My name is Julia, I am a senior (’08) and an International Relations, Global Security concentrator. I primarily want to take this class because I’ve spent a lot of time looking reading international relations texts, and I want to look at IR in a different way. I think that looking at the intersection between media, art and international relations would be an interesting, new lens. Secondly, I’m doing an independent study this semester on War Literature, and I think this class would really complement that study nicely. I’d also like to take a smaller, more hands on and discussion-based course to end my IR career here.

I should take this class both because I would get a lot out of it and because I’d contribute a lot. I’m well-versed in international relations theory from the classes I’ve taken, and I also have a great interest in art and films. I’m taking a photography course at RISD this semester, and when I took IR 135 in 2005 I really liked the assignment where we watched and wrote about “Why We Fight?” I think I would similarly excel with similar assignments in this course.

In “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” one of the main points that the author emphasizes is the relationship between speech and power. In particular, he points out that “to speak is to exercise a will to power.” In other words, he points out that by speaking one tries to claim power for oneself, whereas by remaining silent one relinquishes that power. He also emphasizes how speaking is inevitably a quest for power when he mentions that there is “no innocence, no safety” in speech. In his mind, there is no such thing as an innocent speech because every speech is inherently a grasp at power.

This idea fits into studying and teaching because to speak in an academic sense is also to grasp for power. A teacher claims power by speaking his or her opinions and trying to convey those opinions to the students. When we discuss the media in this class, we similarly claim power because we speak openly about our opinions.

However, the author clearly feels that this power is particular to speech because he highlights differences between written and spoken language. Specifically, he claims that “writing begins at the point where speech becomes impossible (as the word is used about a child).” Like one disciplines an impossible child with punishment, writing disciplines unruly speech; its concrete rules make it much more regulated than speech is. The author most clearly expands on the relationship between speech and writing on page 320, when he mentions that “writing is represented by its contrary, speech.” Both of these examples treat writing and speaking as separate types of language with different rules, aims, and effects. These distinctions certainly fit into this course because we are encouraged to use different communication media (such as writing papers and speaking in class) as various ways of both owning and conveying our opinions.