Author: Baacke, Dieter.

Title: Media Education – a McGuffin, Sisyphus, Hercules or...?

Source: Institut für Medienpädagogik in Forschung und Praxis (ed.): Von der 'Filmerziehung' zur 'Medienkompetenz'. medien + erziehung (merz) spiegelt die Entwicklung der Medienpädagogik. Beiträge aus vierzig Jahren. Munich 1999. P. 219-221.

Publisher: KoPäd Verlag.

Published with kind permission of the publisher.

Dieter Baacke

Media Education – a McGuffin, Sisyphus, Hercules or...?

1. A historical account of media education and the interconnections between it and the modernisation process in society through information and communication technology has still to be written. At the time when the „Institute of Youth, Film and Television“ was founded, most people were looking forward to enjoying two media events: live football commentaries on the radio and the TV ‘Variety Show’ on Saturdays, with stand-up comedian Heinz Erhardt’s hilarious contributions. Where, then, was the need for media education? Moreover, like other branches of education, its roots had been dug out during the Nazi period and left hanging in the air. Up to the present day, only one, historically based, argument has asserted itself. If someone wishes to silence those who harshly critisize the low cultural level of ever more television programmes, or the brutality shown on videos, he mentions the fact that at the beginning of the nineteenth century people were worried about the spread of ‘reading addiction,’ particularly among the female sex. In other words, there have always been worriers who look upon the expansion of the media as something dangerous. There’s nothing new under the sun. This reasoning, in its misuse of history, is an example of the maltreatment to which we subject our past. There is, after all, a world of difference between the expansion of the printing industry, or the re-building of radio and cinema networks and the ubiquitous information and communication technology of today. It is about time we began describing just that. It is hard to celebrate a jubilee when the ground beneath your feet keeps slipping away.

Nevertheless, media education has own peculiar disposition, perhaps, indeed, several. The first one can be exemplified by the myth of McGuffin. Hitchcock explained to Truffaut what a proper cinematic thriller is: he has two men hold a conversation in a railway compartment. One of them has put a package on the luggage rack and the other wants to know what the contents of this mysterious parcel might be. The first man replies: “Oh, it’s a McGuffin.” “What’s that?” asks the other, in amazement. The first man answers: “It’s a device for catching lions in the Adirondocks Mountains.” Upon which, the second man says: “But there aren’t any lions in the Adirondocks!” First man: “Ah, well then, it isn’t a McGuffin, is it?” – Precisely. A McGuffin is a secret that does not truly exist, yet on which any number of statements, enquiries and activities are focussed. That is what makes it so thrilling; lots of action, lots of excitement engendered by nothing – a non-entity. Many people are of the opinion that media education is, in fact, a McGuffin of this sort. There is a lot of talk about it, but nobody knows what it offers or what good it does. The demands made on it are high: critical reception, aesthetic sensibilisation, active media work – but no-one (except the media educators themselves) knows where and how all this can be put into practice. As part of teacher training programmes or the school curriculum, perhaps? It is not to be found in either. Practically no media teachers are included in the state or local community plans for teaching staff. Could it be that media educators are just a little band of people who know how to create a lot of thrills? Should anyone take a closer look, would they discover there is nothing behind it?

Media education also sees itself, however, mirrored in the Sisyphus myth; the poor fellow condemned by Zeus to push a stone up a steep slope, only to have it roll down again just before he reaches the top. He has to begin all over again and never succeeds. Beneath the cloak of this myth media education hides primarily its self-pity. Its lachrymose tone can be heard in Bernd Schorb’s theories, for instance: media education has to deal with “a phenomenon whose structures and content it cannot influence”. Hence it is only a repair workshop, trying to put right what politics and economics have done wrong. This accusation is in danger of becoming a historical one, too. But it is nonetheless neither particularly original nor specific to media education. Let us take a look at social education, leisure education, school education (just to pick three at random): the first tries to compensate, by means of prevention and intervention, for what has been caused elsewhere (social inequality and exclusion); the second administrates an area which it has neither created, nor over which it has any influence; the third is controlled by regulations on curricula, teacher training and career structures issued by the ministries of culture and education. Clearly, media education is not a special case. In common with other forms of education, it faces the same dilemma: how to compensate for and balance out other factors by means of teaching and learning processes. Social sciences and the arts, the progenitors of media education, are still only on the margins of political decision-making processes. It is surprising that educators keep coming to terms with this. One reason for this might be that they are more geared toward the concrete and practical, that they want to help individuals or groups and hence lose sight of the systematic, theoretical perspectives in their pre-occupation with interaction. They forget that individuals and groups are embedded in social sub- and supra-systems which create the real control potential and which thereby define the conditions under which media education takes place.

