MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY
A traditional account of democracy might focus on institutions, policies,
laws, and systems. I am interested, however, in the ways that everyday
citizens live in relation to the principles and ideals of a democratic
society. Early in my career, I majored in political science, but found
the field too abstracted from the everyday details of political culture.
I have found that studying popular culture gives me an alternative way
of addressing the issues that initially attracted me to political science.
For me, the study of media and the study of politics are inextricably
linked. My approach, however, contrasts sharply with writers like Noam
Chomsky or Robert McChesney who understand popular culture primarily
as a distraction from political participation. I see our relationships
to popular culture as shaping our political identities in profound ways
and am interested in the ways that people mobilize the contents of popular
culture to understand the stakes in political struggles. Popular culture
often expresses ideas or perspectives that are outside the consensus
framed by the news media and are allowed to be expressed here precisely
because popular culture is not taken seriously. Many subcultural communities
draw on those resources to inspire their own acts of political resistance
or to shape their own understanding of citizenship.
This approach represents a movement away from a traditional notion
of public sector politics and towards an engagement with the more domesticated
conceptions of citizenship that emerged through feminism, queer activism,
and other identity politics movements. I believe firmly that one reason
why fewer and fewer people are voting is that the realm of governance
and elections has remained too abstract and removed from the realm of
their everyday lives. Increasingly, we are getting our knowledge about
the world around us from nontraditional sources and we are expressing
our political concerns outside the realm of government.
THE INFORMED CITIZEN
The informed citizen is a central ideal underlying any democratic society
and that means the study of information technologies and practices are
strongly linked to the study of political life. To be able to fully
participate in the decision-making process, one has to have access to
core information, one has to be able to process that information, and
one has to have the right to share your insights with others.
"Media in Transition: An Introduction," which I co-authored
with David Thorburn, deals with many issues surrounding media change,
but an important aspect of the essay is an overview of a diverse range
of theories and approaches to the issue of how digital media is impacting
democracy, approaches which range from top-down approaches to governance,
campaigning, and public opinion formation to bottom-up approaches to
the notion of informed and participatory citizenship.
The Boston Review recently asked me to respond to an essay
written by political theorist Cass Sunstein, titled The
Daily We, which makes the case that net communities may
ultimately be less democratic than people have imagined because of
the tendency of discussion groups to become isolating and to filter
out opposing ideas. In my
response, I offer my fullest discussion to date of how
I think democratic principles operate in the new media environment,
making the case that traditional intermediaries were far less neutral
than Sunstein implies and that the new political culture will be shaped
through the interactions between old and new media. I also include
in the work an account of the circulation and political impact of
my essay, "Professor
Jenkins Goes to Washington," to illustrate the ways
that the act of crossposting may embody the kinds of temporary tactical
alliances between groups and individuals which theorists of radical
democracy discuss.
Some of the ideas in this essay first took shape in "Contact[ing]
the Past," which I initially wrote for an MIT student
publication, but has enjoyed a much broader circulation on the web.
This essay used the opening of the film, Contact, to explore
the ways that the history of the participatory uses of early radio
have been erased from our popular memory of broadcast history and
how these developments paralleled the participatory spirit of the
early internet.
"Information
Cosmos," one of my Technology Review columns,
deals with information and citizenship from a different comparison
-- seeking to understand what lessons the modern world might learn
from the history of the Ancient Library of Alexandria and framed as
advice to the librarians in Egypt who have just opened a new library
on that old location. Although the column is more evocative than definitive,
a key subtext is how structures of information reflect and in turn
shape political cultures.
Another Technology Review column, "Good
News, Bad News" extends this exploration of the information
structures in place within contemporary media culture to consider
the future of the local newspaper in a world where consumers can choose
between hundreds of news sources on-line. I argue that the United
States is evolving away from a culture centered on strong identifications
with geographically localized communities and towards a national information
culture, more like those found in Europe. The article also considers
the issue of diversification of information sources in an age of media
concentration, making the case that a locally focused journalism may
not, in the end, be any more diverse in the perspectives it offers
than a rigorous national news culture.
"Reading Popular History: The Atlanta Child Murders," which
appeared in the Journal of Communication in 1987, explored
the issue of the relationship of documentary and docudrama as vehicles
for reporting on recent historical events -- in this case, on the
Atlanta child murders. At the same time, I depict the struggle between
local and national framings of the case, as I see how the Atlanta
media responded to a disturbing network representation of the city's
handling of this case.
One of the writers who has most influenced my own thinking about
media and democracy is the Australian cultural critic and journalism
historian John Hartley. I have twice been asked to review Hartley's
books and have used the occasion to delve deeper into his ideas about
democratic citizenship (not to mention to pastiche his distinctive
authorial voice.) My review of his book, "Popular Reality,"
for Continuum, enabled me to develop some of my own ideas about
the different ways that news and entertainment television refract
contemporary social and political developments and to speculate about
the Monica Lewinsky scandel.
ACCESS
The question of who has access to information technologies and who has
the power to express their ideas through these channels remains one
of the most worrisome aspects of the digital revolution.
I was one of the co-organizers behind a joint MIT-USC conference
on Race
in Digital Space, which sought to shift this discussion
away from the largely negative focus of the debates about the "digital
divide" and focus attention on successful efforts within minority
communities to exploit the political and community building potentials
of these new technologies. Conference participants argued that the
digital divide rhetoric can disempower minority activists by denying
a history of innovative minority use of communications technologies.
Rather than seeing cyberspace as "race blind" or exclusionary,
the speakers focused on how minorities had pioneered alternative uses
of the media more appropriate to the interests of their communities.
