ten years of research about digital media and disadvantaged families in austin
TRANSCRIPT
Ten years of research about digital media Ten years of research about digital media and disadvantaged families in Austinand disadvantaged families in Austin
Joe Straubhaar, Radio, TV, Film – University of Texas at Austin
Lisboa, 4 de Novembro de 2011
Opening Address
Backdrop: Austin, TX
Legacies of racial segregation and inequality Segregation legacy still compromises school quality for immigrant children in poorer neighborhoods, where most Latinos live, but not Asian immigrants
+ Efforts to bridge digital dividesCity provides public access and WiFi, some training and education
Immigrants: negative effects of discrimination and inequality AND benefits from efforts to reduce inequality
Digital divide in East Austin
Austin grew as a city of ‘Div ides’ Institutional segregation. Systematic
displacement of African American and Latino communities to the east of I-35 (1928-30)
East and West Austin further divided divided by Interstate 35
Despite efforts, Austin still divided
• One of the Top Technology and Creative Cities (Florida, 2002)• Among the top Wired and Unwired cities in the nation BUT with
an uneven ICT geography (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005)
As of Sept. 2004
Methods: Interviews with immigrants, minorities, majority 1999-2009
• Interviews with 2-3 generations of families in Austin– Life histories of social trajectory + media – Parents, children, grandparents when live in USA
• 12 families in 1999-2000, 4 in 2006, 26 in 2009
– 12 Latino families• Mexico, Central America, Argentina
– + 2 Brazilian families– 3 Asian (2 Korean, I Chinese)
Methods
• Observation, interviewing of libraries, centers– 8 in 1999, 42 in 2003, 8 in 2009, 4 in 2010– 1999 found teen-ager minority boys under-users– 2009-10 found them above average users
• Survey with City of Austin as a partner 2010– 1709 respondents
• 92% us Internet, much higher than U.S. average• 10% use public access, esp. minorities
Conferência Diversidade Digital, Lisboa, 4 de Novembro de 2011 6
Interviews of 9th grade students and parents (2000) found that
• Family trajectory influence is critical– Knowledge & other cultural capital– Dispositions related to role models– Social capital
• Neighbors, peers -> social capital + restraints
– Economic capital
Interviews of college age students and parents (2009-10) found that
• Family trajectory now confounded by generational change– Cultural capital still related to families– Dispositions related to “digital” peers– Social capital
• Peers -> social capital + pull to ICT use
– Some support for digital generation idea
generation x family, society• Age cohort, family generation,
– within family trajectory
• Socially defined generations, – esp. youth/Millennials
• Vs. Gen X, Boomers, Silents, Greatest Gen
– National, state or local definition ?• Mexican, Latino or American?• Texan: Tejano or Anglo• South Texas or its own diaspora north
Overall generations in USA, labels & boundaries “always in process”
Children, Millenials or Gen Y, 18-30- Grew up in Info Age, “Digital Natives,” economic awareness focused
on tech boom/bust Parents, older Gen X, Younger Boomers, 35-54
- Grew up during or at end of post-war econ boom, “digital settlers,” often apolitical
Older boomers, 55-65 - Vietnam generationGrew up in 1950s, rebelled in 1960s against Vietnam, conformity of
1950s, some “digital settlers,” some uneasy “digital immigrants” Silent generation, 66-80 - 1950s boom, apolitical
Grew up in 1950s boom, often apolitical, some invented computers, some adapted
Greatest generation, over 80 – WW II generation
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Immersed in TV, ambivalent on digital media, Older Boomers/Silent Generations
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Who learns ICT from children and grandchildren?
• From interviews– Minorities, women, those who begin to see need– Youth start as interpreters, end as coaches
• From survey of Austin– Women more likely – Lower status, minorities, less educated people
From Multichannel TV to digital media, Gen Y, Younger Boomers
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Immersed in digital media, Millenials
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Where disadvantaged youth go for access, learning skills
• From library observation, we see disadvantaged youth using public access there, using Wired for Youth centers for access and coaching
• Community tech centers important for minority youth (and elderly, too)
• Library based & after school training programs, like Latinitas, Girl Scouts, keys to learning skills, positive dispositions
Conferência Diversidade Digital, Lisboa, 4 de Novembro de 2011 15
generation of immigration • First
– Dominated by ties to home country, region?• Second, plus generation 1.5
– Crucial indicator of adaptation, social mobility (Portes)
– Diasporically defined generation, second/third generation more pan-Latino in focus
• Third– More integrated, depending on what happens in
second generation– Some assimilated, most acculturated
Multi-layered belonging of migrants
• Georgiou theorizes that the immigrant exists in two spaces—the physical location of the new country and the imagined location of the nation of origin. She writes, “The imaginative (co)presence, next to the real and immediate copresence, the daily interaction and participation in diasporic homes and publics, becomes the basis for constructing a multilayered belonging in an imagined community that crosses geographical boundaries” (22).
