IndependentȱMedia,ȱYouthȱAgency,ȱandȱtheȱ PromiseȱofȱMediaȱEducationȱ ȱ StuartȱR.ȱPoyntzȱ ȱ ȱ Throughȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtwoȱvideosȱ–ȱTheȱTakeȱ(NaomiȱKleinȱ&ȱAviȱLewis,ȱ2004),ȱandȱ aȱ studentȱ projectȱ –ȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ mediaȱ educationȱ canȱ furtherȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ youthȱ asȱ criticallyȱ engaged,ȱ democraticȱ citizensȱ mostȱ effectivelyȱ whenȱ educatorsȱ developȱ students’ȱcapacityȱforȱreflectionȱandȱselfȬexpressionȱthroughȱengagementȱwithȱthoseȱ powerȱ structuresȱ thatȱ limitȱ suchȱ acts.ȱ Mediaȱ literacy’sȱ democraticȱ promiseȱ thusȱ evolvesȱfromȱtheȱproductiveȱtensionsȱthatȱariseȱfromȱeducators’ȱdesireȱtoȱprotectȱandȱ prepareȱ studentsȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ aȱ mediaȱ saturatedȱ society.ȱ Ofȱ late,ȱ mediaȱ educationȱ hasȱ strayedȱfromȱthisȱobjective.ȱIȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱmoveȱisȱnotȱnecessary.ȱ ȱ Keyȱwords:ȱȱmediaȱproduction,ȱdemocracy,ȱcriticalȱpractice,ȱpedagogyȱ ȱ Àȱpartirȱdeȱl’analyseȱdeȱdeuxȱvidéosȱ–ȱTheȱTakeȱ(NaomiȱKleinȱetȱAviȱLewis,ȱ2004)ȱetȱ d’unȱ projetȱ d’élèvesȱ –,ȱ l’auteurȱ faitȱ valoirȱ queȱ l’initiationȱ auxȱ médiasȱ peutȱ aiderȱ lesȱ jeunesȱàȱmieuxȱjouerȱunȱrôleȱdeȱcitoyensȱéclairésȱdansȱunȱcontexteȱdémocratiqueȱsiȱlesȱ enseignantsȱdéveloppentȱchezȱleursȱélèvesȱuneȱcapacitéȱdeȱréflexionȱetȱd’expressionȱ deȱsoiȱenȱlesȱinvitantȱàȱs’investirȱdansȱlesȱstructuresȱduȱpouvoirȱquiȱcanalisentȱcetteȱ capacité.ȱȱLaȱpromesseȱdémocratiqueȱquiȱsousȬtendȱl’initiationȱauxȱmédiasȱsurgitȱainsiȱ àȱ partirȱ desȱ tensionsȱ productivesȱ dérivantȱ duȱ désirȱ desȱ enseignantsȱ deȱ protégerȱ lesȱ élèvesȱetȱdeȱlesȱpréparerȱàȱvivreȱdansȱuneȱsociétéȱoùȱlesȱmédiasȱsontȱomniprésents.ȱȱ Cesȱderniersȱtemps,ȱl’initiationȱauxȱmédiasȱaȱdéviéȱdeȱcetȱobjectif.ȱȱL’auteurȱsoutientȱ qu’ilȱneȱdoitȱpasȱenȱêtreȱnécessairementȱainsi.ȱ ȱ Motsȱclésȱ:ȱproduction,ȱdémocratie,ȱtravailȱdeȱcritique,ȱpédagogieȱȱ ______ȱ Theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ classroomȬbasedȱ mediaȱ educationȱ developsȱ asȱ criticalȱ mediaȱpracticesȱchangeȱthroughoutȱsociety.ȱEducatorsȱoftenȱstruggleȱtoȱ incorporateȱ theseȱ practicesȱ intoȱ theirȱ work;ȱ butȱ theirȱ existenceȱ andȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ drawingȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ themȱ andȱ youngȱ peopleȱ defineȱ theȱ realȱ potentialȱ forȱ aȱ democraticallyȱ oriented,ȱ criticalȱ mediaȱ pedagogy.ȱ Toȱ unpackȱ thisȱ argument,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ usedȱ aȱ recentȱ Canadianȱ documentary.ȱȱȱ

CANADIANȱJOURNALȱOFȱEDUCATIONȱ29,ȱ1ȱ(2006):ȱ154Ȭ175ȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 155ȱȱȱ

Theȱ Takeȱ (2004),ȱ theȱ firstȱ filmȱ fromȱ theȱ writer/broadcaster/activistȱ pair,ȱNaomiȱKleinȱandȱAviȱLewis,ȱoffersȱaȱsenseȱofȱhopefulȱpossibilityȱforȱ democraticȱ changeȱ inȱ anȱ otherwiseȱ cynical,ȱ paranoid,ȱ andȱ complexȱ mediaȱ landscape.ȱ Earlyȱ onȱ inȱ theȱ documentary,ȱ aȱ bird’sȬeyeȱ viewȱ shotȱ pansȱ acrossȱ Buenosȱ Airesȱ atȱ night.ȱ Naomiȱ Kleinȱ narrates:ȱ “Seenȱ fromȱ above,ȱBuenosȱAiresȱstillȱlooksȱlikeȱEuropeȱorȱNorthȱAmerica;ȱblinkingȱ logosȱ enticeȱ youȱ toȱ buy,ȱ commandingȱ bankȱ towersȱ urgeȱ youȱ toȱ save.”ȱ Andȱyetȱlifeȱonȱtheȱstreetsȱbelowȱisȱveryȱdifferentȱindeed.ȱInȱfact,ȱforȱaȱ time,ȱArgentina’sȱbanksȱdidn’tȱenticeȱpeopleȱtoȱsaveȱbecauseȱ“theȱbanksȱ [were]ȱ encasedȱ inȱ protectiveȱ steelȱandȱtattooedȱ withȱ graffiti”ȱ thatȱ read:ȱ THIEVES.ȱ Closedȱ afterȱ Argentinaȱ defaultedȱ onȱ itsȱ internationalȱ debt,ȱ bankȱ failuresȱ wereȱ onlyȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ aȱ systemȬwide,ȱ politicalȬ economicȱcollapseȱthatȱcameȱtoȱaȱheadȱinȱDecemberȱ2001.ȱȱ Whatȱresultedȱfromȱthisȱcrisisȱwasn’tȱjustȱanotherȱpoorȱcountry,ȱbut,ȱ asȱ theȱ narrationȱ continues,ȱ “aȱ richȱ countryȱ madeȱ poor.”ȱ Undoneȱ byȱ aȱ remarkableȱ failureȱ inȱ theȱ Internationalȱ Monetaryȱ Fund’sȱ neoȬliberalȱ developmentȱpolicies,ȱArgentina’sȱcatastropheȱhasȱwaned,ȱbutȱnotȱbeforeȱ extraordinaryȱ newȱ developmentsȱ haveȱ takenȱ shape.ȱ Fromȱ aȱ systemȱ inȱ ruins,ȱwhereȱ50ȱperȱcentȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱfellȱbelowȱtheȱpovertyȱline,ȱaȱnewȱ optimismȱandȱsenseȱofȱpromiseȱhasȱarisen.ȱDrivenȱinȱpartȱbyȱtheȱNationalȱ Movementȱ ofȱ Recoveredȱ Factories,ȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ workerȱ cooperativeȱ organizations,ȱtheȱsuccessȱofȱthisȱbodyȱisȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱaȱstoryȱmindfulȱ ofȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ social,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ economicȱ change,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ facedȱwithȱdireȱandȱoverwhelmingȱobstacles.ȱȱ ȱInȱrelationȱtoȱrecentȱdebatesȱinȱmediaȱeducation,ȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱ Theȱ Takeȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ lessonȱ itȱ offersȱ aboutȱ theȱ potentialȱ ofȱ criticalȱ mediaȱpedagogy.ȱSinceȱtheȱonsetȱofȱ“theȱsecondȱphaseȱofȱmediaȱliteracy”ȱ (Bazalgette,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ72)ȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱthereȱhasȱbeenȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱ seeȱ practicesȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ dichotomyȱ betweenȱ modelsȱ ofȱ protectionismȱ andȱ ofȱ preparationȱ (Buckingham,ȱ 2003;ȱ Hobbs,ȱ 1998;ȱ vonȱ Feilitzen,ȱ 2000,ȱ 2004).ȱ Amongȱ otherȱ elements,ȱ theseȱ modelsȱ areȱ distinguishedȱ byȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ envisionȱ mediaȱ literacy’sȱ potentialȱ asȱ aȱ democraticȱdiscourse,ȱandȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱthisȱpotentialȱtoȱpedagogyȱ andȱ youngȱ people’sȱ ownȱ mediaȱ productionȱ work.ȱ Ofȱ late,ȱ theȱ lessȱ ambitiousȱ andȱ moreȱ modestȱ goalsȱ ofȱ preparationȱ modelsȱ haveȱ heldȱ sway,ȱ yetȱ Iȱ thinkȱ filmsȱ likeȱ Theȱ Takeȱ forceȱ usȱ toȱ questionȱ theseȱ 156ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ developments.ȱ Itȱ isȱ anȱ independentȱ mediaȱ productionȱ thatȱ engagesȱ youngȱ peopleȱ whileȱ offeringȱ aȱ sustainedȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ globalization.ȱ Asȱ such,ȱitȱdemonstratesȱwhatȱaȱmoreȱradicalȱvisionȱcanȱlookȱlikeȱandȱwhyȱ suchȱaȱvisionȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱrealȱpromiseȱofȱmediaȱliteracy.ȱ Currently,ȱthisȱpromiseȱisȱinȱdoubt,ȱnotȱleastȱbecauseȱtheȱrelationshipȱ betweenȱprotectionismȱandȱmodelsȱofȱpreparationȱareȱhamstrungȱbyȱtheȱ troubledȱhistoryȱofȱinoculationȱwithinȱmediaȱeducation.ȱEarlyȱwritingsȱinȱ theȱ fieldȱ –ȱ asȱ exemplifiedȱ byȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ F.ȱ R.ȱ Leavisȱ andȱ Denysȱ Thompsonȱ (1933;ȱ republishedȱ inȱ 1960)ȱ inȱ theȱ UK,ȱ orȱ theȱ earlyȱ workȱ ofȱ Marshallȱ McLuhanȱ (1951)ȱ inȱ Canadaȱ –ȱ rejectedȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ mediaȱ andȱ arguedȱ thatȱ youngȱ peopleȱ shouldȱ beȱ protectedȱ fromȱ popȱ culture’sȱ perniciousȱ effects.ȱ Today,ȱ theȱ defensivenessȱ inȱ thisȱ positionȱ resonatesȱ withȱpracticesȱinȱcertainȱAmericanȱmediaȱliteracyȱcirclesȱ(Kubey,ȱ2003).ȱIfȱ thisȱisȱlessȱtrueȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱWesternȱworldȱ–ȱinȱtheȱUK,ȱAustralia,ȱ Canada,ȱ andȱ theȱ Scandinavianȱ countries,ȱ youngȱ people’sȱ engagementsȱ withȱpopȱcultureȱareȱthoughtȱtoȱbeȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱforȱmediaȱeducationȱ (Buckinghamȱ&ȱDomaille,ȱ2004;ȱKubey,ȱ2003;ȱvonȱFeilitzen,ȱ2000)ȱ–ȱtheȱ legacyȱ ofȱ inoculationȱ continuesȱ toȱ hauntȱ certainȱ mediaȱ educationȱ objectives.ȱȱ Thisȱlegacyȱcastsȱaȱspell,ȱforȱinstance,ȱoverȱclassroomȱpracticesȱthatȱ criticallyȱ addressȱ howȱ theȱ popularȱ mediaȱ reproduceȱ inequitable,ȱ hegemonicȱformsȱofȱpower.ȱAlthoughȱsuchȱworkȱisȱsuccessfulȱonlyȱwhenȱ partȱofȱaȱ“lively,ȱdemocratic,ȱ…ȱactionȬoriented”ȱpedagogy,ȱtheȱvalueȱofȱ theseȱ practicesȱ isȱ calledȱ intoȱ doubtȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ thoughtȱ theyȱ maskȱ aȱ paternalismȱ thatȱ seeksȱ toȱ protectȱ youthȱ (Masterman,ȱ 1985,ȱ p.ȱ 27).ȱ Theȱ spectreȱ ofȱ inoculationȱ thusȱ surfacesȱ andȱ castsȱ aȱ shadowȱ ofȱ uncertaintyȱ aroundȱ howȱ educatorsȱ engageȱ youngȱ peopleȱ inȱ “analyzingȱ mediaȱ cultureȱasȱproductsȱofȱsocialȱproductionȱandȱstruggle”ȱ(Kellner,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ 113).ȱSomeȱ(Buckingham,ȱ2003;ȱHobbs,ȱ1998)ȱargueȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱwayȱtoȱ overcomeȱ thisȱ problemȱ andȱ respectȱ youngȱ people’sȱ engagementsȱ withȱ theȱmediaȱisȱbyȱensuringȱteachersȱfocusȱonȱpreparingȱstudentsȱtoȱoperateȱ inȱaȱmediaȱsaturatedȱworld.ȱEducatorsȱareȱnotȱtoȱplayȱaȱleadershipȱroleȱinȱ alertingȱchildrenȱandȱyouthȱtoȱtheȱrisksȱcitizensȱfaceȱinȱmediaȱculture,ȱnorȱ shouldȱ educatorsȱ focusȱ onȱ developingȱ youngȱ peopleȱ asȱ critical,ȱ sophisticated,ȱ andȱ activeȱ citizens.ȱ Rather,ȱ theirȱ intentionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ toȱ developȱyoungȱpeople’sȱcompetenciesȱwithȱtheȱmediaȱtheyȱalreadyȱuse.ȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 157ȱȱȱ

