After watching Through a Blue Lens (and with Jiwani and Young’s article about frames and counter frames in mind), I found myself feeling quite critical about the documentary’s approach to the issue of drug addiction in the DTES. In my post on Connect, I talked about how the framing in Blue Lens differentiates the “good” from the “bad”, thus reinforcing common stereotypes and perpetuating the marginalization of the DTES community. Melissa’s response to my post reminded me that it is important to consider the goals and targeted audience when analyzing narratives, so I now turn my attention to the the website of the producers of Blue Lens, oddsquad.com.
Upon entering the site, my attention is immediately drawn to the mission statement, which is formatted in big font and says:
We empower youth to make positive life choices about drug use and criminal behaviour through documentaries and education.
From this mandate, we can gather that Odd Squad’s focus is on prevention and empowerment. Young people are the targeted audience, but this organization also addresses the broader public as exemplified by Blue Lens. As I explored the website a bit further, I came across a testimonial section on the site, which featured responses from viewers of Blue Lens.
The public can play a major role in reinforcing the legitimacy of dominant narratives relating to marginality. Through short testimonies, audience members repeatedly asserted the credibility and positive impact of Odd Squad’s work, as they believed that it was an eye-opening, educational tool. See here:
“.. My kids and I watched [Blue Lens] about once a year. It really touched my heart…I feel so bad for all the people that fall victim to the drug dealers and these horrible drugs that take over our young peoples minds and body and make it next to impossible to stop and live a healthy normal life. It is so sad. Thanks so much to the Odd Squad for teaching me and my children so much about this scary world of drug use…”
J.B. – Michigan, U.S.A.
While Odd Squad may have good intentions, the narrative style of their film, Blue Lens, inadvertently condemns and further marginalizes the DTES (in my opinion at least). The approval and generally positive responses from the viewers ultimately functions to reinstate the hegemonic ideals relating to marginality, which in this case is that drugs are the sole reason for degeneracy in the DTES. In doing so, both the distributers and consumers of dominant narratives can fail to reflect upon other factors that have led to the state of the DTES. What is important to recognize here is that while producers of minority narratives can perpetuate hegemonic ideals, the public can also play an equally substantial role in marginalizing those on the periphery by supporting and reproducing dominant beliefs through personal perspectives, “testimonials” to the discourse, or everyday interactions. Thus, it is extremely valuable to exercise critical thought when consuming such narratives.
I think that your argument on the collective social construction of reality is especially valuable when we consider it within a sociological context. When we discuss hegemonic ideologies, we repeatedly tend to focus on elite members of society or those that have the potential to exert social power and control. Nevertheless, as you point out, it is all of us, in our responses to such exercises of power and our every day actions, who support such discriminatory frames of reference towards marginalized groups. Indeed, according to the sociological approach of ethnomethodology, it is our everyday actions that contribute to the production of social order. In their similar responses and shared practices of showering the police with praises while highlighting the irrefutable “malice” of drug addicts, the individuals who contribute to the discussion in the website promote a particularly narrow way of understanding and seeing these two social groups.