The notion that technology might be employed to empower citizens and enhance democracy has been a foundation of the community television movement in North America and Europe for over two decades. Community television dogma states that participation in the production of television programs leads to empowerment through "media literacy" (reading and writing media codes) and "media demystification" (becoming aware of media structure and influence). Empowerment is defined as an awareness of self, others, and society, with action taken to change relationships in these areas, particularly within the societal realm.
Critiques of the tenets of the community television movement argue that the movement does not address structural changes necessary to correct societal inequities; and that it rests on fallacious and naive traditional liberal democratic assumptions.
While a wealth of anecdotal evidence has been employed in discussions related to community television and the use of technology for emancipatory purposes, little formal research has informed the exchange. This paper contributes empirical data to the debate on these issues. The viability of the community television vision of empowerment is explored through an analysis of data gathered during a qualitative, interpretive study of non-professional volunteer producers at a community television facility in the U.S. Midwest.
The findings include: media literacy is an outcome for all respondents, media demystification is a consequence for most participants, the community television experience is best conceptualized as a process, and societal change within the community television experience is best understood as a process involving a dialectic between the individual and the collectivity.
The findings argue against critical pedagogist Paulo Freire's overemphasis on action in the societal realm as the highest level of empowerment. Rather, empowerment builds from the personal and extends outward to include others and society. The essence of social change includes a dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective.
While its impact is not as direct as some proponents argue, community television provides a foundation that encourages individuals and groups to believe they can make a difference on the broader society, and to take actions to address structural inequities within the society. This focus on the process nature of community television is not fully included in the present typology of new communication approaches as defined by UNESCO, and indicates the need for an examination of the definitions and categories in which community media experiences have been framed.
The findings indicate that the application of newer technologies to more democratic purposes is possible with a focus on the critical use of the technological tools for social change, rather than the tools themselves.
Yesterday's "liberating technologies" were video and cable television; today's emancipatory technologies are ostensibly the computer and advanced data networks. This paper's investigation into the claims of the empowering nature of yesterday's technologies sheds light on the potential of those of today and tomorrow.
COMMUNITY TELEVISION: YESTERDAY'S `LIBERATING TECHNOLOGY'?
Introduction
Contemporary discussions of the liberating and democratizing potential of information technologies follow a tradition of utopian visions in the introduction of media technologies. Barnouw traces this trend throughout the history of electronic media:
This article explores the utopian vision of empowerment that accompanied the introduction of portable video and broadband cable television in the late 1960s, as expressed by the "community television" or "community video" movement--primarily in the United States. In particular, I will explore the notion that learning to create television programs empowers participants, and critique the assumptions underlying this tenet of community television ideology. The community video vision of empowerment will be compared with the actual experiences of non-professional volunteer television producers, using data collected at a community television facility in the United States. In so doing, this article contributes empirical data to the discussion of the liberating potential of the advanced media and information technologies.
The Vision of Community Television
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, two emerging technologies were viewed as having the potential to solve a variety of societal inequities in North American and European societies. Portable video equipment and large channel capacity cable television were embraced by proponents extolling the empowering aspects of television freed from corporate and institutional control, and put in the hands of the general population. The use of video by non-professionals for the purposes of personal and group empowerment, community communication and development, and social change came to be known as "community television" or "community video."
In the United States, community television was institutionalized in the 1970s in the form of "public access" cable television facilities. Public access is generally recognized to have its conceptual roots in the National Film Board of Canada's "Challenge for Change" program in the late 1960s. The program began as part of a governmental interagency "war on poverty"; film and portable video were considered communication tools by which communities could organize and mobilize themselves, and were utilized as catalysts for social change.
Public access was viewed as a means to help address some of the social problems of the period, many of which stemmed in part from a fundamental distrust of centralized social institutions and a widespread belief that people were unable to make a difference in the society. Proponents of public access championed a rather nebulous vision of empowerment, which included personal enrichment, social awareness, and social activism. This empowerment was to take place, in part, through training in video production. Learning to create television programs would "demystify" the media as individuals became aware of media structure and influence. Participating in the production of television programs would lead to a "media literacy" as individuals learned how to "read" and "write" media codes. These production and interpretation skills would not only allow persons to become more discriminating viewers, but also allow them to actively speak out in the media--contributing to a so-called electronic "marketplace of ideas."