There is something else media educators are not sufficiently clear about in their minds. Media education concerns itself with a subject that has become entirely cynical. Media - the means to explain and enlighten, pillars to support the public in a pluralistic society - increasingly produce goods for the market in the form of services that must be paid for. This market has finally reached the fields of spirituality, the intellectual, education and culture and threatens to flood them. Everything which is being offered, whether it be information or entertainment, is judged according to the extent to which it can make money and increase turnover. Information technology found its feet long ago, as it is expected to contribute to the “third industrial revolution”, that is to say to help create the new society of information, whereas media education only costs money. The reason being that it is concerned with individuals and groups, with those who are underprivileged or disadvantaged in the world of communication. 40 years along the line it is time for media education to correct certain mistakes:

• Up to now it has not been analytical enough – in general and also in relation to itself, what it can achieve, its areas of influence, its users and its uses;

• It has not been capable of developing a comprehensive theory of media and society and of human activity in both areas;

• Media education today takes the view that how we focus on the media depends upon factors in the cultural communication conditions (besides many others), so that it is really an educational science of communication, but there is still no conclusive representation or investigation into the consequences of this relationship;

• Fear of ‘too much’ theory has led to reductive practical work which is ineffective in the long run. On the other hand, naturally, theories which have been worked out purely by university professors are not comprehensible to those involved in the practical side. There needs to be a great deal of mediation between the two.

I personally see the future of media education neither in the form of a McGuffin, nor in the Sisyphus myth. Allow me a little irony here: I am put in mind rather of Hercules, who was given the task of cleaning out the evil-smelling Augean stables. He took it on - and he succeeded. In the age of body-building such a figure must surely have its attractions! To be blunt: media education has a lot of opportunities. Some of these are to be found in the field of its history – which needs to be re-appraised – and in presenting its accomplishments (of which there are many). The others are waiting in the work to be done to increase the opportunities for participation. Local programmes, open channels, interactive feedback, media advisory boards made up of a wide variety of experts, sponsorship of local communication culture – these are all possible areas of activity. They have been marginalised by the media business and are looked upon by many with disdain, or as having failed. Hercules’ experience and vision in this respect are different: he clears out places that stink, he tackles a task on the basis that what is insignificant today might gain in importance tomorrow. This kind of historical reflection leads inevitably to imagining the future. The present is the place where instruments of perception and activity are adjusted. Here are some of the adjusments to be made:

• Media education which lays stronger claims on bringing its skills to bear on basic political guidelines;

• Media education which gets itself organised (how nice that the “Institute for Youth Film and Televion” no longer stands alone but has been joined by a “Society for Media Education and Communication Culture!”);

• Media education which presents its concepts and practical work more clearly and makes them visible to others, and which avoids embarrassing self-pity;

• Media education which develops a model of humanity and contributes ideas and concepts for structuring the society of the future.

Isn’t Hercules, especially following the recent Italian film series, vulgar, naïve and far too credulous? I admit it, and I admit that there are other valid criticisms. Nevertheless, I prefer a myth with a tendency to exaggerate to the attitude: “Well, we don’t exist at all, really,” or: “We slave and slave away but in the end it’s all in vain”. If we return to the original Herculean figure, then we discover the kind of person who could not only roll up his sleeves and get down to it, but who also knew how to think. His image has become distorted and blurred through time. Just like media education - and that is what connects them. A weak and resigned disposition never achieves anything. Publicly demonstrated confidence is the first step towards political participation, an area from which media education has been largely excluded. Once it has cleaned out the Augean stables it can gladly go looking for a new myth to suit it – and I’m thinking here of Philemon and Baucis, who, at the end of their days, having carried out their work and done their duty, sit outside their little hut, united in harmony and contentment. Media education in retirement – but, considering how things are developing, this is not likely to come about within the next forty years!

This work, and any part of it, is copyright. Putting any part of this work to any unauthorised use is a punishable offence and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproduction, translation, copying, micro-filming, electronic storage or any other electronic re-working.