SocialRelationsInSuburb

Social In Urban High	Contents References	Devel In Suburban High
	Social Relations In Suburban High’s “The Good, The Bad, And The Techies” Luke was a student whose relationship with school was oddly similar to that of the group from Urban High: He was always positive in his relations with everyone but clearly lacked any genuine intimacy with them. Unlike the students from Urban High, he did not have a group within which to experience intimacy and conflict. He worked with other students, but somehow, whenever the real work was done, he was either a peripheral participant or on his own. Other students frequently communicated conflict toward him—sometimes with open hostility—but he never in my presence responded aggressively or even assertively. An analysis of his videography reveals similar information, but deepens the sense of how different his participation was from other Urban High students. But first, the analysis needs to be framed by what he was attempting to do. When asked (several months after working on it due to difficulty arranging a meeting), he described the purpose as simply having fun. He described the advanced class as being fun and its students as being close. While my observations matched in terms of the general atmosphere, they did not in terms of his role in the class. Nevertheless or perhaps because of this, his purpose for the beginning class’s final project was a social one. It was officially, however, a documentary, and his understanding of what this meant is clearest when, during recording, he told his classmates, “You’re supposed to act like it’s [the camera’s] not there. It’s a documentary.” Explicitly, he instructs people to ignore him, so that he can capture the “real” class. With that in mind, the diversity of shots is surprising. When Luke and Valic edited, they selected mostly interviews and moments when people failed to follow his instructions. Several instances of “eavesdropping”—the shots he seemed to prefer in which people’s conversations were recorded without noticeable performance—and some displays of classroom activity were included, but events in which students spoke to the camera dominated. Unfortunately, only two of the three days of recording were obtained for analysis, but there is ample footage to show the diversity within his camera work and what is not present. A number of strategic displays of the room exist. Both days of recording end with these displays, and significantly, they were shot during the live news broadcast, encouraging a more distant position. Stills from shot 31, the last shot recorded on the first available day of recording, is shown in Illustration 22. Shot 60, the one taken at the end of the next day, was quite similar, though it was shot from a nearer position. In Shot 31, Luke was standing as far away from people as he could and used short pans, first right and then left before going back right again. In this way, he showed the positions of everyone and everything in the room. He then zoomed in on the anchor desk, strategically marking it as significant. The anchor desk is already structurally marked by being raised up on a platform, but the zoom conveys this significance with far more clarity than was apparent from Luke’s position. There is then movement between the anchor desk and the cameras, but the abruptness of the movements suggest that Luke was attempting to show the B-roll (a prerecorded tape) that was being shown. Another small zoom and more back and forth panning demonstrate his indecision, which is resolved by stopping the camera just after they returned to the live feed. The shot is strategic—it offers a power in seeing all—but distance is also communicated. First, poor lighting limits what can be seen and can be attributed more to lack of skill than Luke’s relationship with events. Luke’s position, however, prevents clarity in what can be seen. The anchors’ faces cannot be seen, and more importantly, the activities of the production crew are not visible. An anonymity and obscurity are forced on events. The sound, in particular, contributes to a feeling of being faraway from the action because very little can be heard. Additionally, the table and cart with a box on top that lie between Luke and the anchor desk emphasize distance and limit access, visual and otherwise, thus reducing the power of the display but reinforcing a distance that is throughout his work. Luke’s camera work, as in the Urban project, shows evidence of decreasing distance over time: People are shown in increasingly closer shots when the height of the faces’ images from sequential clusters are averaged, but the pattern is less noticeable because of the increased variety in shots. What is more apparent is that his actual and symbolic distance from people is contextually bound and particularly far when the teacher is shown. Illustration 23 show stills from all the shots in which the teacher was the central focus. In general, close-up shots are rare and distances are great, but the teacher is consistently shown from larger distances. There is a strategic quality to these displays, but the power is deemphasized while the distance is salient. Luke, for instance, is closest to the teacher when he recorded him from behind. Moreover, there are always obstacles (student desks and the teacher desk) between Luke and the teacher when he is shown from the front. These obstacles make it very difficult to get near the teacher; they are instances of how a standard arrangement of desks prevent closeness and assert power in the classroom. Nevertheless, Luke does not seek out opportunities to record from a position nearer to the teacher. There are some height differences when the teacher is sitting that could indicate a more powerful position for Luke, but these are mediated by the structural separations and the placement of both Luke and the teacher. Thus Luke always demonstrates respect toward the teacher—a respect that increases the distance between them. Students are also shown with respect and distance,though as would be expected, a more equal relationship is communicated. Students are frequently, though not always, recorded in medium shots from a closer position. The three shots that include close-ups, however, most clearly demonstrate a difficulty Luke has. Shot 7 (Illustration 24, Still 1) is recorded from behind—the same technique used to record the teacher from a closer