Mediacology: A Multicultural Approach to Media Literacy in the Twenty-First Century. Antonio López. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008. 178 pp.
To be media literate is to possess the tools and critical skills necessary to analyze and produce media content. The ability to deconstruct the production process and effects aspects of media is a survival skill not only for media educators, but also — and perhaps most important — for us all. According to the Journal of Media Literacy Education, learning to do this “helps individuals of all ages develop habits of inquiry and skills of expression needed to become critical thinkers, effective communicators and active citizens in a world where mass media, popular culture and digital technologies play an important role for individuals and society.”
Mediacology, written for an educator audience, reflects Antonio López’s view of media literacy (ML) education, challenging established practices and positing an urgent need for new approaches. One criticism of the currently accept concepts of media literacy by the author, who is a grassroots media activist and ML teacher, is that attempts to expose hierarchical hegemonic structures can lead to a form of elitism when educators appear to be the ones who know “the real truth.” It is not a view that is necessarily wrong, he says, but multiculturalism is but one perspective among many.
López sees media literacy peopled by two groups: in-the-trenches types who come from many perspectives and work for social change, and those who study media aesthetics and are concerned about process and production. Educators need to be much more hands-on, collaborative, and in touch with the in-the-trenches types. López’s background as a teacher and as a non-Native American reservation resident influences his writing and perspective in a refreshing and much needed way. This ten-chapter book is part of Peter Lang’s Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education series. It not only includes a critique of current ways of teaching media literacy (the Read-Text Model), but also offers solutions and pedagogical tools for modifying and enhancing students’ classroom experiences.
While written with an appreciation for what media critics and scholars do and are concerned about, another criticism is that many of us do not take a crucial step in teaching students how to respond to mostly corporate controlled and produced media content by teaching students to produce their own. López charges that too much time is spent demonizing corporate media, blaming advertising and video games for social ills, and not enough energy is spent helping students do something with their knowledge. Fear appeals, he argues, ultimately dis-empower.
Many of us have seen students frustrated and sad once they learn about the influence of media on individuals and society. The burning question is what to do about these struggles and how to provide them with tools with which to critically engage with media. Students skateboard between niches in the multi-media sphere, and that context is an important consideration when trying to make content relevant. This book is as much about Lopez’s lived experiences and observations and suggestions for a more vibrant, relevant, applied approach to media literacy education.
Following extensive and persuasive arguments for why educators need to be in touch with new media technologies and the production processes in order to be effective in the classroom, the appendix contains interesting, accessible, and free pedagogical tools. The solution López advocates is assisting students in making their own media as a response to their new media literacy. He acknowledges budgetary limitations at colleges and universities that make this action step challenging, but the new multimedia platforms are something that many students are well versed in and inhabit every day.
López argues that students need to be armed with tools to ask questions, not to suppose we, as educators, have all the answers. Rather than analyzing media content as objects of study in the linear Read-Text technique of analysis, he presents a compelling model — the Media Wheel — which has four ecological components/niches: Mind/Body, Environment/Community, Content, and Medium. This holistic approach presents the cyclical dynamics amongst communities, individuals, and media that emphasizes relationships.
Mediacology is not an easy read, but it is satisfying. I doubt that I am alone in sensing a need for a new pedagogical approach to media literacy. It has taken years of research findings and individual experiences for the effects of long-term media saturation to be taken seriously as an area of critical/cultural concern. Now that many students are on board they need avenues to affect the change we espouse as needed. Students have the energy and enthusiasm to actually do something about the potential harms or shortcomings of much media fare. Given that media and cultural studies are activist in orientation, we fail them if we don’t take advantage of and encourage this important next step.
López’s rich writing draws on indigenous and philosophical ways of thinking and knowing. Drawing on Gregory Bateson, he argues we are both human individuals, and part of the environments in which we live. This view of media literacy education is one of relationship and process. I recommend this book to anyone teaching media literacy-related courses at the undergraduate or graduate level.
DEBRA MERSKIN
University of Oregon