Discussion and Conclusion
I opened this webtext by talking about media in my references to the work of Lalitha Vasudevan and Marc Lamont Hill (2007) who refer to “the landscape upon which [youth] perform various forms of meaning making and identity work” (p. 1). This opening may have convinced readers that this webtext is about media culture and youth performances with, or enactments of, media in their daily lives. However, this is not the purpose of this webtext. What I hope (quite nervously, I must admit) that readers gathered from the work and scenarios presented here is that young people and even teachers, particularly of color and from urban communities, have critical capabilities to narrate literacy-based responses to gentrification as a way to be included in the larger discussion already occurring in front of them. After this confession and in a less than linear way, I shared youth and adult responses to gentrification. While the overall argument is less about media culture—technologies, texts, and multimedia contexts—and more about gentrification, I wholeheartedly believe that the two (media culture and narratives of place) are intertwined in significant ways. Without the camera, we (Phillip, Khaleeq, me, and anyone else doing the videotaping) would not have been able to capture the voices, dispositions, and body languages of project participants. We would not have been able to debate—days, weeks, months, and even years later— the multiple nuanced narratives of those we interviewed. As well, we would have not been able to question our own stances in ways that allowed us to reflect on, reconsider, revise, and reframe our initial positions on gentrification and community change. Hence, the use of digital technologies strengthened the types of conversations we had and increased our ways of being and becoming self-reflexive learners, ethnographers-in-training, and practitioners.
Even more importantly, we would not have been able to openly talk about ideas related to the politics of change as connected to local histories and lived experiences; how struggles and identities are tied to acts of place-making; the impact that acts of place-taking have on our lived conditions; and the value of human involvement and identities within shifting community spaces. These points are important because they serve as commentary on the current state of many urban communities that have experienced efforts in gentrification, on the one hand, and local residents’ feelings toward those efforts, which have often excluded their voices, on the other hand. Additionally, these scenarios remind us that young people are invested in their communities and have valuable insights to share on spatial change, politics, and lived experiences. These things point to the social responsibilities we all have to ensure that communities are protected by and for all people. Yet this call for community protection raises additional concerns and tensions, especially related to issues of representation: whose stories get represented in the larger discourse on gentrification; whose lived experiences are hailed as significant and, thus, others as insignificant; and whose struggles get mediated, chronicled, publicized, and by whom. Such issues over representation and the use of media texts and technologies to document such pressing issues point to even more complicated, but real, concerns over how the various voices of people of color—children, youth, and adults—continue to be heavily excluded from decision-making processes that, in fact, impact their communities, families, and lives.
It becomes urgent, then, to question the impact of digital technologies on the design, delivery, and reception of literacy research in light of the history of economic and political marginalization of people of color, generally. Insofar as the influence that digital technologies hold for processes of teaching, learning, and researching with people of color, we must not only call into question issues of representation, marginalization, and exclusion, but also realities with access to digital technologies within the homes, schools, and communities of people of color. How might access to digital technologies impact how more people of color—who have been historically under- and mis-represented in educational spaces—narrate their own stories of place, and in their own voices? In what ways might access to technologies, paired with specific literacy strategies, influence research on critical literacy and spatial change—research that centers, privileges, and is grounded in the perspectives of people of color? Along with talk of increased technological access, how might concerns of community members be constructively addressed as narratives that are real, valid, and urgent? Recall the sentiments from community members that I highlighted at the opening of this webtext: “What about us?” “Changes bring new things, but what about the things already here?” and, “Where do they think we’ll go? Eighty years old and living on the streets? I’m one face of displacement!”
These are some of the questions and concerns I continue to grapple with as I move toward a deeper understanding of the role media and media texts can play in people’s narration of community change, place, and identity in New York City and throughout the world. It is my firm belief that countless young people and adults of color, including Phillip, Khaleeq, Samantha, Kim, and Mr. T, are already engaging in important identity work and meaning-making processes. The use of digital technologies can enhance such engagements and contribute to new ways of seeing people as critical learners and active citizens who have stories that need to be told, stories that need to be heard, and stories that need to be a part of public decision-making processes related to community change. Digital technologies hold the promise of opening up possibilities that include the creation and widespread exchange of stories; opportunities for youth and adults of color to be heard and not ignored in debates on urban gentrification; and the likelihood of improved representation of lived experiences and increased access to media and media texts. It can be highly beneficial if more and more educational researchers and practitioners embrace such technological possibilities, especially in our engagements with young people.
I end this webtext by returning to one of Phillip’s video clips included earlier as a way to encourage us to consider how his actions and activities (and those of his peers) can contribute to additional conversations on politicizing, placing, and performing narratives of community change. Clearly, Phillip’s videotaped explanation of the purpose of our community project represents the important meaning-making processes in which he is engaging as well as the benefits of digital technologies in documenting stories of place-making and place-taking.