Limiting Conversations, a Youtube Example

I’m starting to ground myself in this idea that I don’t have to learn all the intricacies of technological tools but I do have to learn the ideological framework around the tools. To clarify: what would make me a conscious consumer and producer would be if I understood how particular technologies forced me to participate and what work I am producing from that participation. I don’t need to understand all the specifics of using Instagram in order to perceive how it shapes communication and youth culture. I want to place more emphasis on technologically conscious rather than “tech- savvy”.

To illustrate this point I will describe an example more in detail. Youtube has rather quickly given rise to dozens of young “influencers” who have a mostly teen/young adolescent following. Something that many Youtube influencers will say is how they love talking with their followers.  However, by naming the practice of responding to followers on Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube comments, they are changing the meaning of what talking and conversation means to them. There is not a situation in real time where one person would get talked at by millions of people, and then select one or two people to respond to.

When both influencers and followers therefore engage in this “conversation”, they are buying into the way that Youtube, Instagram and Twitter has set up conversation to happen. They are not doing it on their own terms, they are doing it on the companies’ terms. I think understanding this piece is crucial because it’s understanding that the technology game is not neutral, and much of it’s construction is not the hands of the majority. To be deemed a media creator or producer of content is to still work within the confines of a given format.

Teacher Salaries and Student Stories

/A Very Simple Topic/

This post will perhaps have a slightly different tone than some of my other pieces – it will be done in part because of a school assignment that really captures my personal interest. So let’s get into it: Teacher Salaries and Student Stories- A Very Simple Topic. 

The topic of what teachers get paid has been, historically, a hotly debated topic and showcases a classic tension between the people and their government. (Click here and here if you want proof ) The people have voiced what they desire, often times advocating for a particular social good. The government, which – yes is a very broad term in itself but for the sake of today’s conversation let’s just lump it into one ‘being’ – has ulterior interests and motives and cannot answer the demand of its people. Combined with the incomplete mentality that runs through the veins of our society that tells us everything should be measured in terms of money, we extrapolate that teaching is not valued because teacher pay is low. 

I’m gonna take it in a different direction for a second but I promise things will connect.  Let’s imagine that you have children, KaleSalad* is 12 and GlutenFree* is 15. You’ve just moved to a new part of town, and you’re taking a moment to think about where to send your kids for middle and high school. Think about what advice you might get from your network of friends and family about where you send your children. What schools would they recommend? What might they tell you about the areas around potential schools? What would be the selling points they make for you to make your decision? 

In a podcast by Planet Money about identifying differences between causation and correlation, this was the exact situation that the interviewee was put in. For context, this person was warned against attending Chicago city schools because they were known to be horrible. This was what they said about it: 

“The important thing in figuring out whether a school is good, not good, somewhere in between is how much value is added to the kids who walk in the front door. And in suburban areas, and in public schools and in some charter schools, the kids who walk in the front door have motivated, highly educated, affluent parents. So those kids are going to do very well no matter what happens. And in the Chicago public schools, you had a really tough demographic, so they walked in the front door with a lot of disadvantages.” 

So let’s pause here for a moment and think about what this interviewee is saying. Chicago’s public schools are not caused by the fact that the school is inherently bad. But, it is correlated, with who is walking into the front door. So… who is walking in? 

Taken from the Chicago Public School Website : https://cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-glance/Pages/Stats_and_facts.aspx

The majority of Chicago Public Schools serve African American and Hispanic children. By describing these students as “a really tough demographic” and “walking in with a lot of disadvantages”, very quickly we make caricatures of these students and ignore all of the assets they have as students. Yes it is true, that many of these students come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and thus do not have access to the same resources as their wealthier peers. But, creating a story where these students as a ‘tough demographic’ brings about a false narrative and ignores the resources they do have. If schooling is meant to build capacity and educate students, this deficit mindset will only serve to disempower students further. 

My purpose is not to pin this interviewee in the Planet Money podcast as racist or ignorant. If you felt that your hypothetical situation of receiving advice for GlutenFree and KaleSalad sounds similar, it only serves to reflect how pervasive these mindsets actually are. 

Now – what the heck does this all have to do with teacher pay? 

The story of who teachers are and therefore, how much they are paid, is married to the story of who their students are. Teachers are paid lower than many other professions that demand the same level of skill, however, between different school districts, the difference can be even more pronounced. To put it simply, what Planet Money would define as the “advantaged” kids are areas where teacher pay would be significantly higher than areas where the podcast would say “disadvantaged” children are attending. Thus, the argument I am trying to make is that the narrative on how much teachers are paid is intimately linked to a narrative around who students are, with students being classified by race or socioeconomic status. Commentary on where teachers should teach in order to avoid low pay is commentary on which kinds of students to avoid. By creating categories of which students to teach and which to avoid is inherently inequitable and serves to enable those students who come from wealthier backgrounds.