Butȱpursuingȱthisȱdirectionȱmeansȱtheȱsecondȱphaseȱofȱmediaȱliteracyȱhasȱ forsakenȱ anȱ orientationȱ towardȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ radicalȱ democraticȱ projectsȱ thatȱ tryȱ toȱ imagine,ȱ ifȱ notȱ easilyȱ achieve,ȱ moreȱ autonomousȱ conditionsȱ andȱequitableȱwaysȱofȱlife.ȱ Suchȱ developmentsȱ weakenȱ mediaȱ educationȱ andȱ soȱ inȱ responseȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ drawȱ fromȱ Theȱ Takeȱ toȱ exploreȱ twoȱ productiveȱ tensionsȱ inȱ theȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱprotectionismȱandȱpreparation.ȱInȱconsideringȱtheȱ democraticȱpotentialȱofȱmediaȱeducationȱinȱthisȱway,ȱIȱdrawȱonȱwritersȱ likeȱCarmenȱLukeȱ(2002),ȱDouglasȱKellnerȱ(1998,ȱ2002),ȱJustinȱLewis,ȱandȱ Sutȱ Jhallyȱ (1998).ȱ Theyȱ alsoȱ envisionȱ mediaȱ educationȱ asȱ aȱ projectȱ ofȱ socialȱjusticeȱthatȱaddressesȱhowȱtheȱmediaȱsituateȱandȱdefineȱstudents’ȱ optionsȱforȱdemocraticȱchange.ȱLenȱMastermanȱandȱDavidȱBuckinghamȱ areȱcrucialȱfoilsȱinȱthisȱdiscussionȱbecauseȱMastermanȱhasȱrecentlyȱbeenȱ associatedȱ withȱ protectionistȱ tendenciesȱ inȱ theȱ field.ȱ Heȱ continuesȱ toȱ argueȱ forȱ aȱ mediaȱ pedagogyȱ thatȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ criticalȱ theoryȱ andȱ becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ hisȱ workȱ (1983,ȱ 1985,ȱ 1993,ȱ 1997)ȱ hasȱ beenȱ distinguishedȱfromȱBuckingham’sȱpreparationȬorientedȱproject,ȱaȱprojectȱ mediaȱeducatorsȱmightȱsituateȱasȱaȱformȱofȱliberalȱeducation1.ȱDivisionsȱ betweenȱ theseȱ scholarsȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱ fruitfullyȱ toȱ suggestȱ promiseȱ andȱ possibilityȱwithinȱmediaȱliteracy.ȱCentralȱtoȱmyȱpurposeȱisȱexploringȱtwoȱ areasȱofȱtensionȱthatȱindicateȱwhatȱthisȱpromiseȱmightȱbe.ȱ Theȱfirstȱtensionȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱroleȱofȱdeconstructionȱinȱmediaȱ literacy.ȱInȱisolationȱfromȱotherȱcriticalȱstrategies,ȱdeconstructionȱisȱlessȱ effectiveȱ todayȱ asȱ aȱ toolȱ forȱ identifyingȱ andȱ contestingȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ economicȱandȱideologicalȱforcesȱinȱtheȱmediaȱ(Buckingham,ȱ2003;ȱLuke,ȱ 2002).ȱ Ifȱ theȱ effectivenessȱ ofȱ deconstructionȱ hasȱ waned,ȱ however,ȱ thisȱ shouldȱ notȱ discourageȱ mediaȱ educatorsȱ fromȱ searchingȱ outȱ additionalȱ helpfulȱ strategiesȱ toȱ revealȱ counterȬhegemonicȱ formsȱ ofȱ mediaȱ agency.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whatȱ Theȱ Takeȱ offers.ȱ Itȱ includesȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ howȱ powerȱ isȱ exercisedȱ inȱ anȱ ageȱ ofȱ globalizationȱ andȱ showcasesȱ aȱ hopefulȱ andȱ successfulȱ challengeȱ toȱ thatȱ power.ȱ Theȱ filmȱ isȱ notȱ naïveȱ aboutȱ theȱ difficultiesȱ ofȱ social,ȱ political,ȱ orȱ economicȱ change,ȱ but,ȱ importantly,ȱ itȱ documentsȱpossibilitiesȱforȱsuchȱchangeȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱspeaksȱtoȱyoungȱ people.ȱThereby,ȱTheȱTakeȱpointsȱtowardȱtheȱkindȱofȱradicalȱdemocraticȱ ambitionsȱ Iȱ believeȱ representȱ theȱ outsideȱ limitsȱ andȱ promiseȱ ofȱ criticalȱ mediaȱliteracy.ȱȱ 158ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ

TheȱsecondȱtensionȱIȱworkȱthroughȱsurfacesȱwhenȱIȱaddressȱcriticalȱ momentsȱinȱstudentȱproductionȱwork.ȱHere,ȱIȱturnȱfromȱTheȱTakeȱtoȱdrawȱ lessonsȱfromȱyoungerȱmediaȱproducersȱandȱaȱvideoȱIȱwasȱinvolvedȱwithȱ whileȱ workingȱ atȱ Pacificȱ Cinémathèque,ȱ aȱ filmȱ instituteȱ inȱ Vancouver.ȱ Producedȱ atȱ anȱ innerȬcityȱ highȱ school,ȱ theȱ videoȱ suggestsȱ howȱ youthȱ developȱ importantȱ formsȱ ofȱ selfȬexpressionȱ throughȱ digitalȱ mediaȱ production.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ highlightsȱ howȱ suchȱ selfȬexpressionsȱ oftenȱ involveȱ socialȱ andȱ politicalȱ powerȱ formations.ȱ Whenȱ educatorsȱ addressȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ suchȱ formationsȱ inȱ students’ȱ work,ȱ Buckinghamȱ (2003)ȱ cautions,ȱ theyȱ riskȱ censoringȱ studentȱ workȱ byȱ “subjectingȱ [it]ȱ toȱ …ȱ ‘criticalȱanalysis’”ȱ(p.ȱ171).ȱIȱargue,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱignoringȱsuchȱanalysisȱ significantlyȱ limitsȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ democraticȱ leadershipȱ amongȱ bothȱ educatorsȱ andȱ criticallyȱ engagedȱ youngȱ peopleȱ whoȱ seeȱ theirȱ peers’ȱ work.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ opportunitiesȱ forȱ furtheringȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ agencyȱ andȱ reflexivityȱamongȱyouthȱareȱmissed.ȱȱ Theȱcriticalȱvalueȱofȱcompetencyȱbuildingȱwithȱstudentsȱmustȱalwaysȱ beȱ conceivedȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ thoseȱ social,ȱ political,ȱ orȱ culturalȱ powerȱ structuresȱthatȱlimitȱhowȱtheseȱcompetenciesȱtakeȱshape.ȱThisȱmeansȱtheȱ limitsȱ ofȱ mediaȱ educationȱ areȱ neitherȱ locatedȱ solelyȱ inȱ attemptsȱ toȱ prepareȱ youngȱ peopleȱ toȱ operateȱ inȱ aȱ mediaȱ saturatedȱ culture,ȱ norȱ inȱ attemptsȱtoȱprotectȱthemȱfromȱthisȱculture.ȱRather,ȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱmediaȱ educationȱisȱrealizedȱasȱyoungȱpeople’sȱcapacitiesȱforȱreflectionȱandȱselfȬ expressionȱ areȱ enabledȱ throughȱ engagementȱ withȱ theȱ powerȱ structuresȱ thatȱlimitȱsuchȱactsȱ(Goldfarb,ȱ2002;ȱLuke,ȱ2002).ȱOnlyȱthenȱcanȱstudentsȱ andȱ educatorsȱ envisionȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ mediaȱ representationsȱ thatȱ willȱ beȱ partȱofȱaȱmoreȱautonomousȱandȱequitableȱfuture.ȱȱ PROTECTION/PREPARATIONȱ Criticsȱ haveȱ beenȱ knownȱ toȱ characterizeȱ protectionismȱ asȱ theȱ pedagogicalȱequivalentȱofȱaȱ“tetanusȱshot”ȱ(Bazalgette,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ72).ȱInȱitsȱ worstȱ incarnations,ȱ thisȱ refersȱ toȱ thatȱ oldȱ inoculationistȱ impulse;ȱ butȱ protectionismȱ hasȱ alsoȱ meantȱ teachingȱ youngȱ peopleȱ toȱ deconstructȱ mediaȱtextsȱsoȱtheyȱaren’tȱ“takenȱinȱbyȱfantasy,ȱseducedȱbyȱ…ȱviolence,ȱ orȱ manipulatedȱ byȱ commercialȱ ploys”ȱ (Bazalgette,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.ȱ 72).ȱ Conceivedȱ inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ mediaȱ isȱ seenȱ toȱ poseȱ risksȱ toȱ youngȱ people,ȱ especiallyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱ“problemȱareasȱlikeȱ…ȱmaterialism,ȱnutritionȱandȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 159ȱȱȱ bodyȱ images,ȱ …ȱ distortionȱ andȱ biasȱ inȱ reporting,ȱ andȱ racial,ȱ class,ȱ gender,ȱ orȱ sexualȱ identityȱ stereotyping”ȱ (Hobbsȱ 1998,ȱ p.ȱ 19).ȱ Masterman’sȱ seminalȱ work,ȱ Teachingȱ theȱ Mediaȱ (1985),ȱ hasȱ ironicallyȱ comeȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ lastȱ waveȱ ofȱ aȱ protectionistȱ fold.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ work,ȱ Mastermanȱ challengesȱ simplisticȱ effortsȱ toȱ protectȱ orȱ inoculateȱ youngȱ peopleȱ againstȱ theȱ media,ȱ andȱ yetȱ Buckinghamȱ (2003)ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ hereȱ andȱinȱsubsequentȱworkȱMastermanȱ(1993,ȱ1997)ȱproducesȱjustȱtheȱkindȱ ofȱ protectionist,ȱ rational,ȱ semioticsȬinformedȱ analysisȱ thatȱ alienatesȱ educatorsȱ andȱ students.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Buckinghamȱ (1992,ȱ 1998,ȱ 2003)ȱ tellsȱ educators,ȱ becauseȱ thisȱ workȱ doesȱ notȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ contradictoryȱ waysȱ mediaȱ representationsȱ operateȱ today,ȱ itȱ largelyȱ underestimatesȱ howȱ viewersȱ investȱ legitimateȱ formsȱ ofȱ pleasureȱ inȱ mainstreamȱ texts.ȱ Theseȱshortcomingsȱareȱalsoȱpartȱofȱaȱmuchȱlargerȱproblem:ȱMastermanȱ andȱtheȱprotectionistȱcampȱdoȱnotȱtakeȱseriouslyȱtheȱneedȱtoȱaddressȱhowȱ youngȱ peopleȱ learn,ȱ orȱ ifȱ thisȱ isȱ done,ȱ protectionistsȱ areȱ accusedȱ ofȱ relyingȱ onȱ aȱ topȬdown,ȱ teacherȬtoȬstudentȱ modelȱ thatȱ positsȱ theȱ rightȱ wayȱforȱchildrenȱandȱyoungȱpeopleȱtoȱunderstandȱmediaȱrepresentationsȱ (Buckingham,ȱ2003,ȱpp.ȱ108Ȭ09).ȱModelsȱofȱpreparationȱthusȱcomeȱtoȱbeȱ seenȱasȱaȱmeansȱofȱovercomingȱtheȱweaknessesȱofȱanȱolder,ȱmoreȱnaïveȱ versionȱ ofȱ mediaȱ education.ȱ Withȱ thisȱ move,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ natureȱ andȱ intentionsȱ ofȱ criticalȱ practiceȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ areȱ alsoȱ reconfigured,ȱ inȱ lessȱ radicalȱterms.ȱ Preparationȱ modelsȱ inȱ factȱ developȱ asȱ aȱ criticalȱ literacyȱ forȱ aȱ postmodernȱage.ȱTheyȱteachȱyoungȱpeopleȱtoȱdevelopȱplayful,ȱcompetentȱ relationshipsȱwithȱtheȱmedia,ȱbutȱalwaysȱinȱwaysȱlimitedȱbyȱwhatȱyoungȱ peopleȱ discoverȱ onȱ theirȱ ownȱ terms.ȱ Youthȱ areȱ askedȱ toȱ analyze,ȱ evaluate,ȱ andȱ reflectȱ onȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ media,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ studentȬ centredȱinterestsȱdriveȱtheȱanalysis,ȱanyȱconcernsȱeducatorsȱmightȱhaveȱ aboutȱ theȱ risksȱ posedȱ byȱ popȱ cultureȱ becomeȱ lessȱ relevant.ȱ Theȱ goal,ȱ then,ȱisȱtoȱdevelopȱcriticalȱthinkingȱ–ȱ“theȱabilityȱtoȱdistinguishȱfantasyȱ fromȱ reality”ȱ –ȱ butȱ withoutȱ aȱ criticalȱ activismȱ informedȱ byȱ alternativeȱ mediaȱ practicesȱ developingȱ eitherȱ insideȱ orȱ onȱ theȱ marginsȱ ofȱ mainstreamȱ cultureȱ (vonȱ Feilitzen,ȱ 2000,ȱ p.ȱ 24).ȱ Mediaȱ educationȱ thusȱ becomesȱ aȱ competencyȱ buildingȱ project,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ equipsȱ childrenȱ andȱ youthȱ withȱ skillsȱ inȱ usingȱ andȱ evaluatingȱ mediaȱ butȱ notȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ whyȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ changeȱ media.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ 160ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ preparationȱ modelsȱ abandonȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ classroomȱ mediaȱ educationȱ practicesȱ developȱ bestȱ whenȱ theseȱ modelsȱ areȱ attentiveȱ toȱ aȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ goalsȱ ofȱ competencyȱ buildingȱ andȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ counterȬ hegemonicȱmediaȱworkȱbeingȱproducedȱinȱtheȱcultureȱatȱlargeȱ(Lewisȱ&ȱ Jhally,ȱ 1998).ȱ Whenȱ thisȱ happens,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ mediaȱ educationȱ asȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ discoursesȱ thatȱ fullyȱ mobilizeȱ youngȱ people’sȱ “criticalȱcapacities”ȱisȱlessenedȱ(Fraser,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ214).ȱDoȱmediaȱeducatorsȱ needȱ toȱ followȱ thisȱ direction?ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ not,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ helpfulȱ toȱ useȱ Mastermanȱ andȱ Buckinghamȱ asȱ foilsȱ forȱ exploringȱ whatȱ theȱ limitsȱ andȱ promiseȱ ofȱ mediaȱ pedagogyȱ mightȱ be.ȱ Twoȱ importantȱ areasȱ whereȱ educatorsȱcanȱunpackȱtensionsȱthatȱinformȱthisȱquestionȱhaveȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ theȱ wayȱ deconstructionȱ relatesȱ toȱ criticalȱ actsȱ inȱ mediaȱ educationȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ conceiveȱ criticalȱ momentsȱ inȱ studentȱ productionȱ work.ȱ DECONSTRUCTIONȱANDȱNEWȱCRITICALȱACTSȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ deconstructionȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ criticalȱ potentialȱ inȱ mediaȱ educationȱ canȱ beȱ helpfullyȱ locatedȱ throughȱ Masterman’sȱ workȱ (1983,ȱ 1985,ȱ 1997).ȱ Hisȱ projectȱ hasȱ longȱ takenȱ shapeȱ throughȱ aȱ constructiveȱ engagementȱ withȱ structuralistȱ semioticsȱ andȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ 1970sȱ andȱ 80sȱ Britishȱ culturalȱ studies.ȱ Centralȱ toȱ thisȱ approach,ȱ heȱ considersȱ mainstreamȱmediaȱaȱhegemonicȱapparatusȱthatȱorganizesȱandȱproducesȱ powerȱ inȱ Westernȱ culture.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ thisȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ mediaȱ areȱ narrativeȱ machinesȱ thatȱ constructȱ realityȱ byȱ naturalizingȱ variousȱ codesȱ thatȱ produceȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ ideologicalȱ effects.ȱ Suchȱ effectsȱ sustainȱ valuesȱ (whichȱ manyȱ oftenȱ consensuallyȱ agreeȱ to)ȱ thatȱ largelyȱ representȱ theȱ interestsȱ ofȱ dominantȱ classesȱ andȱ powerȱ formationsȱ inȱ societyȱ (Masterman,ȱ 1993).ȱ Importantly,ȱ Mastermanȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ arguedȱ thatȱ ifȱ theseȱ valuesȱ representȱ theȱ preferredȱ meaningsȱ inȱ texts,ȱ theirȱ impactȱ isȱ dependentȱonȱtheȱworkȱofȱaudiencesȱtoȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱmovies,ȱTVȱshows,ȱ videoȱ games,ȱ andȱ soȱ forth.ȱ Heȱ suggests,ȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ alwaysȱroomȱforȱaudiencesȱtoȱdecodeȱandȱinitiateȱtheirȱownȱalternativeȱ orȱ oppositionalȱ readingsȱ ofȱ mediaȱ representationsȱ (Masterman,ȱ 1985;ȱ Hall,ȱ1980).ȱ Criticalȱpracticeȱinȱthisȱtraditionȱinȱfactȱencouragesȱpreciselyȱthisȱsortȱ ofȱ workȱ byȱ audiences.ȱ Byȱ decodingȱ andȱ initiatingȱ alternativeȱ andȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 161ȱȱȱ oppositionalȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ media,ȱ audiencesȱ reverseȱ “theȱ processȱ throughȱ whichȱ aȱ mediumȱ selectsȱ andȱ editsȱ materialȱ intoȱ aȱ polished,ȱ continuousȱ andȱ seamlessȱ flow”ȱ (Masterman,ȱ 1983,ȱ p.ȱ 10).ȱ Byȱ this,ȱ powerfulȱ formsȱ ofȱ “semiologicalȱ guerillaȱ warfare”ȱ (Derry,ȱ 1993)ȱ canȱ develop,ȱasȱexemplifiedȱbyȱtheȱworkȱofȱAdbustersȱandȱdocumentedȱinȱJillȱ Sharpe’sȱ 2001ȱ movie,ȱ Cultureȱ Jam:ȱ Hijackingȱ Commercialȱ Culture.ȱ Here,ȱ creativeȱ andȱ criticalȱ mediaȱ practiceȱ isȱ expressedȱ throughȱ conscious,ȱ ironic,ȱandȱstrategicȱworkȱwithȱtheȱmedia’sȱownȱmodesȱofȱrepresentation.ȱ Deconstructionȱ thusȱ breaksȱ throughȱ textualȱ surfacesȱ “toȱ revealȱ theȱ techniquesȱthroughȱwhichȱmeaningsȱareȱproduced,”ȱwithȱtheȱresultȱthatȱ criticalȱtermsȱareȱgeneratedȱforȱviewingȱvariousȱformsȱofȱmovingȱimagesȱ (Masterman,ȱ 1983,ȱ p.ȱ 10).ȱ This,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ helpsȱ toȱ feedȱ “aȱ moreȱ totallyȱ liberatingȱcurriculumȱforȱschools”ȱbecauseȱyoungȱpeopleȱareȱenabledȱtoȱ engageȱ withȱ issuesȱ ofȱ socialȱ justiceȱ andȱ criticalȱ citizenshipȱ throughȱ strugglesȱ overȱ howȱ dominantȱ kindsȱ ofȱ informationȱ andȱ practicesȱ ofȱ representationȱbecomeȱpartȱofȱtheirȱlivesȱ(Masterman,ȱ1983,ȱp.ȱ10).ȱȱ Now,ȱasȱBuckinghamȱ(2000a,ȱ2003)ȱhasȱpointedȱout,ȱwhereȱthereȱareȱ significantȱ difficultiesȱ withȱ thisȱ criticalȱ strategy,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ changesȱinȱtheȱwayȱtextsȱoperate.ȱDeconstructionȱprivilegesȱtwoȱcriticalȱ momentsȱ inȱ analyzingȱ mediaȱ texts.ȱ First,ȱ ifȱ childrenȱ andȱ youthȱ areȱ enabledȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱvisualȱcodesȱlikeȱlighting,ȱcameraȱangles,ȱorȱ characterȱtypesȱnaturalizeȱmeaning,ȱtheȱsuggestionȱisȱtheyȱareȱlessȱlikelyȱ toȱbeȱswayedȱbyȱmessagesȱinȱtexts.ȱOnceȱthisȱhappens,ȱaȱsecondȱcriticalȱ momentȱopensȱitselfȱupȱasȱyoungȱpeopleȱextendȱtheirȱnewȱfoundȱabilityȱ toȱ analyzeȱ howȱ mediaȱ constructȱ meaningȱ byȱ employingȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ oppositionalȱ productionȱ techniquesȱ –ȱ suchȱ asȱ montageȱ editingȱ orȱ ellipticalȱ formsȱ ofȱ storytellingȱ –ȱ toȱ challengeȱ powerȬladenȱ mediaȱ representations.ȱTheȱdifficultyȱwithȱthisȱtrajectory,ȱhowever,ȱisȱitȱworksȱ bestȱ whenȱ eachȱ mediumȱ operatesȱ primarilyȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ languageȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ whenȱ theseȱ languagesȱ areȱ deployedȱ withoutȱ irony.ȱ Butȱneitherȱofȱtheseȱcharacteristicsȱisȱtrueȱofȱcontemporaryȱmedia.ȱȱȱ Manyȱ TVȱ shows,ȱ advertisements,ȱ movies,ȱ andȱ computerȱ gamesȱ targetedȱatȱchildrenȱandȱyouth,ȱforȱinstance,ȱareȱnoȱlongerȱproducedȱasȱ discreteȱproductsȱwithȱspecificȱmediaȱlanguagesȱ(Buckinghamȱ&ȱSeftonȬ Green,ȱ 2003)ȱ today.ȱ Rather,ȱ asȱ Marshaȱ Kinderȱ (1991)ȱ argues,ȱ theyȱ areȱ createdȱ asȱ marketingȱ platformsȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ ‘transȬmediaȱ 162ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ intertextuality.’ȱ Profitȱ certainlyȱ drivesȱ thisȱ processȱ becauseȱ theȱ moreȱ valueȱmediaȱconglomeratesȱcanȱyokeȱoutȱofȱtheirȱbrandsȱ–ȱthroughȱbrandȱ extensionsȱacrossȱdifferentȱmediaȱproducts,ȱforȱexampleȱ–ȱtheȱbetter.ȱTheȱ point,ȱthen,ȱisȱtextsȱareȱnoȱlongerȱcharacteristicallyȱdiscrete.ȱInstead,ȱtheyȱ includeȱ anȱ easyȱ intertextualityȱ andȱ oftenȱ visibleȱ markingsȱ (e.g.,ȱ aȱ selfȬ consciousȱ irony)ȱ ofȱ theȱ mediaȱ languagesȱ usedȱ inȱ theirȱ productionȱ (Buckingham,ȱ2000a,ȱpp.ȱ88Ȭ92;ȱBuckinghamȱ&ȱSeftonȬGreen,ȱ2003;ȱLuke,ȱ 2002).ȱAsȱbutȱtwoȱexamples,ȱmostȱyoungȱpeopleȱareȱfarȱmoreȱlikelyȱtodayȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ disruptionȱ ofȱ aȱ seamlessȱ andȱ continuousȱ flowȱ inȱ mediaȱ languagesȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱironyȱinȱWesȱCraven’sȱScreamȱ(1996,1997,ȱ2000)ȱ franchiseȱ orȱ TVȱ programsȱ likeȱ Thatȱ 70sȱ Show.ȱ Andȱ becauseȱ neitherȱ ofȱ theseȱprograms,ȱorȱtheirȱlike,ȱhasȱmuchȱtoȱdoȱwithȱproducingȱaȱcriticalȱ consciousness,ȱitȱisȱmoreȱdifficultȱtodayȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱrevealingȱtheȱ techniquesȱ throughȱ whichȱ meaningȱ isȱ producedȱ inȱ mediaȱ actuallyȱ supportsȱyoungȱpeople’sȱabilityȱtoȱcriticallyȱengageȱwithȱtheirȱlives.ȱThisȱ situationȱ isȱ complicatedȱ furtherȱ becauseȱ clearȱ distinctionsȱ betweenȱ dominantȱ andȱ oppositionalȱ mediaȱ languagesȱ areȱ disappearingȱ inȱ mainstreamȱpopȱcultureȱasȱadvertisingȱandȱmainstreamȱmusicȱvideosȱ(asȱ butȱtwoȱexamples)ȱbecomeȱmoreȱvisuallyȱcomplex.ȱTheȱincorporationȱofȱ independentȱ filmȱ productionȱ companiesȱ asȱ nicheȱ studiosȱ withinȱ largerȱ mediaȱ conglomeratesȱ addsȱ anotherȱ layerȱ ofȱ complexityȱ toȱ theseȱ developments.ȱ“Theȱnotionȱthatȱthereȱareȱfixedȱprofessionalȱ‘norms’ȱthatȱ shouldȱ beȱ contestedȱ andȱ deconstructed,ȱ [inȱ otherȱ words,]ȱ hasȱ becomeȱ highlyȱ questionable”ȱ (Buckingham,ȱ 2000a,ȱ p.ȱ 222).ȱ Theȱ upshotȱ ofȱ thisȱ developmentȱ isȱ thatȱ deconstructiveȱ critiquesȱ thatȱ playȱ oneȱ mediaȱ languageȱ offȱ againstȱ anotherȱ orȱ thatȱ positȱ anȱ inherentlyȱ oppositionalȱ languageȱ againstȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ doȱ notȱ affectȱ audiencesȱ inȱ quiteȱ theȱ sameȱwayȱeducatorsȱimaginedȱtwoȱdecadesȱago.ȱȱ Theseȱ shiftsȱ inȱ mainstreamȱ cultureȱ inȱ factȱ highlightȱ theȱ historicizationȱofȱdeconstructionȱasȱaȱmodeȱofȱcriticalȱpractice.2ȱTheyȱalsoȱ suggestȱ theȱ complexityȱ inȱ theȱ representationalȱ languageȱ youngȱ peopleȱ encounterȱ today.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ ifȱ deconstructionȱ remainsȱ aȱ valuableȱ techniqueȱforȱmediaȱeducators,ȱitȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱbeȱtheȱdominantȱcriticalȱ lensȱ forȱ engagingȱ withȱ theȱ mediaȱ system.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ problemȱ forȱ Mastermanȱandȱforȱthoseȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱrisksȱposedȱbyȱtheȱmedia.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ educatorsȱ needȱ toȱ ask,ȱ however,ȱ is:ȱ doesȱ thisȱ meanȱ theȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 163ȱȱȱ critiqueȱofȱcentralȱpowerȱformationsȱwithinȱmainstreamȱmediaȱcultureȱisȱ noȱ longerȱ effective?ȱ Suchȱ workȱ isȱ aȱ touchstoneȱ inȱ anȱ activist,ȱ democraticallyȱ oriented,ȱ mediaȱ educationȱ project.ȱ Inȱ responseȱ toȱ thisȱ question,ȱthen,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱargueȱtheȱanswerȱhereȱmustȱbeȱno.ȱ Deconstructionȱhasȱlongȱaimedȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱboundariesȱandȱlimitsȱ withinȱ whichȱ meaningȱ isȱ producedȱ inȱ society.ȱ Itȱ developsȱ counterȱ narrativesȱthatȱmapȱinequitableȱformsȱofȱpowerȱ(oftenȱhavingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ issuesȱ ofȱ race,ȱ class,ȱ gender,ȱ orȱ sexuality)ȱ asȱ practicesȱ ofȱ hope.ȱ Deconstructionȱ thusȱ attemptsȱ toȱ suggestȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ possibleȱ thatȱ promisesȱ aȱ timeȱ –ȱyetȬtoȬcomeȱ –ȱwhenȱinequitiesȱandȱ injusticesȱwillȱ noȱ longerȱexist.ȱNoȱoneȱtodayȱwantsȱtoȱbeȱcasteȱasȱnaïveȱaboutȱopportunitiesȱ forȱachievingȱsuchȱobjectives.ȱYetȱtoȱholdȱforthȱtoȱtheseȱdreams,ȱwithoutȱ fallingȱpreyȱtoȱaȱPollyannaȬishȱviewȱofȱtheȱfuture,ȱisȱpossibleȱifȱeducatorsȱ canȱ locateȱ examplesȱ ofȱ suchȱ transformativeȱ actsȱ inȱtheȱ cultureȱ atȱ large.ȱ Here,ȱthen,ȱisȱwhereȱIȱshallȱreturnȱtoȱTheȱTakeȱbecauseȱitȱisȱjustȱthisȱkindȱ ofȱ lessonȱ theȱ filmȱ offers,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ itȱ tellsȱ aboutȱ meaningfulȱ systemicȱ changeȱ takingȱ placeȱ inȱ Argentina,ȱ but,ȱ justȱ asȱ importantly,ȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱwayȱthisȱstoryȱisȱtold.ȱȱ Atȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ Theȱ Takeȱ isȱ theȱ recoveredȱ factoriesȱ movement,ȱ aȱ looselyȱnetworkedȱassociationȱthatȱhasȱsustainedȱmoreȱthanȱ200ȱfactoriesȱ andȱ 15,000ȱ jobsȱ setȱ toȱ disappearȱ inȱ Argentina’sȱ postȬ2001ȱ nightmare.ȱ Drivingȱtheȱmovement’sȱdevelopmentȱareȱworkersȱwhoȱrefusedȱtoȱacceptȱ “theȱ corrodingȱ machineryȱ ofȱ …ȱ emptyȱ factoriesȱ andȱ theȱ deterioratingȱ healthȱofȱtheirȱchildren”ȱ(Magnani,ȱ2003ȱpara.ȱ6).ȱAgainstȱsuchȱaȱfuture,ȱ workersȱ formedȱ legallyȱ recognizedȱ coȬopsȱ andȱ usedȱ expropriationȱ measures,ȱgrantedȱbyȱtheȱnationalȱgovernment,ȱandȱotherȱfinancialȱtools,ȱ includingȱ leveragingȱ salariesȱ owedȱ toȱ themȱ toȱ buyȱ outȱ formerȱ companies,ȱtoȱtakeȱcontrolȱofȱtheirȱworkplacesȱandȱcommunities.ȱNotȱallȱ theseȱ effortsȱ wentȱ uncontested,ȱ butȱ Theȱ Takeȱ makesȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ recoveredȱ factoriesȱ networkȱ hasȱ spawnedȱ realȱ successȱ andȱ promiseȱ forȱ thoseȱ thrownȱ intoȱ chaosȱ byȱ aȱ policyȱ regimeȱ drunkȱ onȱ theȱ illusionsȱ ofȱ unregulatedȱglobalization.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ Iȱ noteȱ thatȱ Theȱ Takeȱ isȱ notȱ naïveȱ aboutȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ structural,ȱ systematicȱ changeȱ inȱ complexȱ personal,ȱ historical,ȱ andȱ politicalȬeconomicȱ situations.ȱ Directorsȱ Kleinȱ andȱ Lewisȱ clearlyȱ chooseȱ toȱ portrayȱ theȱ contradictionsȱ suchȱ changeȱ bringsȱ about.ȱ 164ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ

