Module 2: Visibility Closing Thoughts

At the beginning of Module 2, we were called to ask ourselves where we fall in the “ideological continuum” of constructivism or protectionism (Tollefson, 2016).  In chapter 6 of Volatile Knowing, we are reminded that we “have lost the ability to look back, having ceded our own definitional authority to those who own the spotlight (Tollefson, 2010).  Where do these two notions intersect? The intersection is known as visibility.  Visibility contains many facets and the following mediums I will discuss explain the complexity of visibility and the differing ideological perspectives found within.

While many subscribe to the belief that the mass media is perpetuating intolerance and stereotypes, Carlos Cortes takes a different stance.  In “The Children Are Watching: How The Media Teach About Diversity”, he explores stereotypes, generalizations, and labels.  “We all use-we need to use-labels for groups of people” as it aids in the communication of social issues, Cortes argues (Cortes, 2000).  He does not dispute the idea that media contains some level of stereotyping.  In fact, he even says “it may be occurring” (Cortes, 2000).  However, he mentions a solid point-groups stereotype as well, therefore, media is not solely to blame.  Cortes goes on to suggest  3 central points regarding the media: 1. The media recognizes that consumers learn multi-culturally; 2. media realizes their part in internalizing stereotypes; 3. media uses stereotypes to meet consumer expectations and desired reactions/outcomes.  I agree with Cortes’ constructivist view on the media and that in order for students to thrive in this diverse society, “schools should help them learn to work analytically with evidence” from the mass media (Cortes, 2000).

I found Larry Gross’ article, “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media” to be particularly fascinating as it had personal relevance.  It reminded me of an anecdote I will share as I believe it corresponds well with this piece.  I have a co-worker who is my superior.  She is a kind, hardworking, and opinionated wife and mother of two.  A couple months back, the subject of television came up and she said her children worship the Disney channel.  It prompted me to inquire if they watch ABC Family (now FreeForm) as well.  To which she replied, “no, I do not allow my kids to watch ABC Family”.  Her reason was she did not want her children being exposed to alternative family units/lifestyles (i.e. gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.).  I feel this is exactly what  Gross was referring to when he discussed the ongoing media “maintenance of the ‘normal’ gender system that requires that children be socialized -and adults retained-within a set of images and expectations which limit…their conceptions of…what is proper for men and women” (Gross, 2001).  Sexual minorities are victim to mass media power and frequently disregarded.  Echoing Tollefson’s view of inversion visibility, Gross concurs by saying “the most effective form of resistance to the hegemonic voice of the dominant media is to speak for oneself” (Gross, 2001).  I, too believe we must question “the instruments” of power in the media and reverse the invisibility in order to move towards a society where power resides within each and every one of us (Tollefson, 2010).

In Chapters 3 and 4 of our textbook, Karen Sternheimer discusses the largely prevalent issue of cyber-bullying and the argument of whether or not the media is hurting our intellectual makeup.  In regards to cyber harassment and social networking, Sternheimer argues that while the Internet can be a dark place, “it clearly can help people who may feel isolated and alone find a sense of community and acceptance” (Sternheimer, 2013).  While parents are fearful of the excessive exposure of their children through these medium platforms, Sternheimer believes “people are gradually learning to protect their privacy” more effectively, and are better equipped to determine what is real versus what is not (Sternheimer, 2013).  Conversely, in the journal “Advertising to Children and Teens: Current Practices” it is strongly recommended that research be conducted “to assess what age (if ever) children can discern the [messages] in [modern] media” and defend against the “persuasive intent” (Common Sense Media, 2014).  While I do agree with the article’s protectivist approach to steady research on the relationship between media messages and children; my views align more with Sternheimer’s constructivist belief that in this progressive society, children are  being given the tools to navigate the cyber world.  Instead of condemning this media shift and panicking that this generation is suffering mental setbacks because of it; we should choose to see “what we gain from these changes” and how visibility can “enhance our education” (Sterheimer, 2013).