Critiquing Power and Contesting Meaning. Natalie Fenton, Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of London.
We are, yet again, at a moment in the history of higher education in England when the arts, humanities and social sciences have been forced into a position of self-defence. With a vicious policy decree that all non-science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM) subjects suffer the wholesale removal of public subsidy for teaching while tripling the tuition fee up to £9,000 per year, all arts, humanities and social sciences are being told to privatise or die. The clear message is that if a subject is not perceived to be of direct economic utility, not prepared to be business-friendly or industry-relevant then it’s a luxury we can do without. The only point of any higher education is to provide cogs in a machine (otherwise known as students) for industry and economic benefit. Media education, for once, is not alone. But it gives the question – ‘what is the point of media education?’ – heightened political significance. Yet even in the midst of this stark political reality I still find myself deeply annoyed and desperately perplexed with regards the very silliness that demands the question be put at all. We may just as well ask why study culture? Why be concerned with a critical analysis of communication? Why do we seek to understand information processes and institutions? Or even, why study society? Why, because ‘the media’ are key to all these things and many more through the production and circulation of social meaning. The process of making sense of the world and taking meaning from the things that surround us is a fundamental part of life. The media, in all its forms, impinge on the ways we interpret and evaluate the world, what social and political issues are prioritized and why and how we interpret them. Such concerns reflect directly on the democratic process and our role as functioning citizens – should we go to war or not? Should we tighten immigration laws or not? Should we shrink the welfare state or not? Should universities charge (higher) tuition fees or not? The reason we bother with media education is because of the multitude of ways in which the media play a part in our lives. Many scholars claim that the media in one form or another change people; change the way we relate to each other as people, the ways we perceive ourselves, the world around us and our place in it. Others claim that the media change society and social processes; the way governments govern; the way we elect our political representatives, the way social policy is construed, set and implemented; the way the legal system operates and democracy functions (or flounders). Others look to the media’s role in economics; the dominance of market values, the rise of the cultural industries and commodification of culture. Still others focus on culture and creativity; the media as a means of storytelling, expression and aesthetic pleasure that build forms of narrative and symbolic presence in our lives that impact on our felt experience of and involvement in our culture(s). more... http://www.manifestoformediaeducation.co.uk/2011/01/media-education-should-be-5/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
