Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to clarify how David Buckingham constructs the “oppressed/
autonomy” dualism in his media education, and how he applies it to school education. And, we explore
a possibility of his theory.
Len Masterman considered that the media are produced. Media education is the instruments
which teachers and students possess for beginning to challenge the great inequalities in knowledge and
power which exist between the producer and the consumer. For Buckingham, media education aims
to develop both critical understanding and active participation. It enables students to interpret and
make informed judgements as consumers of media, and it also enables them to become producers of
media in their own right. Media education is about developing student’s critical and creative abilities.
Buckingham constructed the ‘oppressed/ autonomy’ dualism through examining the difference with
Masterman’s media education. Buckingham, Dewey, and Illich have a common point. They thought
that most learning is not the result of instruction but the result of participation in a meaningful setting.
Buckingham applied this dualism to the theory of school education. First, he criticized
Masterman’s media education as follows: many of media teachers are effectively requiring students
to identify aspects of the text which teachers themselves have previously defined as important,
and thereby to lead to certain predetermined conclusions. Second, Buckingham concluded that
Masterman’s media education had been confined to analyzing the media. On the contrary, he suggested
that media education should encourage young people’s critical participation as cultural producers.
This paper examines the historical meaning of Buckingham’s media education by focusing on social
context of their times, especially school curriculum of media education. Our explorations showed that
there is a common point between Buckingham’s media education and Masterman’s media education.
Both Buckingham and Masterman understood the relationship between media and students are both
oppressed and autonomy.
This paper explores the possibility of Buckingham’s media education as school education. Buckingham
would want to turn from “pedagogy of the liberation” to “pedagogy of the participation”. The
students who participate in media production work are not only to reflect upon the relationship between
students and media, but also to commit or intervene in this relationship. This finding may indicate
that school education could be a social infrastructure to construct the relationship between media
and students.