Forȱ instance,ȱ theyȱ seemȱ toȱ ask:ȱ doesȱ theȱ cooperativeȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ recoveredȱfactoriesȱmovementȱreallyȱamountȱtoȱaȱstepȱbeyondȱaȱmarketȬ basedȱ modelȱ ofȱ economicȱ development,ȱ or,ȱ isȱ thisȱ simplyȱ aȱ moreȱ humane,ȱ communityȬfriendlyȱ formȱ ofȱ capitalism?ȱ Theyȱ alsoȱ drawȱ particularȱ attentionȱ toȱ familiesȱ andȱ theȱ waysȱ historicalȱ transformationȱ getsȱcaughtȱupȱinȱtheȱallegiancesȱofȱsomeȱtoȱpastȱpoliticalȱformationsȱ(forȱ instance,ȱtheȱoptimismȱandȱnostalgiaȱembodiedȱinȱArgentina’sȱPeronistȱ history),ȱwhileȱprovidingȱothersȱ(suchȱasȱMatté,ȱtheȱnewȱZanonȱCeramicsȱ factoryȱworkerȱinȱtheȱvideo)ȱwithȱnovelȱconceptionsȱofȱaȱpoliticalȱfuture.ȱ Thisȱisȱtoȱsayȱthatȱcriticalȱactsȱareȱneverȱsimpleȱorȱuncontested.ȱButȱtheyȱ canȱbeȱand,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱArgentina,ȱareȱpossible.ȱByȱtheȱendȱofȱTheȱTake,ȱ viewersȱ areȱ leftȱ wonderingȱ whetherȱ aȱ cooperativeȱ movementȱ largelyȱ organizedȱ aroundȱ industrialȱ factoriesȱ (butȱ notȱ onlyȱ –ȱ itȱ alsoȱ involvesȱ formerlyȱ privatelyȱ runȱ schoolsȱ andȱ healthȱ clinics)ȱ hasȱ theȱ economicȱ stayingȱ powerȱ toȱ surviveȱ inȱ anȱ ageȱ ofȱ “flexibleȱ production”ȱ (Harvey,ȱ 1989).ȱ Whetherȱ itȱ doesȱ orȱ not,ȱ theȱ filmȱ givesȱ reasonȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ movement’sȱ counterȬhegemonicȱ networkȱ includesȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ flexibleȱ organizationȱthatȱgivesȱcauseȱforȱhope.ȱ Justȱasȱimportantlyȱforȱmyȱpurposes,ȱthisȱstoryȱisȱalsoȱnotȱjustȱaȱsignȱ ofȱprotest,ȱanȱironicȱcultureȱjamȱagainstȱglobalization.ȱItȱisȱinsteadȱaȱstoryȱ aboutȱ whatȱ isȱ beingȱ doneȱ toȱ reconfigureȱ theȱ socioȬeconomicȱ orderȱ ofȱ globalizationȱtoȱensureȱthisȱorderȱservesȱpeople,ȱratherȱthanȱjustȱprofits.ȱ Inȱtellingȱthisȱstory,ȱtheȱfilmȱisȱplayfulȱ(e.g.,ȱanȱelectionȱadȱannouncingȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ formerȱ president,ȱ Carlosȱ Menem,ȱ whoȱ presidedȱ overȱ theȱ country’sȱ economicȱ collapse,ȱ isȱ especiallyȱ sharp),ȱ drivenȱ byȱ aȱ narrativeȱ andȱ historicalȱ conflictȱ (inȱ particular,ȱ theȱ electionȱ battleȱ betweenȱ theȱ President,ȱ Nestorȱ Kirshner,ȱ andȱ Menem),ȱ andȱ anchoredȱ aroundȱ compelling,ȱgenuinelyȱemotionalȱcharactersȱ(e.g.,ȱtheȱsoftȱspokenȱFreddyȱ andȱhisȱyoungȱfamily).ȱItȱincludesȱaȱsoundȬscapeȱthatȱisȱmetaphoricallyȱ interestingȱ withoutȱ beingȱ emotionallyȱ pandering,ȱ andȱ visually,ȱ theȱ cameraȱisȱusedȱtoȱhighlightȱtheȱdevastationȱofȱclosedȱfactories,ȱwhileȱalsoȱ providingȱstrikingȱimagesȱthatȱofferȱlevityȱinȱanȱotherwiseȱseriousȱstory.ȱȱ Forȱallȱtheseȱreasons,ȱIȱsuggestȱthisȱisȱaȱfilmȱthatȱyoungȱpeopleȱcanȱ engageȱwith.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱhopeȱofȱtheȱfilmmakersȱandȱtheȱfilm’sȱdistributorȱ (Canada’sȱNationalȱFilmȱBoard),ȱandȱafterȱspendingȱaȱdecadeȱworkingȱasȱ aȱmediaȱeducator,ȱIȱbelieveȱitȱcanȱsucceedȱ(personalȱcommunication,ȱAlȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 165ȱȱȱ