U.S. public access was influenced by social and media activists, video artists, and the "counterculture" of the late 1960s and early 1970s. These joined an unlikely coalition of groups from business, academic, and government circles to promote cable television and public access. Streeter summarizes the utopian vision shared by these groups:
Guerrilla Television, by Michael Shamberg and the Raindance media collective (1971), embodies the philosophy of the video movement of this period from the perspective of the "counterculture." Here they illustrate the concept of a liberating video tied to social action:
European community television activists shared a similar utopian vision with their North American counterparts, as exemplified by Willener, Milliard, and Ganty when describing video experiments in Videology and Utopia: Explorations in a New Medium:
Today, community television continues as an active practice across the globe, providing the general public with access to video production equipment, training in the use of this equipment, and distribution outlets for their completed video programs. In the U.S., distribution of community television programming is primarily through local cable television channels--nearly 2,000 communities are served by such facilities. Dedicated for use by the public, or set aside for government or education, these access channels produce over 15,000 hours of original programming each week (Ingraham 1991).
Groups active today in the community television movement, such as those represented by the international organization Videazimut or the U.S.-based Alliance for Community Media (ACM) continue to promote the use of video and new technologies to "democratize the nation and to empower the disenfranchised" (Drew 1995, 83). In particular, the belief that video and other technologies can be used in such a manner as to empower people and communities continues to permeate contemporary community television philosophy.
However, these notions of empowerment are not uncontested. Critiques of the empowerment dimension of the community television philosophy are explored below.
Despite its roots in social activism, until the late 1980s mainstream U.S. public access focused primarily on the practice of access; discussion of philosophical precepts was rather uncritical and limited to pluralist "free speech" aspects of the movement. For the most part, the access movement avoided being linked with the tradition of radical political activity Downing traces in alternative media movements from the mid-18th century (1990). Since the early 1990s, a strong self-reflective perspective has emerged, questioning long-held tenets of community television ideology.
Of the critiques of community television, the most significant argues that the empowerment vision does not address the structural changes necessary to correct societal inequities, in part because of its focus on technology and its roots in liberal pluralist dogma. These are discussed below.
Technological Utopianism
In critiques applicable to uncritical aspects of the global community television movement, both Slack (1984) and Williams (1974) address the failure of technological utopians to look beyond the immediate technology to the societal structures within which that technology operates. Slack connects what she terms the "alternative technology movement" to the counterculture of the late 1960s, and points out the shortcomings of the movement's philosophy:
Williams (1974) argues against a "symptomatic technology" position, noting that the weakness with this argument is that it separates technology from society, rather than seeing technology as the result of the intention of certain interests within the society.
The failure to address structural inequities is applied to community television in North America and Western Europe by Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979); Council for the Development of Community Media (1983); Garnham (1990); Mattelart and Piemme (1980); and Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972). Enzensberger reflects the general opinion when he asserts:
These critiques assert that, without the broader perspective of technology within societal structures, the "symptomatic technology" or the "alternative technology" movement is easily co-opted by contributing "to the health of just that system of corporate domination that it initially reacted against" (Slack 1984, 36). Garnham asserts that the "myths of video"--including claims of demystification, democratization, and a "process" rather than "product" orientation--are propagated by dominant economic and social forces attempting to market consumer video equipment (1990, 68).
Blau applies the critique of technological utopianism directly to the U.S. public access movement:
In summary, critics attacking the uncritical technological utopian aspects of community television assert that the access movement represents a technological--and therefore superficial--solution to societal problems. Further critiques of the empowerment vision, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of community television in traditional liberal democratic assumptions, are discussed below.
Liberal Democratic Assumptions
Additional critiques of the vision of community television in the U.S. and Europe argue that it rests on the dubious ability of an electronic "marketplace of ideas" to correct societal inequities. This view holds that the vision is based on liberal democratic ideology and focuses on pluralist assumptions regarding the nature of truth and structures by which truth will emerge, the dichotomy of the individual against society, and the nature of power.
A critique of pluralist assumptions--particularly those underlying the freedom of speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution--argues that there is no one objective "truth," and that even the emergence of multiple "truths" is not necessarily facilitated by the conflict implied within the "clash of ideas." Rather, cooperative structures may expedite a collective discovery and/or construction of "truth."