Ray McDermott, a professor of education and anthropology wrote:

“A disability may be a better display board for the weaknesses of a cultural system than it is an account of real persons.” ¹

This dominant culture of a lens through money that says: since these children and their families don’t have money, they must be so disadvantaged and in of need help. So the response that teachers receive can be along the lines of “you’re doing such good work teaching those kids”, or “wow, good luck with those kids”. But, let’s take off those money glasses and let’s put on the people lens: these same students can bring in powerful knowledge about themselves, their families, and their communities that can act as sources for their empowerment and growth. If many of the students come from immigrant families: they now have knowledge about two countries and are more likely to speak two languages. If their family has to rely on community, city or government resources to survive: they now have a practical understanding of public funds and resources, more than any regular citizen would know, and have shown resilience through the toughest of situations. 

By saying this, I am not trying to erase the many inequities that are present in the lives of these students and instead showcasing a romanticized notion of what it means to be in their shoes. Structural inequities built into the operation of our society prevent the proper allocation of resources. What do I mean by this? 

Throughout the history of the US, many examples exist in which resources were given to whites and barred from minority communities. George Lipsitz writes in his book in “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness” about how The Federal Housing act of 1934 allowed millions of people to get a loan in order to buy homes. However, racism perpetuated through biased surveys that shuffled loan money: 

“…towards whites and away from communities of color… Each of these policies widened the gap between the resources available to whites and those available to aggrieved racial communities. Federal housing policy offers an important illustration of the broader principles at work in the possessive investment in whiteness. By channeling loans away from older inner city neighborhoods and toward white home buyers moving into segregated suburbs, the FHA and private lenders after World War 2 aided and abetted segregation in US residential neighborhoods.”²  

Connecting Lipsitz and McDermott, I would like to say that the exact reason for calling certain demographics tough and disadvantaged is not necessarily a reflection of any inherent qualities of minority families but instead a finger pointed right back to the people and institutions in power. Instead of questioning what it means for teachers to teach in urban and inner city neighborhoods, there should be questioning around what the government and other dominant institutions have done in order to take power and opportunity away from communities of color. Instead of categorizing students as defiant, ghetto, and not focused on school, we should question what put students in positions where their housing and food might not be stable variables in their lives. 

Alas, in this dichotomized and problematic world, we are asked to make choices that act as the heal to the cuts. The answer will inevitably involve kindness, strength, resilience and a resistance to this dominant framework that rewards money and “whiteness”. It will involve our careful reflection on the motivations behind our decisions: ridding ourselves of the motivations that add to the cuts of our society, and keeping the motivations that are part of the heals.

¹ Mcdermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as Disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348. doi:10.1525/aeq.1995.26.3.05x0936z

²Lipsitz, G. (2018). The possessive investment in Whiteness: How White people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

*Disclaimer: Names reflect trendy 21st century celebrity kid names. 

Goodjob to everyone who’s made it to the bottom of this blog post! It was a long one. I would love to hear any comments, feedback, questions, push-backs on this piece dear readers! To the two people that are subscribed to this blog : I’m lookin at you.

The Business of Reviewing Products

I seem to have an affinity to talking about YouTube. My first blog post ever was about the moral obligations of YouTube, or in fact any, content creators. Perhaps because YouTube can be such a communal space; technically, anyone with a camera can participate on YouTube. But it is nuanced with the fact that YouTube has been bred to become a space where people are rewarded monetarily by both the company and outside third parties to sell certain products. Audiences want to see certain people, and these certain people are approached by advertisers to sell certain products. So I don’t really see this space as a community endeavor of sharing videos, it is more of a business of selling products through film.

This post is inspired by this short little article I read (link ) on BBC earlier this morning, where this 7 year old boy names Ryan was the top earning YouTuber. ( A video to their channel is linked here, or at the bottom of this post) Ryan and his family review toys, and make about 22 million dollars from YouTube. I’d like to take this time to breakdown this fact.

Aside from the innumerable problems of using your child to make unthinkable amounts of money, the permission that gives all of this reason to exist is us as viewers: we are that target audience. And it begs the question: what is it about watching a kid play with toys and talk about toys that is so intriguing? The same is true with adults: why does watching reviews about makeup, clothing, cars, etc. intrigue us?

I truly cannot come up with a satisfying explanation or speculation to this question. So, dear reader, I turn it to you – why do you think hearing and watching reviews of products stir our curiosity and interest?

Moving Out

I recently got to experience the pleasure of moving ( please note: sarcasm). I thought it would be simple if I was just moving out of a two bedroom apartment. I don’t consider myself a hoarder and thought the apartment was relatively clean. My parents will probably disagree with that. Anyhow, I thought it would be easy because my roommate had already moved out of her bedroom so it wouldn’t be a big deal to just take care of my own room as well as the kitchen, living room, and the shared closed.

