I posted this awhile back on a blog that is now defunct. However, I thought I would post it again since I think that the question is worthy of consideration by those who tend to think of Jesus films as 'tools' for Christian evangelism. Comments anyone?John Ferré has recently made the case that people who believe media are neutral conduits tend to “embrace free enterprise in matters of business as well as religion.” (John P. Ferré, "The Media of Popular Piety," in Mediating Religion: Conversation in Media, Religion and Culture, ed. Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage [London: T & T Clark, 2003]) What does he mean by 'neutral conduits'? You've likely heard the rhetoric in various forms, but it usually goes something like this: "It's not the technology that is good or bad, but what it communicates." In other words, it's the content of the message that matters, not the medium itself. A film is good if it shows acceptable content. It is bad if it does not. JESUS film, good. Pulp Fiction, bad. Or vice versa.
But are media neutral conduits? That may depend on how one defines 'neutral'. Here are a few possibilities related, for example, to the medium of film:
a) Value free
b) Impotent
c) Non-partisan
d) Impersonal
Let's take them one at a time. First, is anything value free? Who decides? On what basis or scale of values? If one answers that values are attributed to a technology and not inherent to them, then one must conclude that nothing is value free, it only varies in significance. The fact that certain groups take great pains to control what messages accompany the power of a medium like film reflects the fact that its influence is highly valued (or feared). Is that neutral? Second, does anyone really believe that film technology itself is impotent? I'd like to hear from someone who holds this view. Third, it may seem absurd to think of media being able to choose or be partisan, for this would attribute to the medium itself a kind of personality. OK, maybe some office photocopiers would qualify. Yet if they did have something like a personality and preferences, it would be hard to defend them as non-partisan. Impersonal? Well, that returns us to a fairly common understanding of media, does it not? Yet that is to describe something different than neutrality.
I'd like to suggest, along with numerous media theorists (e.g., Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman) that media are not neutral in the sense of being impotent. Rather, they influence the environments they enter regardless of the content with which they are associated. Films, for example, offer temporary escape from 'daily life' regardless of whether they screen parables or poltergeist. Whether one takes up the invitation to escape is as much a statement about how one values the effect of the medium as it is about the kind of story or images it might present.
Having briefly put forward the case that, given a certain understanding of neutrality, media are not neutral conduits, it is worth taking up Ferré's observation once again. The question is slightly different now, and perhaps more penetrating: To what ends might media be used by those who believe they are NOT neutral conduits?
Allow me to suggest some possibilities:
- catharsis
- contemplation
- adventure
- escape
- the gaining of new perspectives
Oh, yes, and free enterprise.
Want to add to the list? Disagree? Discuss? The lines are open.
© June 2004
Dwight Friesen