The conference, held at MIT, was the first of two such events. The
second one next year will enlarge the conversation about race to include
a more global perspective. The conference organizers, Anna Everett,
Tara McPherson, Erika Muhammed, and myself, are currently in the process
of editing a book based on the conference and the related art exhibition
for the University of California Press.
One of my Technology Review columns, "Digital
Land Grab" examines the erosion of fair use in the
current moment of media in transition, suggesting the ways that the
expansion of corporate control over media content through copyright
and trademark law had the potential to disenfranchise the general
public's efforts to mobilize popular myths for their own expressive
and ideological purposes.
THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY
How are democratic principles embedded in the practices of everyday
life? How do democratic cultures produce democratic citizens? Can we
understand democracy more in cultural than institutional terms? How
can we examine democracy as a "structure of feeling" or a
way of interrelating to people around us? These questions have been
a recurrent concern in my research, primarily refracted through a focus
on the political issues impacting children and youth. Running through
this research have been three major concerns: how do people use popular
culture to explore and express cultural and political identities; how
has a discourse of culture war and moral panic sought to silence critical
voices in our society by regulating their access to popular culture
and communication technologies; and how might we develop a progressive
discourse about childhood and "family values" which sees the
home as the birthplace of our political identities.
POPULAR CULTURE AND
POLITICAL IDENTITY
"Fandom, the New Identity Politics," originally posted to
a fan discussion list and later reprinted in Harpers, represents perhaps
my most explicit discussion of the links between popular culture and
identity politics. I argue here that the category of cultural preference
may be increasingly important to the articulation of political beliefs
and commitments in contemporary society, discussing parallels between
discomfort within fandom about overt displays of identification and
debates within queer politics about whether gays, lesbians and bisexuals
might gain "a seat at the table" if they tempered the more
flamboyant aspects of their identities.
COMBATING THE CULTURE
WAR
These same assumptions about the links between cultural identity and
politics run through a succession of essays written in response to
the Columbine massacres and their aftermath. Some weeks after the
shootings, I was called to Washington to testify before the Senate
Commerce Committee investigations of the potential links between popular
culture and youth violence. In my testimony, I sought to explain why
popular culture was increasingly the site of generational conflict
and to point towards the limitations of media effects as a language
for explaining that conflict. I wrote about my experiences in testifying
before Congress in
"Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington," an essay
widely circulated through the internet and posted on the web and ultimately
reprinted in Harpers. I discuss the circulation of this e-mail message
in my response to Cass Sunstein, seeing it as an example of the kind
of short-term alliances and coalitions that can emerge in the digital
environment.
I delved deeper into the politics of moral panic across a series
of essays designed to help educators better understand the place of
popular culture in the lives of their students. "The Uses and
Abuses of Popular Culture" and "Lessons
From Littleton" grow directly from my Senate testimony
itself. "The
Kids Are Alright Online" reflected an attempt to examine
the ways teens were building a culture for themselves in cyberspace
which contrasted sharply with the problems they confronted at home
and at school. A fuller version of that talk can be found on the website
for our MIT conference, "We've
Wired the Classroom -- Now What?"
Many people -- parents, teachers, religious leaders -- urged me to
develop some models and guidelines for how parents might talk with
their children about popular culture. I chose a somewhat novel way
to approach this task, developing a dialogic essay with my son, using
episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to explore the power relations
between parents and teens.
Jon Katz emerged as an important ally as I sought to break down the
atmosphere of moral panic that surrounded popular culture in the post-Columbine
period. Katz, a journalist for slashdot, offered up his column to
high school students around the country to report on the backlash
against student rights and subcultural identities they encountered
in their schools. Katz came to MIT to participate in a public
conversation with me about the politics of adolescence,
which was transcribed for the Media in Transition website. Katz also
asked me to write the introduction
to a book based on his "Voices From the Hellmouth" columns.
What I produced is perhaps my most openly autobiographical work to
date, explaining how my own troubling high school experiences shaped
my political identity and led me to play such an active role in responding
to Columbine. Unfortunately, the book has never appeared, so this
may be the only place you will see this particular essay.
RETHINKING THE POLITICS
OF CHILDHOOD
In "The
Innocent Child and Other Modern Myths," the introduction
to my book, The Children's Culture Reader, I make the case
that every major political battle in the 20th century was fought through
the trope of childhood innocence. In any given debate, whichever side
is the first to play the child card gains an enormous degree of moral
authority. The essay explores radically different accounts of the
politics of childhood as articulated at the 1996 Republican and Democratic
National Conventions.
For the most part, the right has been far more effective at exploiting
the concept of "family values" than the left. In my essay,
"No Matter How Small," which will appear in Hop on Pop:
The Politics and Pleasure of Popular Culture (which I co-edited
with Tara Mcpherson and Jane Shattuc) I describe a very different
formulation of the family which emerged at the end of World War II
as parents sought to develop more democratic forms of childrearing
which would prepare their young for future citizenship. In this essay,
I explore how the writings of Doctor Seuss emerged from this post-war
discourse about the micropolitics of family life as well as from his
own public role as an editorial cartoonist for PM during the Popular
Front period and as a writer for the Frank Capra "Why We Fight"
Propaganda films. How did Seuss transform the categories of adult
politics into simple fables intended to be read to children in the
context of the "permissive" home? What lessons might contemporary
progressives learn from examining this explicitly leftist discourse
about parenting and family life? How might it have foreshadowed the
countercultural politics of the 1960s as the children raised in these
"democratic" homes reached maturity?