Wednesday 4 May 2011

‘OCR Media Studies for A2’ Identity

Identity
Extract from ‘OCR Media Studies for A2’ by Julian McDougall

Identity is complicated. Everyone thinks they’ve got one. 

Two names that crop up a lot in this book are David Buckingham and David Gauntlett. The reason we keep returning to their ideas is twofold. First, they are two of the most influential writers in media education, so A-level media teachers and students will be wise to make use of their theoretical contributions, whether you agree with them or not. Second, they are both concerned with the relationship between media and cultural identity, and the OCR specification places a clear emphasis on this, as we have discussed. So let’s begin our analysis of identity for this theme with a statement from each of them.

A focus requires us to pay close attention to the diverse ways in which media and technologies are used in everyday life, and their consequences both for individuals and for social groups.
(Buckingham 2008)

It is of course, the second of Buckingham’s ‘angles’ that we will be paying close attention to in this theme – the consequences of media use for social groups. Here we return to the quote from Gauntlett that started this chapter to have a look in more detail at his elaboration on the complexity of any discussion of identity. 


Identity is complicated. Everyone thinks they’ve got one. Magazines and talk show hosts urge us to explore our ‘identity’. Religious and national identities are at the heart of major international conflicts. Artists play with the idea of ‘identity’ in modern society. Blockbuster movie superheroes have emotional conflicts about their ‘true’ identity. And the average teenager can create three online ‘identities’ before breakfast……Thinking about self-identity and individuality can cause some anxiety – at least in cultures where individuals are encouraged to value their personal uniqueness. Each of us would like to think – to some extent – that we have special, personal qualities, which make us distinctive and valuable to the other people in our lives (or potential future friends). But does this mean anything? Is individuality just an illusion? Maybe we are all incredibly similar, but are programmed to value minuscule bits of differentiation.
(Gauntlett 2007)

Identity is one of those words that we all take for granted. We talk about our identity in a number of different ways in everyday life – think about the debate over whether innocent people should have any reason to worry about carrying an identity card; think about yourself, and the ‘digital footprint’ this leaves for advertisers to make use of. There is a humorous cartoon in circulation with the caption, ‘on the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog’, which relates to how we can construct an alternative identity for ourselves online if we want to. These are specific examples about how information about us is shared publicly. But there are more abstract ways of thinking about identity that we also employ everyday – the clothes we wear, the media we consume, the people we like. The combination of these practices amounts to an idea we have of how others see us, described by Goffman (1990) as ‘the presentation of self’. (Relatedarticleshttp://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/student_journals/ug_journal/UGJournal_Vol2/2009SC203_HannahHammond.pdf) If you see one of your teachers socialising, it can seem strange because you are used to seeing her demonstrating a ‘professional identity’ – a way of ‘being’ that is different to her social identity. The stakes get higher for identity when people feel marginalised, victimised or in any way prejudiced against because of their identity. Minority ethnic groups, gay people, disabled people, the elderly, the police, people from Birmingham, teenagers (and countless others – this is just a selection) may all, at times, have cause for complaint about how others make assumptions about them because of their identity. For Muslims in the UK, this might be a visable issue – people make assumptions because of appearance. For gay men, there is the issue of whether ‘straight-acting’ is a safer ‘way of being’, particularly in the workplace, as being gay is not an immediately visible trait  (though there are more complex semiotic choices to be made about clothes, icons and accessories that may be visual). Children with Birmingham accents might be instantly dismissed in comparison to their peers from Kent, and assumptions made about intelligence. These examples take us into the realm of collective identity.



No comments:

Post a Comment