If I went back to edit the model that my group made after our class discussion today I would do more to show the dialogue between media and culture. I think that our model was made with the idea of culture as context on our minds. And while I do think that this has some truth, Professor Himpele’s diagram with culture at the center and several webs of context coming off of it made me think that our big homogenous culture circle may not be the best representation of this relationship. To reiterate in another model I would like to show the feedback between media and culture better as well as the multitude of interpretations of both.

A note on particularity: I struggled a bit when putting together our model and recall at one point suggesting we make an executive decision to label it “Relationship of State produced Media and Culture”. This thought occurred to me because I felt as though it was difficult to create a general model for all media and all culture ever. I think that Group 2’s model that divided up different producers of media and showed different routes of mediation was an interesting conceptualization that addressed the issue. Narrowing the model down to show a specific piece of media, specific producer of media, or even a specific media platform would make the exercise easier. Thought maybe easier is not what we are going for. It’s possible that my trouble with this part of the model exemplified what Ginsburg, Abu-Lughod, and Larkin call for – that is a theory of media that takes a more ethnographic approach to instances of media and how the fit into and influence the cultures they appear in rather than defaulting to a theory and model of homogenizing mass media. It may be interesting to construct a model through looking at several particular instances first and then try to revisit my group’s model. Perhaps it would prompt me to break down “Media” further into categories, identify producers and audiences, and to recognize it as a process.