acts that is created. It became clear, however, that expressions of solidarity were less meaningful in the absence of animate beings, most significantly because strategic acts toward places or objects are always expressions of solidarity. Uses of places generally demonstrate solidarity as well. It is only in the evasions and distortions that some discord is introduced.

The criteria have been applied sporadically to different video events to more fully distinguish meaningful qualities, and they were applied to clusters of events from different parts of students’ unedited work to find similarities and differences over time. This analysis is presented in the next section. The specific acts, however, are so context bound that finding change that resembles “development,” even if more projects by the same students shot over a lengthier time period were used, would be difficult to distinguish. This analysis makes evident that power and solidarity are expressed all the time in a variety of recognizable ways that are strongly influenced by the contexts of the material environment, the activity, and the ideologies inherent in these. It remains for the next section to demonstrate how the dialog of actions expresses meaning. Elaborating upon how expressions of power and solidarity and their dialog with institutional constraints and promotions shape development begins in the final chapter, but it is only a beginning. Further efforts should perhaps be guided by Valsiner’s suggestion:

In practical terms, a microgenetic study of how the set of possibilities is turned into actuality entails a focus on the efforts that do not succeed in the given action sequence (within the context), prior to the success of some other efforts (1997, p. 177).

Previous

Contents

Next

References