Multiple belongings, media flows, life worlds, layers of identity
• “Young Latinos straddling two worlds” (Pew)• Multiple spaces of identity at local level (Ball-
Rokeach)• Multiple transnational digital+physical spaces of
flow– Tying home localities/regions/nations to new host
ones– Tied to layers of experience/identification/identity
• Multiple nationalities/language groups– Home, host, diasporic/hybrid
• Ex. Portuguese, English, Spanish (new pan-diasporic language) for young Brazilians in Austin
theoretical implication of how generations 1.5, 2 and 3 see
themselves• Is "Latinidad" one layer of identity among
several? • Do they retain a strong primary sense of
identification with Latinos and Latino media? • Do they see themselves as a new sort of
plurality among what will soon be the majority minority population of a state like Texas?
Emerging cultural geography – local, regional
• Local—neighborhood, city, suburbs, metro area • Translocal
– Flows to and from Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, smaller Mexican states, cities, with Central Texas, Austin
• Micro-regional– Central Texas, South Texas
• State(s)– Texas, Nuevo Leon
• Transnational border region– Austin through South Texas to Monterrey, Mexico
Emerging cultural geography – trans/national
• Home region– Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, smaller Mexican states,
cities • Home nation
– Primarily Mexico, some Central America, Brazil • Transnational geo-cultural regions
– Latin America, North America (a la NAFTA), Hispanophone, Lusophone
• Global U.S.– Migrants received U.S. cultural flows before coming
to U.S., intensify & segment after migration
Migration to emerging technopolis: Austin, Texas
• Migrants form “mediated diasporas” in which families rely on both traditional ethnic and mainstream media, along with digital media
• Internal migration within USA, even Texas, crucial for upward mobility, rural -> city
• Digital media use not as likely outside a city.– Outside city, more likely to use traditional media,
including diasporic media (Latino TV)• Austin vs. Zapata, Crystal City
Local layer of cultural geography & identity
• Local geography of (dis)advantage, power – Changed by zoning plan
segregation in 1928, – Pushes and pulls on
Latinos, as well as African-Americans
• Reconfigured neighborhoods
• Unequal educational opportunity, information resources, political power
• Limits on, shaping of social, cultural capital
Black households in 1910
Black households in 1940, after 1928 zoning plan segregation
Hispanic households in 1910
• Austin not originally a Hispanic settlement
• Hispanic population in 1910 low
• Centered in Colorado River flood plain, by Our Lady of Guadalupe, in what is now very expensive real estate,
Hispanic households in 1940
• Hispanics pushed East along with African-Americans
• By house prices• By move of Our Lady of
Guadalupe (requested by City of Austin)
Local layer of cultural geography & identity
• Fields of daily life– Economic capital
• African-American disadvantage from possessive investment in Whiteness, but many Latinos have navigated around it through local geographical mobility
Black households in 1970
• African-Americans still concentrated in East Austin, despite supposed desegregation of schools, libraries, housing
Local layer of cultural geography & identity
• Fields of daily life– Educational -> cultural
capital• Geographical mobility by
Latinos to overcome limits on education, reconfigure social capital
– Family life, generational trajectory
• Shaped by neighborhood, school boundaries,
– Mediation of family life by same
Latino Households 1970
Despite city efforts, Austin still divided
• One of the Top Technology and Creative Cities (Florida, 2002)• Among the top Wired and Unwired cities in the nation BUT with
an uneven ICT geography (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005)
As of Sept. 2004
Conferência Diversidade Digital, Lisboa, 4 de Novembro de 2011 32
Language capital, linked to powerLanguage field mediated by diasporic TV,
local radio, cell, texting, social nets
Immigrants’ home region
• dominant identity for most first generation immigrants from Mexico– Ex. Monterrey immigrants in Houston, Austin
• Field of prestige, definition, loyalty that follows immigrants, prefigures initial adaptation
• maintained in diaspora by regional TV, music, markets, food, circular migration, cell phones, TV, email, Skype, social nets
home nation
• Major focus of identity for first generation immigrants– Most (68%) of young Latinos tied to Mexico, have
less cultural/educational capital than other Latino immigrants
• Sometimes re-imagined in host country, USA,– via TV from home, satellite, Internet– Personal discovery of commonalities with
immigrants across home country regions• Basis of broader common identity for many
Home country media—increasingly digital
• Colombian immigrant Male, Age 21, follows web news from Colombia NOT through stations carried in the US.