A related argument addresses liberal democratic assumptions that overemphasize the role of the individual, and pit the individual against the collective; these overlook the dialectical nature of the individual and the societal grouping of which he or she is a part.
Critical scholars argue that, contrary to naive pluralist ideology regarding the nature of power, power operates covertly, is unequally distributed within society, and does not always work for the common good. As such, a diversity of ideas and/or "personal expression" will do little to address basic societal inequities.
Other critics connect traditional liberal democratic discussions of freedom of speech issues directly with community television, arguing that the traditional focus on community television as a vehicle for personal expression perpetuates a pluralist myth of individualism mentioned above (Bibby, Denford, and Cross 1979; the Council for the Development of Community Media 1983; Mattelart and Piemme 1980).
Another critique, originating from within the pluralist framework, says that public access's emphasis on individual expression privileges the quantity of ideas in any context, rather than the quality of ideas raised while discussing public issues, both political and cultural. The authors argue that a diversity of voices does not necessarily equate a diversity of ideas (Aufderheide 1992; Devine 1990).
The discussion above places the romantic vision of the community television movement in a larger theoretical perspective of technology and pluralist ideology, and connects it with today's claims of liberating media and data technologies. Having explored the dimensions of the empowerment vision of community television and the challenges to this vision, it remains to examine whether or not training in the operation and use of video technology actually empowers citizens and enhances democracy.
Test of the Empowerment Vision
In 1993 and 1994 I conducted a test of the implementation of the public access empowerment vision as a method of testing the viability of the vision itself. Volunteer community producers at a public access facility in the American Midwest were interviewed in depth to see how their experiences compared to the claims of empowerment made by proponents of public access.
Specifically, I wanted to discern: (1) if producers of public access programs have an awareness of the media's structure and operation, including a sense of the codes of television; (2) if this awareness of media's structure, operation, and codes assists producers in defining a sense of self, others, and society; (3) if producers take action to implement these awarenesses; and (4) if producers identify and change relationships, particularly within the societal realm.
The first item constitutes the elements of media literacy and media demystification; items 2, 3, and 4 address increasing levels of empowerment. These are defined and discussed below.
Empowerment Defined
"Empowerment" as understood by the community television movement has not been clearly explicated, but has been discussed in other areas of study, particularly that of critical pedagogy. Drawing primarily from Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970), I define empowerment as a becoming aware of one's self and, through extension, of others and society in relation to the self. Higher levels of empowerment move beyond mere recognition to attempts to act upon these new awarenesses, including active attempts to change power relationships with the spheres of self, others, and society. The highest level of empowerment is determined to be attempts to change power relationships on the societal level, in accordance with my interpretation of Freire.
Empowerment within a production context is defined by drawing from the field of media education, which helps identify the constituent elements of "media literacy" and "media demystification." These include an awareness of (and, at a higher level, implementation of) the traditional canon of media production (technical, symbolic, and cultural/ideological), media organization, and non-media institutional relationships. The definition of empowerment also suggests that, in addition to these cognitive elements, a producer is able to recognize that all of these elements are human constructions and can be changed.
Mechanics of the Study
Definition of the ingredients of empowerment, media literacy, and media demystification helped point to a line of questioning to be followed when talking with community producers. I judged that the study required an interpretive research methodology that reflected public access's attitudes toward self-growth and change, and technology as a means to empowerment rather than an end in itself. Such a methodology was provided by Dervin's Sense-Making (Dervin 1983, 1989, 1992), which allows for the application of a theoretic of personal empowerment within a self-directed learning experience and provides a means to follow the theoretic of change over time. Sense-Making directed the data collection using focus group and in-depth, open-ended, structured individual interviews.
Over a 9 month period in 1993 and 1994, I spoke at length with 28 volunteer community producers at ACTV 21 in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. The interviews were analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches; the findings were then compared to the theories, ideas, and beliefs of writers and access practitioners of the past 25 years.
Major Findings
Here, I will discuss the major findings of the study that directly address the public access vision of empowerment: that video training leads to media literacy and media demystification, which leads to a new awareness of self, others, and society, and action to integrate this new awareness on any of these levels. Attempts to change power relationships on the societal level is considered to be the highest level of empowerment.