Parsons,ȱDecemberȱ15,ȱ2004).ȱTheȱTakeȱisȱnotȱprotectiveȱinȱaȱpaternalisticȱ way,ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱhighlightȱtheȱrisksȱandȱdangersȱunregulatedȱpoliciesȱandȱ practicesȱofȱglobalizationȱposeȱforȱfamilies,ȱcommunities,ȱandȱnations.ȱItȱ offersȱaȱsenseȱofȱromanticismȱaboutȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱforȱsocial,ȱpolitical,ȱ andȱeconomicȱchange,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱspeaksȱwithȱaȱnoteȱofȱskepticismȱaboutȱ theȱdifficultiesȱinȱbringingȱaboutȱsuchȱchange.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱitȱrepresentsȱaȱ resourceȱforȱaȱmoreȱtotallyȱliberatingȱmediaȱeducationȱcurriculum;ȱnotȱaȱ curriculumȱ beholdenȱ toȱ aȱ modernistȱ andȱ nowȱ unrealisticȱ viewȱ ofȱ revolutionaryȱchange,ȱbutȱoneȱthatȱenvisionsȱdemocraticȱactivismȱasȱpartȱ ofȱtheȱworkȱofȱmediaȱeducators.ȱSuchȱaȱcurriculumȱisȱlikelyȱtoȱalienateȱ someȱstudentsȱbecauseȱitȱchallengesȱhowȱmanyȱofȱthemȱengageȱwithȱtheȱ media.ȱ Yet,ȱ asȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ counterȱ narratives,ȱ mediaȱ educationȱ reallyȱ onlyȱ beginsȱ aȱ meaningfulȱ collaborativeȱ learningȱ processȱ byȱ disorientingȱ students’ȱtypicalȱmediaȱengagements.ȱSucceedingȱinȱthisȱworkȱrequiresȱ thatȱmediaȱeducatorsȱpayȱheedȱtoȱwhatȱMastermanȱ(1985)ȱlongȱagoȱnotedȱ isȱ “[t]heȱ acidȱ testȱ ofȱ anyȱ mediaȱ educationȱ program:ȱ [itȱ mustȱ ensureȱ students]ȱ areȱ criticalȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ useȱ andȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ mediaȱ whenȱtheȱteacherȱisȱnotȱthere”ȱ(pp.ȱ24Ȭ25).ȱWorkingȱtowardȱsuchȱgoals,ȱ however,ȱneedȱnotȱconstrainȱeducators’ȱdesireȱtoȱmapȱhowȱdominationȱ operatesȱ throughȱ mediaȱ representations,ȱ norȱ theirȱ needȱ toȱ findȱ mediaȱ practicesȱintentȱonȱfurtheringȱnewȱdemocraticȱpossibilities.ȱItȱjustȱmeansȱ doingȱ thisȱ workȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ ensuresȱ youngȱ peopleȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ andȱ sometimesȱleadersȱinȱtheȱproject.ȱȱ ENCOUNTERINGȱ DOMINANTȱ POWERȱ FORMATIONSȱ THROUGHȱ PRODUCTIONȱȱ Onȱ thisȱ finalȱ point,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ powerfulȱ sloganȱ inȱ Theȱ Takeȱ –ȱ OCCUPY,ȱ RESIST,ȱ PRODUCEȱ –ȱ thatȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ workerȱ cooperativesȱ haveȱ takenȱchargeȱofȱdilapidatedȱfactoriesȱinȱArgentinaȱinȱtheȱpostȬ2001ȱera.ȱInȱ aȱ sense,ȱ Kleinȱ andȱ Lewis’sȱ filmȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ thisȱ strategy.ȱ Theȱ directorsȱ themselvesȱ wereȱ broadcastersȱ –ȱ inȱ Lewis’sȱ caseȱ onȱ CBCȱ Newsworld’sȱCounterSpinȱ–ȱandȱmediaȱcriticsȱ–ȱmostȱfamouslyȱinȱKlein’sȱ book,ȱ Noȱ Logoȱ (2000)ȱ–ȱ beforeȱ travelingȱ toȱ Argentinaȱ toȱ produceȱ aȱ filmȱ aboutȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱforȱsocial,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱeconomicȱchange.ȱWhereȱIȱ haveȱusedȱTheȱTakeȱthusȱfarȱtoȱlocateȱaȱproductiveȱtensionȱthatȱisȱpartȱofȱ mediaȱliteracy’sȱcriticalȱpotential,ȱitȱisȱfittingȱthatȱIȱextendȱthisȱdiscussionȱ 166ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ aȱ stepȱ furtherȱ byȱ unpackingȱ aȱ relatedȱ tensionȱ inȱ studentȱ productionȱ work.ȱSuchȱworkȱisȱwhereȱyoungȱpeopleȱmostȱclearlyȱexpressȱtheirȱactiveȱ agency,ȱ soȱ ifȱ educatorsȱ areȱ toȱ imagineȱ mediaȱ education’sȱ potential,ȱ understandingȱ howȱ criticalȱ momentsȱ surfaceȱ inȱ studentȬmadeȱ mediaȱ isȱ centralȱtoȱtheȱpromiseȱandȱpossibilitiesȱofȱtheȱfield.ȱ Importantly,ȱ questionsȱ onȱ thisȱ areȱ centralȱ toȱ divisionsȱ betweenȱ protectionismȱandȱmodelsȱofȱpreparation.ȱThoseȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱrisksȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ mediaȱ posesȱ toȱ youngȱ people,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ areȱ oftenȱ thoughtȱtoȱseeȱstudentȬmadeȱmediaȱasȱmerelyȱimitativeȱofȱanȱindustrialȱ Hollywoodȱform.ȱBuckinghamȱ(2000b)ȱhasȱaccusedȱMastermanȱofȱthis,3ȱ andȱ yetȱ ifȱ Mastermanȱ notesȱ theȱ wayȱ earlyȱ productionȱ workȱ canȱ reproduceȱtheȱpopȱculturalȱformsȱchildrenȱandȱyoungȱpeopleȱregularlyȱ see,ȱheȱhasȱalwaysȱmeasuredȱtheseȱconcernsȱagainstȱaȱlargerȱconceptionȱ ofȱtheȱwayȱstudentȬmadeȱmediaȱenablesȱyouthfulȱvoicesȱandȱconfidenceȱ toȱflourish.4ȱMoreȱrecently,ȱCarmenȱLukeȱ(2002)ȱhasȱarticulatedȱaȱsimilarȱ view,ȱ theȱ gistȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ thatȱ studentȱ productionsȱ mustȱ alwaysȱ beȱ conceivedȱinȱrelationȱtoȱdominantȱpracticesȱofȱmediaȱrepresentation.ȱȱ Developingȱ competenciesȱ withȱ newȱ mediaȱ formsȱ promotesȱ selfȬ expressionȱ whileȱ preparingȱ youngȱ peopleȱ toȱ operateȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ mediaȱ environmentȱ (Buckinghamȱ 2003;ȱ vonȱ Feilitzen,ȱ 2000,ȱ 2004).ȱ Itȱ empowersȱandȱstrengthensȱyouthȱtoȱuseȱandȱlistenȱtoȱeachȱother’sȱvoices,ȱ andȱ itȱ alsoȱ encouragesȱ educatorsȱ toȱ turnȱ toȱ studentsȱ whenȱ producingȱ mediaȱaboutȱriskȱbehavioursȱforȱyoungȱpeople5ȱ(Buckinghamȱ&ȱHarvey,ȱ 2001;ȱ Buckingham,ȱ Niesytoȱ &ȱ Fisherkeller,ȱ 2003;ȱ Goldfarb,ȱ 2002).ȱ Throughȱ theseȱ developmentsȱ studentȱ productionȱ workȱ fuelsȱ aȱ bondȱ betweenȱ youthȱ andȱ theirȱ communitiesȱ byȱ allowingȱ themȱ toȱ investigateȱ andȱ engageȱ moreȱ fullyȱ withȱ theȱ livesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ matterȱ toȱ them.ȱ Importantly,ȱ whenȱ thisȱ happens,ȱ however,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ criticalȱpotentialȱinȱstudentȱvideosȱsurfacesȱinsideȱaȱtensionȱbetweenȱtheȱ valueȱ ofȱ thisȱ workȱ asȱ selfȬexpressionȱ andȱ itsȱ meaningȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ dominantȱ socialȱ andȱ politicalȱ formations.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ soȱ becauseȱ whenȱ anyoneȱ representsȱ andȱ articulatesȱ visionsȱ aboutȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ community,ȱ thisȱ processȱ necessarilyȱ bringsȱ themȱ intoȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ powerȱ dynamicsȱthatȱorganizeȱandȱlimitȱthoseȱcommunities.ȱToȱconcludeȱIȱwantȱ toȱhighlightȱthisȱpointȱinȱrelationȱtoȱstudentȬmadeȱmediaȱbyȱdiscussingȱaȱ videoȱproducedȱbyȱaȱgroupȱofȱhighȱschoolȱstudentsȱIȱworkedȱwithȱwhileȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 167ȱȱȱ