• ”There’s really like, no TV that shows the politics I’m interested in here. I mean, ‘cause there’s like, there’s Latin American channels, but they’re mainly, like, I forget what they are, like, Univision and… But they’re mainly for, like, Mexican market, and, like, there’s a real big difference between, like, Mexican news and Colombian news, you know, so I don’t really get my… I guess I get my Colombian “fix” from just reading the webpages like El Tiempo[an aggregator for news stories] based in Colombia.”
Transnational TV follows immigrants, addresses them as diaspora, or as
expatriates?
• Efforts to create pan-Latino audience– Televisa (Mexico) -> owned SIN (Spanish
International Network), now partial owner again in Univision
– TV Azteca (Mexico) -> Azteca America• BOTH Mexican programming for Mexican immigrant
audience
– Telemundo –targets more diverse Latino audience
Older + first generation migrants
• Most older Latinos privilege cell phone + traditional diasporic media: “Latino” Spanish language TV, radio, film rentals, “home country” satellite TV
• Many older Latino immigrants ambivalent on Internet use– But youth as technology brokers (Correa) in domesticating
tech to home (Silverstone) – Youth “translators” for older immigrants who ask for help– Artusi (Argentine family interviewed in Austin) unique in
techno-capital strategy for all generations to use tech, be bilingual, bicultural
• Older Asians frequently using satellite TV, Web TV from “home,” Skype calls to family
Older generation as language maintainers via media
• María tunes in Multimedios in Sergio´s house because she wants her grandsons not to forget Spanish. “If one as an adult doesn´t tune in the Spanish-language channel, the kids will rather see channels in English, because that´s the language they use in school, English is their language and Spanish is not their language anymore. I enjoy Spanish-television better because it is in my language. (quoted in Garica & Lozano, 2009)
Young, especially generations 1.5, 2, 3 navigate conflicting pressures
• Family often pushes home country connection, language– More pushed to speak Spanish (60%) versus English (22%)
(Pew 2009)– Parents express more pride of home heritage (42%) vs.
pride in being American (29%)• Local, state, federal institutions push to acculturate• Critical mass effect of English language media, new
media • Language layering & hybridization
– 36% English dominant, 41% bilingual, 23% Spanish, (70% Spanglish sometimes)
Youth often accede to parental urge to maintain language, culture, media
• Mexican-American age 22• INTERVIEWER: What about just news from
Mexico? Do you pay attention to that and if so what kind of sources do you use?
• INTERVIEWEE: Not really, unless I’m at home with my mom. She’ll be watching Spanish news. So I like to, you know, sit there. Well, she wants me to sit there and listen to it. I like to compare the different coverage between English media and Spanish media, and how they cover a certain topic and the difference between the two…
First generation frustration with Generation 1.5 language skills
• Brazilian Immigrant, Age 21—1.5 Generation, moved to the US at age 8, , he watches more US TV than Globo (the largest Brazilian TV station .
• [On his Portuguese speaking] Right now it’s really crappy.• Ruth: [his mother, interrupting angrily] FALA PORTUGUES
COM NOS. Speak Portuguese with us! [directed at Inteviewer].
• TIAGO: [laughs awkwardly] She gets upset at me for speaking too much English. I think it embarrasses her or she gets worried because her English isn’t so great. I can read and write okay in Portuguese but it still makes her mad. I won’t forget it, though, my mom won’t let me. It’s hard. I feel like I’m still trying to learn English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Agradeço a atenção.Agradeço a atenção.
PowerPoint disponível no site doPowerPoint disponível no site doProjecto Inclusão e Participação DigitalProjecto Inclusão e Participação Digital
http://digital_inclusion.up.pt
Joseph Straubhaar, [email protected]