The major findings include:
These are discussed below.
Discussion
Media Literacy and Demystification
The major finding of the study is the discovery that media literacy is an outcome of access participation for all the participants; media demystification is a result for many producers.
All the producers interviewed for the study are able to recognize and evaluate program content, intent, and the technical elements found within television programs--elements of media literacy, as outlined within this article. All began to look at television in a different light after their access training; in effect, they developed an ability to deconstruct, or "shatter the seams" of, the television reality. Thea provides such an example; in her case, recognizing the "seams" of television has helped her develop an "eye" for media; she also acts on this awareness in certain circumstances:
Thea is indicating an awareness that television programs are made, not born--deconstructing the seemingly natural television program, and breaking the program into component elements available for critique. As with Thea, most producers not only exhibit an awareness of the elements of media literacy, but also demonstrate a tendency to reflect and act upon the elements of media literacy in some way in their lives--often demonstrated by utilizing these elements within the programs they create.
While media literacy focuses on representation through images, media demystification concentrates on "reading" the structures and functions of the media in order to understand that television programs are constructed by individuals and groups with specific economic, cultural, and political interests. Most producers are able to recognize and evaluate the structure of media organizations and systems, as well as connections with larger social systems. Meredith provides an example of demystification; she describes the realization that ACTV producers were helped by their access experience when they sat down in discussions with city officials:
Not only is Meredith indicating an awareness of the differences between public access and the mainstream media (particularly the corporate cable channels), she exhibits an awareness of the negotiation process involving the city government, cable company, and access facility. An analysis of her comments also suggests that participation within community television has the potential to draw producers into a larger sphere of grassroots, corporate, and governmental politics, suggesting a process nature of the community television experience which is discussed later in this article.
Meredith's comments are illustrative of the producers's responses; they exhibit an awareness of the differences between the mainstream media and public access television as media systems; all video media are not lumped together in the eyes of these producers. By their public access participation, producers are able to see and act upon differences in the media systems, indicating their ability to recognize and act upon perceived relationships that are based on power.
It is my evaluation that the producers in the study meet the criteria for a test of empowerment at low to moderate levels within the areas delineated by media literacy and demystification: awareness, reflection, and action based upon cognition and reflection. The highest level of empowerment, action to change relationships within the societal realm, is not fully indicated here and is discussed below.
The major finding of the study--that media literacy and demystification are an outcome of the public access experience for the producers in the study--supplies empirical data to what heretofore have been theories supported primarily by anecdotal evidence. The finding supports claims that media practice aids the acquisition of the skills of media literacy and demystification.
Within the community television vision, media literacy and demystification are not ends in themselves; rather they are steps on a path to empowerment: awareness of one's self, others, and society, and actions to change relationships on these levels, particularly on the societal level. We turn now to these aspects as they are reflected in the experiences of the community volunteer producers.
Awareness of Self, Others, and Society
The data indicate that many producers become aware of previously unknown personal qualities, or become more accepting of themselves, as a result of their access participation. Some respondents describe a period of coming to terms with parts of themselves. For Trent, a former addict, the awareness of self is related to his recognition that working on a show about crack cocaine was difficult because of his addiction to the drug:
Self introspection is common to the data; Tom's response is typical of the connection made by producers; in his case it is also related to his view of other people:
The data suggest that the new awareness of self is related to an understanding or appreciation of others as they relate to one's self. Noreen illustrates the influences that working with others within the public access setting offer the producers. In her case, she learns a great deal from working with African-American women:
Daniel describes a different perception of homosexuals after working on a gay-oriented show:
Noreen and Daniel provide examples of the manner by which producers relate their access experiences to an awareness of others. Daniel also gives an indication of the manner in which producers construct notions of "self" and "others" as they relate to a broader "society," when he describes the impacts of his access participation on society:
Daniel states repeatedly that his impact on society stems from the impact on himself, as a part of society. "Society" is constructed within the notion of the self and the collective "others." His comments direct attention to arguments that the individual and the collective are not separate, but are interconnected--an argument presented by critical scholars against the pluralist dogma of individualism (Dervin and Clark 1993; Streeter 1990).