EducationȱDirectorȱatȱPacificȱCinémathèque.ȱȱ YOUTHȱMEDIAȱPRODUCTIONȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ isȱ aȱ short,ȱ tenȬminuteȱ projectȱ thatȱ testifiesȱ toȱ theȱ impactȱ videoȱproductionȱcanȱgenerateȱasȱaȱformȱofȱselfȬexpressionȱforȱtheȱvideoȱ maker,ȱ herȱ productionȱ colleagues,ȱ andȱ youthȱ audiences.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ demonstratesȱhowȱprojectsȱseeminglyȱaboutȱselfȬexpressionȱbringȱyoungȱ peopleȱ intoȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ powerȱ formationsȱ thatȱ studentsȱ needȱ toȱ theorizeȱ andȱ understand.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ instances,ȱ twoȱ analyticalȱ momentsȱ –ȱ oneȱ aboutȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ competenciesȱ inȱ tellingȱ stories,ȱ andȱ aȱ secondȱ aboutȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ theseȱ storiesȱ toȱ hegemonicȱ formationsȱ –ȱ comeȱtogether.ȱWhenȱthisȱhappensȱproductiveȱopportunitiesȱsurfaceȱthatȱ allowȱ mediaȱ educatorsȱ toȱ orientȱ youngȱ peopleȱ towardȱ theȱ largerȱ democraticȱ possibilitiesȱ withinȱ criticalȱ mediaȱ literacy.ȱ Aimingȱ towardȱ theseȱobjectivesȱdefinesȱwhatȱIȱseeȱasȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱmediaȱeducation.ȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ beganȱ asȱ theȱ studentȱ producer/narratorȱ satȱ inȱ herȱ Englishȱclass.ȱAsȱtheȱnarrationȱexplains,ȱtheȱteacherȱaskedȱtheȱstudentsȱtoȱ writeȱaȱstoryȱfromȱwhatȱatȱfirstȱsightȱappearsȱaȱ“seeminglyȱunremarkableȱ imageȱ orȱ scene.”ȱ Toȱ makeȱ theȱ ideaȱ clear,ȱ byȱ sheerȱ coincidence,ȱ theȱ teacherȱ toldȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ aȱ manȱ knownȱ toȱ theȱ producer/narrator.ȱ Theȱ teacherȱhadȱobservedȱthisȱfigureȱonȱoccasionȱ“ridingȱorȱpushingȱaȱbikeȱ onȱVancouver’sȱcanneryȱrow,”ȱnearȱtheȱrailwayȱtracksȱinȱtheȱnorthȱeastȱ sideȱ ofȱ town.ȱ Theȱ areaȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ what’sȱ knownȱ asȱ “Canada’sȱ poorestȱ postalȱcode.”ȱAsȱtheȱnarratorȱreveals,ȱtheȱmanȱremovedȱhimselfȱfromȱtheȱ mainstreamȱofȱsocietyȱasȱaȱprotestȱagainstȱtheȱoverwhelmingȱmaterialismȱ ofȱdayȬtoȬdayȱlife.ȱHeȱlivesȱinȱaȱselfȬbuiltȱshelterȱinȱtheȱbushȱsurroundingȱ theȱ waterfrontȱ andȱ hasȱ soȱ forȱ threeȱ years.ȱ Thisȱ manȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ videoȱ maker’sȱ father.ȱ Whatȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ managesȱ toȱ captureȱ isȱ theȱ uniqueȱ closenessȱ andȱ inevitableȱ divideȱ thatȱ characterizesȱ theirȱ relationship.ȱ Itȱ doesȱ thisȱ withȱ aȱ remarkableȱ degreeȱ ofȱ strengthȱ andȱ openness,ȱwhichȱinȱpartȱexplainsȱwhyȱtheȱvideoȱhasȱbeenȱscreenedȱbeforeȱ hundredsȱofȱpeopleȱsinceȱ2002.ȱȱ Toȱbeȱclear,ȱduringȱtheseȱscreenings,ȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱfather’sȱargumentsȱ againstȱ materialismȱ andȱ consumerȱ cultureȱ thatȱ succeed.ȱ Theȱ videoȱ insteadȱ strikesȱ aȱ chordȱ withȱ audiencesȱ becauseȱ itȱ revealsȱ certainȱ boundariesȱ inȱ society.ȱ Theseȱ boundariesȱ becomeȱ visibleȱ whenȱ theȱ 168ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ daughter’sȱmainstreamȱlifeȱandȱherȱfather’sȱalternativeȱlifeȱareȱshownȱtoȱ beȱbothȱintimatelyȱconnectedȱandȱunavoidablyȱseparate.ȱInȱtheȱvideo,ȱtheȱ father’sȱ worldȱ hasȱ contiguityȱ withȱ aȱ moreȱ ordinaryȱ life,ȱ itȱ remainsȱ alongsideȱthatȱlife,ȱbutȱitȱisȱalsoȱforeverȱoutsideȱthatȱlife.ȱGivenȱthis,ȱitȱisȱ probablyȱnoȱsurpriseȱthatȱwhenȱyoungȱpeopleȱwatchȱMeg’sȱFather,ȱtheyȱ areȱoftenȱleftȱsilent.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱboredȱorȱuninterested;ȱrather,ȱtheyȱtalkȱ aboutȱbeingȱconfusedȱ(personalȱcommunication,ȱPattiȱFraser,ȱDecemberȱ 15,ȱ 2004).ȱ Theyȱ areȱ uncertainȱ aboutȱ howȱ toȱ reactȱ toȱ aȱ manȱ manyȱ teenagersȱusuallyȱignoreȱorȱdisparage.ȱMeg’sȱFatherȱmakesȱthisȱdifficultȱtoȱ do,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ whatȱ audiencesȱ experienceȱ inȱ theirȱ responsesȱ isȱ theȱ difficultyȱ youngȱ peopleȱ encounterȱ whenȱ askedȱ toȱ confrontȱ dominantȱ socialȱ andȱ politicalȱ powerȱ formations.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ confrontationȱwasȱnotȱtheȱintentionȱofȱtheȱfilmmaker;ȱsheȱsimplyȱwantedȱ toȱtellȱaȱstoryȱaboutȱherȱfamily.ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱhowever,ȱsheȱaddressedȱandȱ employedȱpowerȱrelationsȱthatȱmarkȱboundariesȱinȱsociety,ȱboundariesȱ havingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ hegemonicȱ andȱ counterȬhegemonicȱ notionsȱ ofȱ subjectivity,ȱagency,ȱandȱdifference.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ engagesȱ withȱ theseȱ notionsȱ byȱ challengingȱ andȱ refusingȱ theȱ waysȱ ourȱ cultureȱ pathologizesȱ thoseȱ whoȱ rejectȱaȱmainstream,ȱmiddleȬclassȱlife.ȱTheȱvideoȱdoesȱnotȱproposeȱyoungȱ peopleȱorȱadultsȱemulateȱthisȱlife,ȱbutȱitȱrefusesȱtoȱslightȱorȱdismissȱthoseȱ whoȱ do.ȱ Theȱ story,ȱ instead,ȱ tracesȱ theȱ divisionsȱ thatȱ areȱ irrevocablyȱ aȱ partȱofȱhowȱtwoȱlivesȱareȱtiedȱtogether.ȱTheseȱdivisionsȱareȱmanageableȱ forȱfatherȱandȱdaughter,ȱandȱbecauseȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱvideoȱconfusesȱyoungȱ audiencesȱwhoȱareȱsoȱusedȱtoȱseeingȱmarginalȱpeopleȱasȱpathologicallyȱ weak,ȱpitiful,ȱorȱirrelevant.ȱSocietyȱoftenȱrepresentsȱthoseȱwhoȱrejectȱorȱ areȱunableȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱaȱmiddleȬclassȱlifeȱofȱbourgeoisȱaccumulationȱ asȱfailures.ȱHere,ȱtheȱfatherȱisȱnotȱaȱfailure.ȱInstead,ȱheȱisȱanȱactiveȱsubjectȱ ofȱtremendousȱintelligenceȱandȱendurance,ȱoneȱwhoȱlivesȱinȱtouchȱwithȱ hisȱ daughter’sȱ life,ȱ justȱ notȱ insideȱ thatȱ life.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ challengesȱhowȱaudiencesȱengageȱwithȱpeopleȱwhoȱliveȱwithoutȱmaterialȱ abundance.ȱSocietyȱrarelyȱrecognizesȱandȱrespectsȱsuchȱnonȬconforming,ȱ alternativeȱ experiences,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ does,ȱ itȱ transgressesȱ theȱboundariesȱofȱwhatȱsubjectivityȱandȱagencyȱareȱunderstoodȱtoȱmeanȱ inȱourȱsociety.ȱ Whenȱ youngȱ audiencesȱ respondȱ withȱ degreesȱ ofȱ confusionȱ toȱ theȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 169ȱȱȱ video,ȱitȱisȱessentialȱthatȱeducatorsȱuseȱthisȱuncertaintyȱtoȱframeȱcriticallyȱ howȱMeg’sȱFatherȱcontestsȱdominantȱconceptionsȱofȱaȱfullȱandȱvitalȱlife.ȱInȱ doingȱthisȱtheyȱproductivelyȱworkȱthatȱtensionȱIȱspokeȱofȱearlierȱbetweenȱ studentȱ selfȬexpressionȱ andȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ thisȱ expressionȱ toȱ hegemonicȱ formsȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Thereby,ȱ theyȱ expandȱ youngȱ people’sȱ agency.ȱ Oneȱ wayȱ toȱ doȱ thisȱ isȱ byȱ usingȱ videosȱ likeȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ toȱ challengeȱ howȱ youthȱ createȱ meaningfulȱ andȱ memorableȱ charactersȱ inȱ theirȱ productions.ȱ Whenȱ usedȱ inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ youngȱ audiencesȱ beginȱ toȱ considerȱ howȱ theȱ fatherȱ andȱ theȱ father/daughterȱ relationshipȱ defyȱ stereotypes.ȱAskingȱstudentsȱtoȱexplainȱwhatȱisȱuniqueȱaboutȱtheseȱtwoȱ people,ȱwhyȱtheyȱstandȱoutȱinȱtheirȱminds,ȱandȱhowȱthisȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱ wayȱ socialȱ “outcasts”ȱ areȱ understood,ȱ givesȱ youngȱ peopleȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ unpackȱ theȱ confusionȱ theyȱ feelȱ afterȱ watchingȱ theȱ videoȱ (personalȱ communication,ȱPattiȱFraser,ȱDecemberȱ15,ȱ2004).ȱStudents’ȱresponsesȱtoȱ theseȱ questionsȱ canȱ thenȱ feedȱ intoȱ howȱ youngȱ peopleȱ generateȱ newȱ charactersȱinȱtheirȱownȱwork.ȱOfȱcourseȱnotȱallȱtheseȱfutureȱvideosȱwillȱ followȱ theȱ challengingȱ pathȱ exemplifiedȱ byȱ Meg’sȱ Father;ȱ butȱ theȱ moreȱ youngȱ peopleȱ watchȱ originalȱ workȱ byȱ theirȱ peers,ȱ theȱ moreȱ theyȱ aimȱ towardȱsimilarȱkindsȱofȱcreativeȱexpression.ȱAsȱstudentsȱreconsiderȱtheirȱ ownȱuncertainȱresponsesȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱinȱMeg’sȱFather,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱ theyȱ reflectȱ onȱ andȱ beginȱ toȱ seeȱ howȱ socialȱ stereotypesȱ structureȱ theirȱ understandingȱ ofȱ whatȱ itȱ meansȱ toȱ liveȱ aȱ meaningfulȱ life.ȱ Byȱ this,ȱ oneȱ peerȬproducedȱ documentaryȱ actsȱ asȱ aȱ catalystȱ thatȱ canȱ expandȱ howȱ youngȱpeopleȱunderstandȱpossibilitiesȱforȱtheirȱownȱandȱother’sȱagencyȱ andȱengagementȱwithȱtheȱworld.ȱ Toȱbeȱsure,ȱMeg’sȱFatherȱalsoȱinadvertentlyȱreproducesȱanȱexclusionȱ thatȱreinforcesȱpowerȱrelationsȱcurrentlyȱaliveȱinȱsociety.ȱItȱdoesȱthisȱbyȱ foregroundingȱtheȱpowerȱofȱindividualȱagencyȱwhileȱomittingȱtheȱsocialȱ frameworksȱ throughȱ whichȱ thatȱ agencyȱ isȱ madeȱ possible.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ problemȱ inȱ aȱ hyperȬcapitalist,ȱ consumerȬdrivenȱ cultureȱ whereȱ individualismȱisȱprivilegedȱasȱtheȱlocusȱofȱactionȱtoȱtheȱexclusionȱofȱtheȱ networkȱ ofȱ socialȱ relationshipsȱ thatȱ makeȱ anyȱ sortȱ ofȱ agencyȱ possible.ȱ Educatorsȱknowȱthatȱtheȱactionsȱofȱyoungȱpeopleȱneverȱexistȱinȱaȱsocialȱ vacuum,ȱandȱyet,ȱunintentionally,ȱthisȱisȱpreciselyȱtheȱnotionȱpresentȱinȱ Meg’sȱ Father.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ videoȱ tracesȱ theȱ remarkableȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ aȱ daughterȱ andȱ herȱ father,ȱ educatorsȱ willȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ theȱ 170ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ daughter’sȱexperienceȱdependsȱonȱtheȱsupportȱofȱotherȱsocialȱnetworksȱ–ȱ includingȱ familyȱ members,ȱ teachers,ȱ communityȱ membersȱ andȱ institutions,ȱ andȱ friendsȱ –ȱ thatȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ herȱ life.ȱ Evidenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ networksȱ isȱ notȱ obviouslyȱ apparentȱ onȱ screen.ȱ Instead,ȱ theseȱ networksȱ areȱanȱabsenceȱinȱtheȱstory,ȱanȱabsenceȱthatȱnonethelessȱremainsȱevidentȱ inȱ theȱ markingsȱ ofȱ happinessȱ visibleȱ inȱ theȱ livesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ theȱ audienceȱ sees.ȱThisȱtakesȱnothingȱawayȱfromȱtheȱvideoȱmaker’sȱclearȱvitalityȱandȱ ability;ȱyetȱsuchȱstrengthȱandȱcompetenceȱareȱsurelyȱconceivableȱonlyȱinȱ combinationȱ withȱ aȱ resourcefulȱ andȱ dynamicȱ communityȱ ofȱ support.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ communityȱ isȱ crucialȱ toȱ theȱ videoȱ maker’sȱ experience;ȱ byȱ excludingȱ thisȱ element,ȱ theȱ videoȱ inadvertentlyȱ focusesȱ theȱ viewer’sȱ attentionȱonȱindividualȱagencyȱ–ȱthatȱofȱtheȱdaughterȱandȱherȱfatherȱ–ȱtoȱ theȱexclusionȱofȱtheȱsocialȱnetworksȱessentialȱforȱfeedingȱtheȱagencyȱthatȱ existsȱ inȱ anyȱ youngȱ person’sȱ life.ȱ Byȱ this,ȱ theȱ videoȱ reinforcesȱ anȱ ideologicalȱbiasȱinȱsociety,ȱaȱbiasȱthatȱexcludesȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱlargerȱ socialȱandȱpoliticalȱframeworksȱthatȱmakeȱallȱlivesȱpossible.ȱ Anȱ effectiveȱwayȱ toȱ moveȱ youngȱ peopleȱ towardȱ thisȱ analysisȱ isȱ byȱ havingȱ themȱ imagineȱ theȱ backȬstoryȱ ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ weȱ meetȱ inȱ Meg’sȱ Father.ȱ Theȱ backȬstoryȱ isȱ aȱ character’sȱ historyȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ whereȱ audiencesȱmeetȱhimȱorȱherȱinȱaȱfilm.ȱByȱhavingȱstudentsȱwriteȱorȱroleȬ playȱthisȱhistoryȱinȱrelationȱtoȱMeg’sȱFather,ȱmediaȱeducatorsȱencourageȱ studentsȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱlargerȱsocialȱnetworksȱcentralȱtoȱ“Meg’s”ȱlife.ȱ PattiȱFraserȱ(formerȱScriptȱSupervisor,ȱPacificȱCinémathèque)ȱandȱIȱhaveȱ hadȱstudentsȱproduceȱsuchȱbackȬstoriesȱȱwhenȱusingȱtheȱvideoȱasȱaȱtoolȱ toȱteachȱscriptȱdevelopment.ȱThisȱisȱanȱespeciallyȱusefulȱcontextȱbecauseȱ whenȱ youngȱ peopleȱ doȱ thisȱ workȱ inȱ preparationȱ forȱ writingȱ andȱ producingȱtheirȱownȱvideos,ȱtheyȱoftenȱ(butȱnotȱalways)ȱapproachȱtheirȱ documentaryȱ subjectsȱ withȱ aȱ differentȱ degreeȱ ofȱ attentionȱ andȱ respect.ȱ Youthȱareȱbetterȱableȱtoȱmapȱtheȱresourcesȱandȱpeopleȱlyingȱbehindȱtheȱ livesȱtheyȱwillȱeventuallyȱpresentȱonȱscreen.ȱTheyȱconsiderȱtheȱkindsȱofȱ supportȱstructuresȱaȱyoungȱpersonȱmightȱneedȱtoȱbeȱaȱcourageousȱandȱ activeȱ agentȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ Mostȱ importantly,ȱ theyȱ becomeȱ awareȱ thatȱ suchȱ agencyȱ rarelyȱ happensȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ accord;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ facilitatedȱ throughȱ theȱ communityȱ ofȱ supportȱ teenagersȱ drawȱ onȱ toȱ becomeȱ confident,ȱ vitalȱ actors.ȱ Throughȱ aȱ nonȬpatronizingȱ process,ȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱyoungȱpeopleȱcomeȱtoȱrecognizeȱwhatȱandȱwhoȱisȱexcludedȱfromȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 171ȱȱȱ theȱstory;ȱbyȱthis,ȱmediaȱeducatorsȱareȱableȱtoȱlocateȱtheȱsocialȱnetworksȱ everyoneȱreliesȱonȱtoȱbeȱeffectiveȱandȱinȱcontrolȱofȱtheirȱlives.ȱȱ Theseȱ examplesȱ fromȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ exemplifyȱ howȱ theȱ criticalȱ possibilitiesȱofȱyoungȱpeople’sȱworkȱexistsȱatȱtheȱpointȱofȱaȱproductiveȱ tension;ȱ aȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ selfȬexpressionȱ andȱ theȱ wayȱ thisȱ selfȬ expressionȱbringsȱyoungȱpeopleȱintoȱrelationshipsȱwithȱdominantȱsocialȱ andȱpoliticalȱformations.ȱItȱisȱnotȱenough,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱ theȱ criticalȱ momentȱ inȱ youthȱ producedȱ workȱ isȱ registeredȱ inȱ theȱ waysȱ theseȱproductionsȱallowȱnew,ȱyoungȱvoicesȱtoȱflourish.ȱThisȱisȱofȱcourseȱ vital;ȱ butȱ ifȱ mediaȱ educatorsȱ areȱ toȱ takeȱ fullȱ advantageȱ ofȱ theȱ opportunitiesȱthisȱworkȱaffordsȱforȱdevelopingȱyoungȱpeopleȱasȱcritical,ȱ sophisticatedȱandȱactiveȱcitizens,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱcrucialȱthatȱstudentsȱlearnȱtoȱ identifyȱhowȱtheirȱproductionsȱinadvertentlyȱchallengeȱandȱengageȱwithȱ power.ȱByȱdoingȱthis,ȱmediaȱeducatorsȱworkȱwithȱtheȱtensionsȱinȱyouthȱ mediaȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ pedagogyȱ ofȱ hope.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ pedagogyȱ isȱ notȱ naïve;ȱ ratherȱitȱlocatesȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱclassroomȬbasedȱmediaȱeducationȱinȱtheȱ criticalȱvoicesȱandȱpracticesȱaliveȱthroughoutȱsociety.ȱ Dominantȱ andȱ formativeȱ mediaȱ practicesȱ limitȱ whatȱ isȱ possibleȱ inȱ society.ȱTheseȱpracticesȱareȱcertainlyȱmoreȱcomplexȱthanȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱandȱ soȱ ifȱ teachingȱ youngȱ peopleȱ howȱ toȱ deconstructȱ mediaȱ remainsȱ important,ȱeducatorsȱknowȱthisȱisȱinsufficientȱasȱaȱcriticalȱmediaȱliteracyȱ strategy.ȱ Inȱ part,ȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ theȱ protection/preparationȱ divideȱ isȱ drivenȱbyȱtheseȱdevelopments.ȱIȱargue,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱbothȱTheȱTakeȱandȱ Meg’sȱ Fatherȱ areȱ butȱ twoȱ examplesȱ suggestiveȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ democraticȱ potentialȱ ofȱ criticalȱ mediaȱ educationȱ canȱ stillȱ developȱ byȱ workingȱ theȱ productiveȱ tensionsȱ arisingȱ whenȱ educatorsȱ protectȱ andȱ prepareȱ students.ȱ Whenȱ thisȱ happens,ȱ aȱ muchȱ moreȱ compellingȱ andȱ effectiveȱ understandingȱ ofȱ criticalȱ practiceȱ insertsȱ itselfȱ intoȱ theȱ field.ȱ Andȱ soȱ itȱ becomesȱ possibleȱ againȱ toȱ envisionȱ howȱ mediaȱ pedagogyȱ addressesȱ society’sȱpromiseȱofȱdemocraticȱcitizenshipȱandȱchange.ȱȱ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSȱ

IȱwishȱtoȱthankȱDeirdreȱKellyȱandȱMichelleȱStackȱforȱtheirȱhelpfulȱcommentsȱonȱ anȱ earlierȱ draftȱ ofȱ thisȱ article.ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ wantȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ twoȱ educatorsȱ –ȱ Jimȱ Crescenzoȱ andȱ Corinȱ Browneȱ –ȱ whoseȱ workȱ withȱ youngȱ peopleȱ continuesȱ toȱ informȱmyȱownȱunderstandingȱofȱwhatȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱmediaȱeducationȱcanȱbe.ȱ 172ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ

NOTESȱ

1ȱ Buckinghamȱ isȱ ofȱ courseȱ hesitantȱ aboutȱ abandoningȱ “theȱȇmodernistȇȱ projectȱ ofȱ culturalȱ criticismȈȱ andȱ yetȱ heȱ remainsȱ equallyȱ cautiousȱ aboutȱ theorizingȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ normativeȱ claimsȱ inȱ theȱ workȱ mediaȱ educatorsȱdoȱ withȱ youngȱpeopleȱ (Buckingham,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ171).ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱIȱsuggestȱhisȱprojectȱ fitsȱ withinȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ liberalȱ educationȱ thatȱ alsoȱ drawsȱ widelyȱ onȱ theȱ influencesȱofȱpostmodernism.ȱȱ 2ȱInȱtheȱfieldȱofȱvisualȱculture,ȱothersȱ(Rogoff,ȱ1998)ȱhaveȱaddressedȱthisȱ problemȱfromȱaȱdifferentȱperspective,ȱsuggestingȱthatȱourȱ“fieldȱofȱvision”ȱnowȱ increasinglyȱ replicatesȱ anȱ experienceȱ alikeȱ whatȱ Derridaȱ describedȱ throughȱ hisȱ notionȱofȱdifférance.ȱ“Derrida’sȱconceptualizationȱofȱdifféranceȱtakesȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ binaryȱ logicȱ inȱ whichȱ everyȱ elementȱ ofȱ meaningȱ constitutionȱ isȱ lockedȱintoȱsignificationȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱother…”ȱ(p.ȱ25).ȱButȱtodayȱtheȱvisualȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ mediaȱ articulatesȱ “theȱ continuousȱ displacementȱ ofȱ meaningȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ visionȱ andȱ theȱ visible”ȱ (p.ȱ 25).ȱ Whichȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ weȱ noȱ longerȱseeȱmediaȱasȱdistinctȱlanguagesȱorȱformsȱandȱso,ȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱtheȱmediaȱ operationalizesȱtheȱlogicȱwithinȱDerrida’sȱcriticalȱmethodology.ȱ 3ȱ Buckinghamȱ (2000b)ȱ suggests,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱ Mastermanȱ understandsȱstudentȱproductionȱworkȱasȱimitativeȱandȱimitationȱisȱ“seenȱtoȱbeȱanȱ inherentlyȱ unthinkingȱ processȱ …ȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ ‘dominantȱ ideologies’ȱ ofȱ mediaȱ productsȱ [are]ȱ simplyȱ internalizedȱ andȱ reproduced.ȱ Anȱ emphasisȱ onȱ studentȱ productionȱ [is]ȱ thereforeȱ seenȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ theȱ radicalȱ politicalȱ missionȱofȱmediaȱeducation,ȱandȱitsȱstruggleȱagainstȱtheȱideologicalȱhegemonyȱofȱ capitalism”ȱ(p.ȱ221).ȱȱ 4ȱForȱinstance,ȱmoreȱthanȱtwoȱdecadesȱagoȱMastermanȱ(1983)ȱarguedȱhisȱ notionȱ ofȱ criticalȱ readingȱ “needsȱ toȱ beȱ complementedȱ byȱ practicalȱ videoȱ work,ȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ mediaȱ materialsȱ forȱ studentsȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ simulationsȱthroughȱwhichȱaȱrangeȱofȱalternativeȱcodingsȱcanȱbeȱexplored”ȱ(pp.ȱȱ 11Ȭ12).ȱ 5ȱManyȱorganizationsȱareȱinvolvedȱinȱthisȱworkȱinȱbothȱCanadaȱandȱtheȱ US,ȱ but,ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ seeȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Pacificȱ Cinémathèque’sȱ Educationȱ Departmentȱ (www.cinematheque.bc.ca/education)ȱ andȱ theȱ Accessȱ toȱ Mediaȱ EducationȱSocietyȱ(www.accesstomedia.org),ȱbothȱlocatedȱinȱVancouver.ȱ ȱ REFERENCESȱ

Bazalgette,ȱ C.ȱ (1997).ȱ Anȱ agendaȱ forȱ theȱ secondȱ phaseȱ ofȱ mediaȱ literacyȱ development.ȱInȱR.ȱW.ȱKubeyȱ(Ed.),ȱMediaȱliteracyȱinȱtheȱinformationȱage:ȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 173ȱȱȱ