Of course, I now regret using the word easy next to moving out. I spent two whole days at the apartment packing things up and then cleaning e-ver-y-thing. It occurred to me that I accumulated things so quickly in the 2 years I lived there, and owned things that were a hassle to move but thought I needed when I was purchasing them. I wondered if spending 20+ hours packing all these things was a way I wanted to spend my time. I don’t even have a family – imagine trying to move when you’re also thinking about your spouse and n number of kids. Does that mean it’ll take a full week to move – or even more? I shudder.

Moving made me think that I, a 23 year old, don’t need so many things that it takes me 20 hours to leave a place. I seem to have bought things that made me happy in the moment but didn’t think about the implications of what having so much stuff really means. We take on way more than we need. And I realized I don’t want this many things to my name. It’s a weird way of putting it, but I think having too many things slows me down.

I then came across this quote which helped me reflect on this moving process. “The needs of humanity seem never to come to an end. The more men accumulate the more they want. There is only one way of freedom and that is by shutting one’s eyes and heart to all these things which distract the mind.” – Abdúl-Báha

It’s clear to me now that I don’t need to have so many things to make my house feel like a home. Of course, I’m not saying I won’t own anything, but I can choose more consciously what it is that I do. What are the things that “distract the mind”? What are the things that don’t? If I go through life with the understanding that material possessions have the ability to distract me, and material possessions are everywhere ( just take a look at everything around you while you read this), then what would life feel like if I shed some of that weight?

 

I’d love love love, dear reader, to hear your thoughts on this subject. Any insights on what sorts of material possessions can distract us? Or maybe what material possessions can heighten your focus?

 

Fictional Experiences – a Successful Marketing Campaign

I was watching old clips of Conan’s talk show when I stumbled on this short one of him and Rainn Wilson. They were chatting about Rainn’s previous role as Dwight on the office, and how “The Office” fans will spam his social media with Dwight related comments.  If you watch the video, Rainn says: “The show ended like 4 years ago, he’s a fictional character. He was a beet farmer, he was in love with Angela. It’s done. Sorry guys.” As the crows lets out a disappointed “awww”, Conan says: “Look at that, you just told them there’s no Santa.”

This interaction struck me because it reminded me of how there is a tendency in society to romanticize an experience and possibly carry them out longer than the purpose they were meant to serve. Rainn could have possibly said those comments because he didn’t want people asking about a fictional Angela when he is spending time with his wife. But we as viewers don’t want to hear that because it takes the humor and play out of a situation, even if that situation is an actor’s real life.

However, I am not trying to say the problem is solely with the viewer. Companies and stakeholders will intentionally turn an event into an experience. There are countless examples. Star Wars, Disneyland, Harry Potter are a few. (I’m sure we all know some die-hard Disneyland fans!) What could have been a singular event, whether it’s watching a movie or going to an amusement park, has been prolonged so that viewers are sold to the amazing experience. The experience becomes our “Santa”. And companies profit off of our desire to engage with it. We know that it’s fake, but we want to revel in that, we want to glorify it. It takes us out of our own reality for a bit and we find that pleasurable.

What I want to ask readers is: do you find these fictional experiences as ultimately hurtful, neutral, or positive for us to indulge in? I’m not writing to ask people to shut ourselves down from participating in any of these experience-oriented franchises or to say that they are innately positive experiences that we should all partake. But it is empowering to be conscious that this exists. Though these experiences are enjoyable, they should not lead to our intense participation in a romantic delusion – it is ultimately not our reality. The real world needs us more.

Moral Obligations of a Content Creator

Different news outlets are currently broad coasting the recent outrage caused by the publishing of a video, uploaded by a famous YouTube creator, that displayed the body of a man who died by suicide. The shock that ensued from this video has created a discussion on how little censoring there is on different platforms and the effects this lack of ethical ownership means for young viewers. This uprising pushes forward into our collective consciousness the role that social media content creators play in our society.

Content creators aspire for views; more views means a larger fan base, more money, more opportunities to advance their career. However, what happens when the creators themselves fail to acknowledge that they have a moral obligation to their viewers? It is seen that flocks of young fans will buy merchandise, attend meet ups, create fan pages for their favorite content creators. These young fans have set up these influencers as role models and idols, romanticizing the fact that someone so tangibly like them can achieve fame and happiness.

The platforms that host these creators also escape any sort of moral obligation, as their aims align with that of the creators: to make money. Thus, when the aims of those creating content and those hosting the content are not aligned with the needs of the young generation, who is there to look out for them? The friendly appeal of YouTube or Instagram cannot safeguard the interests of a child, and the allure in participating with their brand grows stronger everyday.

What would it look like to have social media platforms aligned with the well being of a population, especially the younger generation? Would it be possible to have content creators who aspire to positively enrich the lives of their target communities rather than advance solely their personal interests? These questions might only be beginning in their answers but seem so vital to the physical, intellectual, and spiritual safety of this new age of people.

 

 

Hey everyone! Thanks for reading. This is my first blog post and I am excited to begin. Without a doubt, I have plenty to improve on, from creating a blog site to my style of writing. I truly appreciate any comment, insight or suggestion you may have and I fully welcome and encourage them. I cannot say that enough!