As suggested by the data, low and mid levels of empowerment--awarenesses of the self, others, and society, and reflections upon these awarenesses--build from the personal and extend outward to include others. As one's life is changed by a transformed sense of self, the lives of others around are touched as well. Society, comprised of groupings of individual "selves" and "others," is subtly changed as a result. This subtle shifting of personal awareness occurs more often within the study than does a conscious effort at changing the power relations within society--usually interpreted as an overt challenge to power.
The Process of Social Change
Few producers in the study indicate a conscious desire or attempt to change relationships in the societal realm. As discussed previously, Freirean pedagogy considers the highest level of empowerment to be action that addresses power relationships in society, based on awareness and self-reflection. Based on this criteria, little empowerment at its highest level is taking place within the community television experience of the producers in the study. However, that which is taking place is interesting and meaningful, as indicated by some of the actions taken by producers judged to be challenging power relationships within society:
At least one producer insists her access participation was not based on any vision of societal change:
This notion is contested by at least one other producer. Paul believes that a lack of focus on overt social change did not necessarily rule out the possibility that societal change was taking place:
Paul's comment follows Gaventa's argument that all actions that break a state of passivity and quiescence are a challenge to the status quo (1980, 209). Drawing from this logic, their very participation in community television places public access participants in a position in which they challenge the authority of the traditional media structure--who produces, and who receives, media messages.
While this is a broader definition of empowerment than that adopted by the study, the data suggest that Freirean empowerment may focus unrealistically on societal change as a goal, rather than on societal change as a process that begins with individual and collective transformation. The study's relatively few instances of overt attempts to address inequities in society might indicate that the empowerment vision of community television is not viable at its highest level: that of social change. However, such a rigid application of the definition of empowerment would miss the complex subtleties at play within the data.
The data suggest that the process of social change is immensely complex and may not be rooted solely in awarenesses and actions that address societal inequities, as Freire outlines. Instead, there appears to be a dialectical relationship between the individual and collective that suggests that a process orientation toward social change may be more helpful in understanding the nature of such change.
Community television participation may be understood best from within this framework of process: providing a step toward the potential for social change. Gaventa (1980) describes such a process when he states that
Such would seem to be the case with participation within community television. As discussed earlier, the data in the study indicate a process by which producers seem to move outward from the self to others and to society in terms of their awareness and reflections upon this awareness. Community television is unique in that it also provides the opportunity to connect with larger social issues and movements.
Many of the producers began their work with access television with very specific individual purposes in mind. Over time, they then became aware of a broader framework of access within society in which their participation was significant. Meredith exemplifies the movement from the personal to the broader framework that the data indicate is characteristic of the access experience. She recognizes the necessity of being informed of public issues:
Meredith exemplifies the potential for social change offered by public access. If her expanded awarenesses regarding the role of public access and its potential to change lives is viewed strictly from the Freirean perspective, there is little evidence of the highest level of empowerment: action to change power relationships in society. However, if societal change is conceptualized as a process, the expanded awarenesses described by the producers begin to take on added significance. Their reflections become part of a continuum of societal change that begins at a personal level. This is not part of a pluralist obsession with individualism; rather it eliminates the false dichotomy between conceptions of the individual and the collectivity, and instead posits a dynamic process of interaction between the individual and the collectivity.
This does not contradict Freire; it merely redirects attention away from the goal of societal change and toward the process by which this change takes place. Freire does not specifically address the necessity of action within the personal realm, although he alludes to it in his latest work (1993). However, self-reflectivity does imply at least a modest amount of a personal orientation--toward oneself and others.
Community Television as Process
The community television vision of empowerment has been criticized as rather naive--that it believes that technology can solve structural-related societal inequities. The evidence accumulated within the study indicates that the community television vision may not be in practice the naive ideology it appears in theory. Awarenesses and actions of producers either have the potential to address or do directly address structurally based societal inequities. Most producers in the study have experienced at least one moment they define as changing their world to see a world of infinite possibilities. From a dialectically-based perspective of empowerment as process, this defining moment of a world of infinite possibilities is a step in the direction of societal transformation.
