I’ve been on a bit of a Clay Shirky kick for the past couple of months. I’m about half way through “Here Comes Everybody“, been reading his blog, watched a nice video of a recent lecture and trying to synthesize his ideas.
The older concept that struck me in a new way is the fact that while many understand the significant shift in society that is just beginning, many see it as a fad, including educators. Shirky, interviewed by a TV producer about a possible guest appearance defends the producers claim that all this social media was a fad.
I was arguing that this isn’t the sort of thing society grows out of. It’s the sort of thing that society grows into. But I’m not sure she believed me, in part because she didn’t want to believe me, but also in part because I didn’t have the right story yet. And now I do.
I was having dinner with a group of friends about a month ago, and one of them was talking about sitting with his four-year-old daughter watching a DVD. And in the middle of the movie, apropos nothing, she jumps up off the couch and runs around behind the screen. That seems like a cute moment. Maybe she’s going back there to see if Dora is really back there or whatever. But that wasn’t what she was doing. She started rooting around in the cables. And her dad said, “What you doing?” And she stuck her head out from behind the screen and said, “Looking for the mouse.
Here’s something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships broken. Here’s something four-year-olds know: Media that’s targeted at you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for. Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change. Because four year olds, the people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won’t have to go through the trauma that I have to go through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan’s Island, they just assume that media includes consuming, producing and sharing.
The shift is obviously more clearly demonstrated by our young people. Older generations continue to be more irritated by teens texting and gaming than they are interested in understanding that participation in social media is not a fad and it’s not all bad.
My brain is reeling with many concepts that include distribution of participation, one that suggests equality is not something that is required for social media to work. Many of these ideas fly in the face of today’s educational structures. We know that. What I like about Shirky’s approach as with any good writer is that stories are the key to the message. He builds the theory and depth out of the stories. We need to continue telling the new story. I’ve got my eyes and hears poised.
Image: Clay Shirky by Joi
http://flickr.com/photos/joi/1399862175/in/photostream/
Pingback: Spreading the “Good News” « EdTech4Newbies
As much as I like the “where’s the mouse” story, it isn’t quite so simple. If the girl was indeed watching Dora the Explorer, it makes much more sense. Dora was designed to be a TV show AND a computer game. If you watch, they often use computer/mouse metaphors and ask the viewers to “click on” something. The show translates well to a computer interface because it was designed that way. The response of the four year old is to this specific show’s design, and it shouldn’t be generalized.
sylvia martinezs last blog post..Quote for today
Sylvia,
Point taken, however the general point is that the “screen”, is switching from a passive experience to an active one. The convergence of media is happening and the story of the 4 year old simply illustrates the shift is already occurring. Whether it’s because she watches Dora the Explorer or I watch a sporting event and am also connected to live stats, I’m not as interested in passive screen time. I’m an exception of people in my generation, this girl is not.
My wife is taking a class on Worship for her Masters, and one of the essays in the text for the class pointed out some fundamental shifts in the way churches have had to deal with media, which I think is applicable to the educational setting as well. The author’s argument is that churches before the advent of the printing press were largely presentation-style services, where the parishioners would observe the priest going through the motions, but not be able to hear or read along.
After Gutenberg, the worship style catered more to the intellectualisation inherent with a reading experience (sermon focus, rather than Eucharist focus). Since reading focuses on the relationship between author and reader, worship became an individualised head-down format.
Television brought with it another change in worship style. Because TV is experiential and interpretive, and is experienced more easily in community, the style of service that lends itself to the television generation is a heads-up community experience.
Computers and the internet have brought the most recent change, and those growing up in the information age expect that their worship services will be interactive and personally meaningful.
The author’s point was that churches have to move forward into the new way of doing things without leaving behind those who are more comfortable with a reading church. For our schools, since we don’t have the older generation to contend with as students (just as teachers and administrators), we should feel more free to embrace the interactive style of presentation favoured by those born since 1992.
Ian H.s last blog post..Awesome & useless
Refreshing page. My friends and I were just discussing this the other night. Also your page looks excellent on my old laptop. Now thats uncommon. Keep it up.