The critical view
After having iterated and reflected upon 4 interventions, there were moments were I tried to control certain situations. Dealing with human interaction is something very hard to control, specifically when it is individuals from different generations, where the communication and even usage of language is different every time. I guess that is part of my research objective, right? When talking about intergenerational communication, it is because of the current ‘difficulty’ or indifference towards this connection, which is vital in understanding more about our individual selves.
Through my interventions, there were certainly moments of impact: dealing with human emotion, breakthroughs in realizing the power memory has in storytelling, or the transmission of other people’s stories through different lens: how does that feel? The true impact can be shown in the way people express themselves once the intervention is over. Every time they finished participating, there were thoughts, questions, curiosities. In intervention 2, the young generation (ages 10-18) was particularly interesting: I could see they were trying to answer what I thought would be ‘right’, but also they were so curious to see the objects they had heard their grandparents narrate on the recordings. One girl felt guilty for not knowing more about her grandmother’s valuable object, apologizing for not showing interest before. These kind of interactions were very unexpected, and also very personal to the individual’s experience.
I quickly saw that every participant was very influenced by their surroundings, which were never controlled (almost all my interventions took place in uncontrolled environments, where distractions came easy). This also instantly revealed people’s personality and even identity traits: I was fascinated by how some people took the ‘instructions’ very seriously, while others were distracted, or casually did it without much thought, or actually simply did not care. I think this is the result of trying to measure emotion and engagement, very in a way, abstract and humane factors.
Some times it has been easier, because of the openness of the participants, and sharing very clearly what they felt (reflection round in intervention 1). Other times, it was through their actions that I could understand their empathetic nature (like in the funeral scene of intervention 4).
Under different circumstances, I might have created a written feedback form or some sort of reflective thing that the participants could take their time understanding and that could serve as proper feedback, helping me understand whether metamedia narratives built closer, empathetic connections or not.
At the end of every intervention, I was very emotional to have seen the interaction, intergenerational communication and expression of identity that it was hard for me to really step out of it and understand what my next steps would be. It was a personal topic too close to me, my own experience with understanding my place in the world, and that brought confusion and frustration towards the end of the course, where I had to find ways of explaining my findings and my research’s value in society.
