This week's readings were quite enjoyable for me. My minor is Media Arts with an emphasis on the critical side. I've taken classes where we've dissected the social theorists as it applies to all sorts of "culture" including "pop culture". I like what Levine wrote, and I like even more that it led to a scholarly argument. Levine is giving a voice to the receiver of culture and this is paramount and often missing outside of academia. The fear that we are passive receptacles of information or mis-information has a lot of truth in it. I suppose I fall somewhat in between the camps, or maybe a taste from all their dishes. Levine's point about the "folk" (even if he won't trifle with the definition itself), refashioning objects to suit their needs is a sometimes proposition. We have no choice but to filter cultural objects through our own eyes and cultural experiences. What concerns me most is that, as the other authors point out, someone is in the board room making decisions about the objects based on what sells. What sells is quick, simple, and often doesn't present a nuanced view of cultural objects or the cultures they come from. Granted, we live in a new age where many more people have access to technology that allows them to give of and own their experiences. But, this presents a problem as well. I took a class in Ethnographic Film years ago. We watched the giants, of course, like "Nanook of the North". Later, we looked at documentaries where the filmmakers made the decision to give cameras to the indigenous people so they could best tell their story. In this film, it became apparent that who your audience is will affect how the film is made. The indigenous people in this film had their own reasons for filming their culture in a certain way. Can we say that this film became more objective as a result? More authentic? I wouldn't say that. However, the free market of creative ideas is a lot freer for the dominant group or people(s) who have money to create. There must be room for the indigenous to tell their own story. To get the best perspective, I believe, is the wrong goal and closes the conversation. Multiple perspectives need to be encouraged in order for the viewers to gather as much information as they can about the subject(s). In children's literature written about multiple cultural groups, it's almost a sin to have students read one book to cover a topic. When teaching children's lit. to the pre-service teachers, we assigned them at least two different perspectives nad let them know that doesn't come close to covering the sum total of what we identify as a "culture" or a "people".
We need to give multiple perspectives their place. I applaud Levine for stepping outside the constraints of what we call high art. I've read Allan Bloom and disagree with his arguments when they become too black and white. But, I think Lears is at his best when he uses the example of the 50s suburban ideal in America. Reading David Halberstam's "The Fifties" blew my mind. I tend not to believe all the hype of history, but this was turning such orthodox beliefs on its head. And, this is a justified criticism of Levine. We do need to know that the producers have a lot of power when they produce, although I'm hopeful the Internet is putting a dent into this playing field by giving so many choices. Lears gives back some of the power in the text and the textual gatekeepers- another necessity. Reader-response theory is the backbone of my studies in children's literature. But, I have to constantly go back to Louise Rosenblatt's seminal works to find where her words and ideas are misinterpreted. Rosenblatt proposed a transactional theory of reading that makes sense with the way I perceive the world to work. The reader and the text collide and something is created anew. However, a close reading of Rosenblatt's "Literature as Exploration" reveals that she did not intend for teachers and scholars and students to ever forget the real world. In her theory, there are readings of texts that just don't work based on reality. There is a responsibility to know who wrote the text and who it was written for. This is much like the "Great Debate" between Whole Language and Phonics. Ken Goodman, the creator of the Whole Language movement did not intend for Phonics to be thrown away. It was part of a whole. In cultural studies, we must look to the whole. Does every article have to archive the totality of the argument? Levine says no and I agree. As long as the totality has a place at the multi-conversational table, I'm fulfilled.
No comments:
Post a Comment