The process nature of community television has been contested by Garnham (1990), who states that "the great advantage of the `process' defense of video from the point of view of its advocates is that it cannot be tested" (67). Indeed, the study indicates quite the contrary--the process-based aspects of the access experience permeate the findings of this project. The findings in the study concur with the perspective of Devine (1992) and Johnson (1994), that community television is best conceptualized as a process rather than within traditional frameworks of "television," "programs," and "audiences."
Community television as process conceptualizes constant change within individuals and the collectivities within which they participate. Community television as a process addresses the criticisms that video training in the access context focuses on technology as a panacea for social ills. Instead, video training and participation is seen as a means to an ends, rather than the objective itself. The process orientation is important when considering future applications of technology for social purposes, such as those suggested by the new media and data technologies.
UNESCO's "New Communication Approaches"
UNESCO's taxonomy of new communication approaches outlines four categories for the various aspects of community media.
The notion that these categories often intertwine is reinforced by this study, as applied to the practice of community television. "Community television as process" may fall within the category of "community media," if the definition of community media is interpreted broadly enough to include a focus on participation moving toward social change. To a degree, community television encourages participation through structures provided by "alternative media," established to address inequities in the mainstream mass media. Within this structure of "access," producers create and present their own programs. The process is based on the concept of "participation" at varying levels by individuals and groups within the media.
While the categories above may be interpreted broadly enough to include the aspects of community television indicated by this study, it seems that the finer points of community media practice as a process of individual and social transformation are not fully captured by the present taxonomy. For example, the category of community media seems to focus primarily on the notion of "community-based media" operating with the intent of including peoples of a particular region or ethnicity in programming-a focus on product. While the concept of community television as process might be squeezed into this category, we lose the political implications suggested in the previous discussion of television production leading to democratic inclusion and social change-a focus on process.
The focus on product rather than process reflects traditional approaches to media established by the mainstream media and disputed earlier in this paper. It seems that discussions of community media within a global context need to begin with an examination of the definitions and categories in which community media experiences have been framed. This should include discussion of the research methods most appropriate to the community media experience, as noted by Lewis (1993).
Application of the Findings
The findings of the study should provide some hope for those attempting to adapt technologies developed for control and marketing to genuine democratic purposes. Yesterday's "liberating technologies" were video and cable television; today's emancipatory technologies are to be the computer, data networks, and enhanced video. The rhetoric today regarding the new media echo the uncritical aspects of the nascent community television movement. However, even in its least critical moments, the community television movement is able to help participants see through and move beyond the cynical marketing strategies of the mainstream media that promise liberation, empowerment, and enhanced democracy; the movement does provide a space that nurtures genuine, grassroots, democratic participation in the society that aids in the process of personal/collective social change.
I believe this is due to the fact that the movement was created as a response against the mainstream media; even in its least critical phases, the movement retains a sense of its historic roots in social change. It has always pictured itself as different than mainstream media, thus encouraging an analysis by participants of the corporate mainstream and comparisons with grassroots, participatory media. As the community television movement evolves into a community media movement, the wealth of experience in using technology to help persons transform society will continue.
Successful adaptation of the corporate technologies to critical purposes depends upon a focus on the goals of empowerment and social change, not on the technological toys that are a means to those ends--and that also provide a potential opiate. The study indicates that the community media movement does allow a space for the nurturing and creation of structures that fall outside the corporate vision for technology; this article's investigation into the claims of the empowering nature of yesterday's technologies has shed light on the potential of those of today and tomorrow.
This paper has explored the empowerment vision of community television and concluded that, to a limited degree, participation in the creation of television programs enables persons to become more discriminating viewers, encourages awareness of and reflection upon one's self, others, and society, and provides a foundation which encourages individuals and groups to believe they can make a difference on the broader society and to participate in the workings of the democracy.
Indirectly, community television does provide some measure by which the social structure is addressed by participants. Rather than direct, radical action, participation in the creation of media programs encourages a more evolutionary growth of outward movement from individual to collectivity, transforming both in the process. Community television, then, does fulfill to a limited degree some of the goals the movement adopted during its inception in the late 1960s and early 1970s: social change through public participation in the electronic media.
The community television experience is of note when considering the promise of the newer information and media technologies. With a critical focus on applying the tools to social change and truly democratic purposes rather than the tools themselves, there is hope for the application of computer, data, and enhanced video technologies toward the creation of a more equitable society.