Currentȱ perspectivesȱ (pp.ȱ 69Ȭ78).ȱ Newȱ Brunswick,ȱ NJ:ȱ Transactionȱ Publishers.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.ȱ (1992).ȱ Mediaȱ educationȱȬȱtheȱ limitsȱ ofȱ aȱ discourse.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ CurriculumȱStudies,ȱ24(4),ȱ297Ȭ313.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.ȱ (1998).ȱ Mediaȱ educationȱ inȱ theȱ UK:ȱ Movingȱ beyondȱ protectionism.ȱJournalȱofȱCommunication,ȱ48(1),ȱ33Ȭ43.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.ȱ (2000a).ȱ Afterȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ childhood:ȱ Growingȱ upȱ inȱ theȱ ageȱ ofȱ electronicȱmedia.ȱMalden,ȱMA:ȱPolityȱPressȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.ȱ (2000b).ȱ Theȱ placeȱ ofȱ production:ȱ Mediaȱ educationȱ andȱ youthȱ mediaȱproductionȱinȱtheȱUK.ȱInȱC.ȱvonȱFeilitzenȱ&ȱU.ȱCarlssonȱ(Eds.),ȱ Childrenȱ andȱ media:ȱ Image,ȱ education,ȱ participationȱ (Yearbookȱ 1999,ȱ pp.ȱ 219Ȭ228).ȱGoteborg:ȱUNESCOȱInternationalȱClearinghouseȱonȱChildrenȱ andȱViolenceȱonȱtheȱScreen.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱD.ȱ(2003).ȱMediaȱeducation:ȱLiteracy,ȱlearningȱandȱcontemporaryȱculture.ȱ Cambridge,ȱUK:ȱPolity.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱD.,ȱ&ȱDomaille,ȱK.ȱ(2004).ȱWhereȱareȱweȱgoingȱandȱhowȱcanȱweȱgetȱ there?ȱ Generalȱ findingsȱ fromȱ theȱ UNESCOȱ youthȱ mediaȱ educationȱ surveyȱ2001.ȱInȱC.ȱvonȱFeilitzenȱ&ȱU.ȱCarlssonȱ(Eds.),ȱPromoteȱorȱprotect?ȱ Perspectivesȱonȱmediaȱliteracyȱandȱmediaȱregulationsȱ(Yearbookȱ2003,ȱpp.ȱ41Ȭ 54).ȱ Goteborg:ȱ Internationalȱ Clearinghouseȱ onȱ Children,ȱ Youthȱ andȱ Media.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ Harvey,ȱ I.ȱ (2001).ȱ Imaginingȱ theȱ audience:ȱ Language,ȱ creativityȱ andȱ communicationȱ inȱ youthȱ mediaȱ production.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ EducationalȱMedia,ȱ26(3),ȱ173Ȭ184.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.,ȱ Niesyto,ȱ H.,ȱ &ȱ Fisherkeller,ȱ J.ȱ (2003).ȱ Videoculture:ȱ Crossingȱ bordersȱ withȱ youngȱ peopleȇsȱ videoȱ productions.ȱ Televisionȱ andȱ Newȱ Media.ȱ4(4),ȱ461Ȭ482.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ SeftonȬGreen,ȱ J.ȱ (1998).ȱ Digitalȱ visions:ȱ Children’sȱ creativeȱ usesȱofȱmultimediaȱtechnologies.ȱInȱSeftonȬGreen,ȱJ.ȱ(Ed.).ȱ(1998).ȱDigitalȱ diversions:ȱYouthȱcultureȱinȱtheȱageȱofȱmultimedia.ȱ(pp.ȱ62Ȭ83).ȱLondon,ȱUK:ȱ UCLȱPress.ȱ

Buckingham,ȱD.,ȱ&ȱSeftonȬGreen,ȱJ.ȱ(2003).ȱGottaȱcatchȱȇemȱall:ȱStructure,ȱagencyȱ andȱ pedagogyȱ inȱ childrenȇsȱ mediaȱ culture.ȱ Mediaȱ Cultureȱ &ȱ Society,ȱ 25(3).ȱ379Ȭ399.ȱ 174ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱSTUARTȱR.ȱPOYNTZȱ

Derry,ȱ M.ȱ (1993).ȱ Cultureȱ jamming:ȱ Hacking,ȱ slashingȱ andȱ snipingȱ inȱ theȱ empireȱ ofȱ signs.ȱ Retrievedȱ Decemberȱ 06,ȱ 2005,ȱ fromȱ http://www.levity.com/ȱ markdery/culturjam.html.ȱȱ

Fraser,ȱ N.ȱ (1997).ȱ Justiceȱ interruptus:ȱ Criticalȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱȈpostsocialistȈȱ conditionȱ(pp.ȱ207Ȭ223).ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱRoutledge.ȱ

Goldfarb,ȱ B.ȱ (2002).ȱ Visualȱ pedagogy:ȱ Mediaȱ culturesȱ inȱ andȱ beyondȱ theȱ classroom.ȱ Durham,ȱNC:ȱDukeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ

Hall,ȱ S.ȱ (1980).ȱ Encoding/decoding.ȱInȱ S.ȱ Hall,ȱ D.ȱ Hobson,ȱ A.ȱLoweȱ&ȱ P.ȱ Willisȱ (Eds.),ȱCulture,ȱmedia,ȱlanguageȱ(pp.ȱ128Ȭ139).ȱLondon,ȱUK:ȱHutchinson.ȱ

Hammer,ȱR.ȱ(1995).ȱRethinkingȱtheȱdialectic:ȱAȱcriticalȱsemioticȱmetaȬtheoreticalȱ approachȱ forȱ theȱ pedagogyȱ ofȱ mediaȱ literacy.ȱ Inȱ P.ȱ McLaren,ȱ R.ȱ Hammer,ȱD.ȱSholleȱ&ȱS.ȱSmithȱReillyȱ(Eds.),ȱRethinkingȱmediaȱliteracy:ȱAȱ criticalȱpedagogyȱofȱrepresentaton.ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ

Harvey,ȱ D.ȱ (1989).ȱ Theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ postmodernity:ȱ Anȱ enquiryȱ intoȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ culturalȱchange.ȱOxford,ȱUK:ȱBlackwell.ȱ

Hobbs,ȱ R.ȱ (1998).ȱ Theȱ sevenȱ greatȱ debatesȱ inȱ theȱ mediaȱ literacyȱ movement.ȱ JournalȱofȱCommunication,ȱ48(1),ȱ16Ȭ32.ȱ

Kellner,ȱ D.ȱ (1998).ȱ Multipleȱ literaciesȱ andȱ criticalȱ pedagogyȱ inȱ aȱ multiculturalȱ society.ȱEducationalȱTheoryȱ48(1),ȱ103Ȭ123.ȱ

Kellner,ȱ D.ȱ (2002).ȱ Criticalȱ perspectivesȱ onȱ visualȱ literacyȱ inȱ mediaȱ andȱ cyberculture.ȱJournalȱofȱVisualȱLiteracy,ȱ22(1),ȱ81Ȭ90.ȱ

Kinder,ȱ M.ȱ (1991).ȱ Playingȱ withȱ powerȱ inȱ movies,ȱ television,ȱ andȱ videoȱ games:ȱ Fromȱ muppetȱbabiesȱtoȱteenageȱmutantȱninjaȱturtles.ȱBerkeley,ȱCA:ȱUniversityȱofȱ CaliforniaȱPress.ȱ

Klein,ȱN.ȱ(2000).ȱNoȱlogo:ȱTakingȱaimȱatȱbrandȱbullies.ȱToronto:ȱVintageȱCanada.ȱ

Kubey,ȱ R.ȱ W.ȱ (2003).ȱ Whyȱ U.S.ȱ mediaȱ educationȱ lagsȱ behindȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ Englishȱspeakingȱworld.ȱȱTelevisionȱ&ȱNewȱMediaȱ4(4),ȱ351Ȭ370.ȱ

Leavis,ȱF.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱThompson,ȱD.ȱ(1933;ȱreprintedȱ1960).ȱCultureȱandȱenvironment:ȱTheȱȱ trainingȱofȱcriticalȱawareness.ȱLondon,ȱUK:ȱChattoȱ&ȱWindus.ȱ

Lewis,ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Jhally,ȱ S.ȱ (1998).ȱ Theȱ struggleȱ overȱ mediaȱ literacy.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Communication,ȱ48(1),ȱ1Ȭ8.ȱ INDEPENDENTȱMEDIA,ȱYOUTHȱAGENCY,ȱANDȱTHEȱPROMISEȱOFȱMEDIAȱEDUCATIONȱ 175ȱȱȱ

Luke,ȱ C.ȱ (2002).ȱ ReȬcraftingȱ mediaȱ andȱ ictȱ literacies.ȱ Inȱ D.ȱ Alvermannȱ (Ed.),ȱ Adolescentsȱandȱliteraciesȱinȱaȱdigitalȱworldȱ(pp.ȱ132Ȭ146).ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱ PeterȱLang.ȱ

Magnani,ȱ E.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ changingȱ minds:ȱ Recoveredȱ factoriesȱ inȱ argentina.ȱ (Trans.).ȱ Dinaȱ Khorasanee.ȱ [29ȱ paragraphs].ȱ Retrievedȱ Dec.ȱ 06,ȱ 2005.ȱ http://www.zmag.org/content/ȱ print_article.cfm?itemID=ȱ 4702§ionID=42ȱȱȱ

Masterman,ȱ L.ȱ (1983).ȱ Mediaȱ educationȱ inȱ theȱ 1980s.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Educationalȱ Television,ȱ9(1),ȱ7Ȭ20.ȱ

Masterman,ȱL.ȱ(1985).ȱTeachingȱtheȱmedia.ȱLondon,ȱUK:ȱComedia.ȱ

Masterman,ȱ L.ȱ (1993).ȱ Theȱ mediaȱ educationȱ revolution.ȱ Canadianȱ Journalȱ ofȱ EducationalȱCommunication,ȱ22(1),ȱ5Ȭ14.ȱ

Masterman,ȱ L.ȱ (1997).ȱ Aȱ rationaleȱ forȱ mediaȱ education.ȱ Inȱ R.ȱ W.ȱ Kubeyȱ (Ed.),ȱ Mediaȱ literacyȱ inȱ theȱ informationȱ ageȱ (pp.ȱ 15Ȭ68).ȱ Newȱ Brunswick,ȱ NJ:ȱ Transaction.ȱ

McLuhan,ȱ M.ȱ (1951).ȱ Theȱ mechanicalȱ bride:ȱ Folkloreȱ ofȱ industrialȱ man.ȱ Newȱ York,ȱNY:ȱVanguardȱPress.ȱ

Rogoff,ȱ I.ȱ (1998).ȱ Studyingȱ visualȱ culture.ȱ Inȱ N.ȱ Miroeffȱ (Ed.),ȱ Theȱ visualȱ cultureȱ readerȱ(pp.ȱ24Ȭ36).ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱRoutledge.ȱ vonȱ Feilitzen,ȱ C.ȱ (2000).ȱ Mediaȱ education,ȱ childrenȇsȱ participationȱ andȱ democracy.ȱInȱC.ȱ vonȱ Feilitzenȱ &ȱ U.ȱ Carlssonȱ (Eds.),ȱ Childrenȱ andȱ theȱ media:ȱ Image,ȱ education,ȱ participationȱ (Yearbookȱ 1999,ȱ pp.ȱ 15Ȭ29).ȱ Goteborg,ȱSweden:ȱUNESCOȱȱInternationalȱClearinghouseȱonȱChildrenȱ andȱViolenceȱonȱScreen.ȱ vonȱFeilitzen,ȱC.ȱ(2004).ȱPromoteȱorȱprotect?ȱPerspectivesȱonȱmediaȱliteracyȱandȱ mediaȱ regulation.ȱ Inȱ C.ȱ vonȱ Feilitzenȱ &ȱ U.ȱ Carlssonȱ (Eds.),ȱ Promoteȱ orȱ protect?ȱPerspectivesȱonȱmediaȱliteracyȱandȱmediaȱregulationȱ(Yearbookȱ2003,ȱ pp.ȱ 9Ȭ21).ȱ Goteborg:ȱ Internationalȱ Clearinghouseȱ onȱ Children,ȱ Youthȱ andȱMedia.ȱ

ȱ