position. There is clearly less intimacy when facing someone’s back. Luke interviews this student from this odd position, asking him to explain who he is and what he does for the show, and the student does not turn to look at the camera when answering. In shot 34 (Still 2), Luke was interviewing a student when the teacher (from off camera) told him to move “closer and go wide.” Luke followed the instructions (Still 3), but he never stood as near again. In Shot 40 (Still 4), the interviewee actually walked toward the camera, and after a polite moment, Luke stepped backwards. Luke only chose to stand close to his subject when the subject was female, she was not facing him directly, there was a desk between them, and he was given explicit instructions. Luke’s resistance to being close in video work reflects the observed discrepancy in how he talked about other students and how they spoke about him: He asserted a closeness orally that was inconsistent with what students said to and about him. With students more generally, desks continued to structure relations. The anchor desk—a center of activity and a frequent site of recording—particularly demonstrated power. The position of “news anchor” was an important one and seemed to guarantee a more central role in other classroom activities. Luke frequently recorded people while they sat behind it, thus reducing the potential power that might have been derived from standing while his subjects sat. Of course, this was in part due to his classmates positioning when they gathered around the desk. The influence of the anchor desk, however, was not always ignored: Luke usually recorded from one side or slightly to the front, but for two interviews (Shots 25 and 46), he positioned himself differently. See Illustration 25 for shots of the same students—the anchors—from different positions. Shots with the desk between Luke and his subjects—as in the two shown—were typically filled with teasing and jokes, and most importantly they were not directed toward Luke (though frequently for his benefit). By contrast, the interviews without desks in the middle were approached with all appearances of sincerity. Luke strategically displayed the room’s organization and marked the powerful places. He was nearly always positioned in undefined and therefore weaker places. And he avoided having a direct effect on activities. He conducted many interviews, which put him in a position of relative power, but as with the Urban High group, he asserted this power as little as possible. In shot 25, the student asked, “Why I like Tech?” and Luke answered, “Sure!” rather than formulating a question of his own. This relationship was even more clear in shot 36 (see Illustration 26) when he interviewed the producers of the show. The male student asked, “Are you going to ask us or . . .” Luke answered, “Just start talking.” The female student said, “Okay, [Luke], you’re recording now. Do you want to interview us?” The male producer began, “I . . . I . . . Go ahead and say who you are.” And in this way, they said what they imagined they should, and Luke did what he could to give all the power to them. There were, on the other hand, few events with subjective camera movement, despite Luke describing some of his camera work as being like “Blair Witch,” and none that defined or redefined his subject. He also rarely expressed solidarity or lack thereof with anyone, beyond the go ahead to speak or do whatever people wanted (expressing a great deal of solidarity). Rare moments arose, however, when he participated in the recording. Illustration 27 shows stills from a shot in which he walked toward two wrestling students and spoke, “Of course you know who’s going to win. It’s not a secret. [The door is shut by an onlooker.] And the door has been shut in my face. Brutality. It’s on tape.” It was with one student (the larger of the two wrestlers in Illustration 27), whose aggressive attempts to respond to and perform for the camera could not be ignored, that led to Luke’s only moment of (relative) aggression. While Luke was trying to interview another student, the other student put his face directly in the camera and said “Hello.” Luke quickly answered, “Stop it,” and stopped the camera, taking up the interview again only when the disruptive student was out of the way. But at another time, as shown in Illustration 28, Luke allowed this same student to present a more personal statement for the camera. He began, “You know there a lot of white people in this classroom. Me and this bro over here are the only Mexicans. . . .” and eventually discussed music. This was the only student whom Luke allowed to speak to the camera when it was not an interview. Thus with this student, Luke demonstrated more conflict but gave him and only him an opportunity to “perform.” The differences can be related to context: This student presented challenges and desires that the other students did not. When not confronted, Luke demonstrated solidarity and distance in his relations. He also demonstrated a distinct lack of power: the only strategic camera uses were symbolic ones. Despite the power of the camera, Luke went out of his way to avoid asserting his own purposes onto events, whether strategically or tactically, and he maintained an extremely even quality in his uses of the camera. Even the strategic displays of the room seemed to be a response to the context in that the live broadcast of the show limited his movement in the room. The ways in which Luke related to people in his classes (beginning and advanced) and the ways in which he talked about his relationships were inconsistent. Similarly, his view of himself as a “screenwriter” and his generally peripheral and inexpert activity in the courses were inconsistent. Despite oral assertions of closeness and experience (as a writer), Luke had a very loose affiliation with the program and its members. His distance more than any direct expressions of difference demonstrated his status. And without some degree of intimacy to make a meaningful solidarity, Luke more easily pursued ideals in his work that were foreign to the program but was unable to use what was strong, thus preventing development in new directions.
Contents	Forward to Social Relations At Boarding High With Wicket And Jerome OR Forward to Chapter 5: Conclusions?	References

Social Relations In Suburban High’s “The Good, The Bad, And The Techies”