Next academic year, we hope to help students produce more broadly through the Web, particularly via videos and audio podcasts. The Web is replete with “one-world” examples of cultural syncretism, and the word “mashup” is itself a product of Web 2.0. Here’s an example I stumbled upon while surfing last night. This video features the Dvinks Clan, a parkour/free running group based, I think, in Latvia. Parkour was invented in the French suburbs, and inspired by the moves in 1970s Kung Fu flicks. This video echoes French New Wave cinema, draws upon the California skater videos of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and uses French hip-hop as its soundtrack.
This video, beyond showing off the amazing ability of practitioners of parkour, also reflects the multiple literacies of its producers and their familiarity with a variety of cultural forms. It was produced with practically no budget. We all are concerned about the writing and speaking ability of our students, and we should be. But we also, I think, should realize that students have other languages through which they can express themselves and generate knowledge, and most of them don’t think that they’re allowed to draw upon these forms at college. I think they should be, as long as it’s in the right pedagogical setting. We can help make this happen. I’d love to see Baruch students use the aural and the visual to explore themselves and each other, and to present their explorations to a broader audience. I have no doubt we’d all be impressed with the product. That, to me, is what teaching through Web 2.0 is all about, and it’s the perfect use of these new technologies at the most culturally diverse college in the country.
Fun video, Luke! Just yesterday in my Writing for the Social Sciences class, a student asked if I thought that the increasing use of text messaging, email, and even blogging, had a negative effect on students’ writing. I said more or less ‘no,’ and talked about genre differences, and knowing when to use different forms of writing and who one’s audience is. Another student chimed in that she’d recently caught herself typing ‘cuz’ instead of ‘because’ (or even b/c i suppose!) in an email to a client. Your post makes me wish I’d reminded them of our conversation on code-switching when we read Gloria Anzaldua. Furthermore, technology adds a whole new layer to the issue in the form of mash-ups, as you point out. Thanks!
Reply to Deborah
Luke, the video is great and you make very good points, but of course I am going to try and be a little controversial.
I think the most important point is that we as educators need to take cues from students as to how best to speak in their language while teaching. This implies some difficult choices, perhaps stepping beyond our own comfort levels, or experimenting with forms of expression we would not normally employ. For example, as a Writing Fellow I was sometimes trying to introduce major changes to the syllabi of professors I worked with, a task as difficult as changing my own syllabus. I was so fond of it, worked so hard on it and was resistant to trying out new things. This openness and innovation also means that we will be responsible for learning FROM our students, admitting ignorance, accepting their help and guidance. All this can bring us closer to the more egalitarian model of learning, something I think we should strive for.
A caveat to saying this is that I don’t think much of this is particularly new. Students and/or young people have always found ways to express themselves and “mashing/mashup” happens in forms other than technological ones. Culture jamming (which could be called mashing) is perhaps as old as the graffiti in the Roman Empire, and punk rock and DIY did not start on You Tube. The word parkour itself is such a postmodern creation for what kids normally do in backyards in many working class neighborhoods, but the activity did not have a name before ( I grew up in a neighborhood very similar to this one). But these cultural forms of expression were transmitted via graffiti, music and zines, not the internet.
But the parkour video is a great example of how the digital age makes promulgation of ideas and production of knowledge easier and more accessible to the masses. Unfortunately, technology has some other consequences as well. Rumour has is that Dvinks Clan “sold out.” Their early videos generated a cult following and so they quickly attracted corporate sponsorship. It seems that they now go under the name “Tribal” and apparently sell tons of products from T-shirts, to jeans, and spray paint.
Reply to Agnieszka
Deborah and Agnieska, thanks for the responses. I don’t see much that’s controversial here. I think we agree that good teaching requires listening, improvising, and finding creative ways to bring students to the material. Syncretism, of course, is as old as culture itself, and while Web 2.0 may have named and popularized the mashup, it certainly didn’t invent the process. What is new, as you note, is the accessibility of this stuff, for both consumers and producers. When I went to college, it wasn’t easy to get access to a video camera and editing equipment, or to find ways to disseminate your art. Of course, people still did it, but it was certainly rare to find in a class. That’s not the case these days. It’s easier to gain access to the tools to be creative. At the college level, this may result in a lot of bad art. But that’s ok… some great stuff gets produced as well, and a few students may be inspired by the process along the way.
As for parkour, I’m paradoxically more romantic and less idealistic about it than you seem to be. I see a meditative quality in the performance, in these cats’ mastery of a physical environment that in working-class neighborhoods so often works to sap wills rather than inspire. It’s transcendent and all-encompassing, and has obvious parallels in capoeira and kung fu as a physical pursuit that has some source deep within the soul of the practitioner. I’m for any form that someone can and must devote themselves so fully to, and see it as something way beyond play. At the same time, I don’t think that world view has any necessary stance vis a vis capitalism. I doubt these guys are getting rich off of the stuff, and even if they were, they’d just be finding a way to make a living doing what they love. This same thing has happened with subculture after subculture. Sometimes the subcultures change, sometimes they don’t. Those with the purest cores evolve. Tony Hawk makes $10 million a year off his video game, and still skates like a motherf*^$@*r.
Reply to Luke