In the classroom, speech commands, guides, exposes, and takes risks. The teacher holds power over speech, free to exercise it at will while also capable of demanding it or silencing it from students. In this way, the teacher controls, even manipulates, the classroom atmosphere. Through speech, the teacher guides the students not only in their work but also in the way in which they engage their work. At one extreme, the teacher monopolizes speech, “laying down the Law,” (310) by speaking clearly, efficiently, and authoritatively. The teacher positions himself above the students, linguistically constructing a hierarchy. While this style of speech does not deny the power of speech to students, it is more likely to intimidate them and inhibit their speech. At the other extreme, the teacher loosens the perfective rigidity off his speech. With this style of speech, the teacher appears more human, as Barthes says, yet it invites the students to actively exercise their power and right to speech.

In the classroom, teachers do face limited choices with regard to speech, in the sense that Barthes argues, yet they are not bound by them. A teacher’s goal should be to inspire students. Therefore, many of them do not “choose” but rather naturally incline toward a certain style of speech to best accomplish this aim. The reality is far less dire than the dilemma presented by Barthes.

Students also face limited choices as well when it comes to speech in the classroom. When they speak, they “exercise a will to power,” (311) to attract attention, to reassure themselves, or to show off. At the same time, any attempt at speech makes them vulnerable to criticism or correction. Speech is direct. Speech is personal. Speakers are exposed to their audience unlike writers who enjoy the degree of anonymity afforded by bound pages and computer screens. Speech engenders feelings of proximity, thereby raising the stakes of communication. At the same time, speech becomes all the more sincere and forgiving because it exposes the vulnerability shared by everyone in speech. In the classroom, no one would learn without risking a little speech.

Classrooms are not simply places that facilitate transferences of knowledge but are places of experimentation and innovation. In the same way, speech constantly grows and builds upon itself. Barthes, however, oversimplifies the complexity of speech by presenting a linear image: an infinite line of text streaming from our mouths like reams of paper from old adding machines. Speech is more like a forest, each time beginning as an idea that sprouts into words and grows, in some places thickening, in others twisting and intertwining, and sometimes culminating in blossoming conclusions. Speech is alive and diverse.

Globally, the power of speech has spread as more and more people can voice their opinions to an international audience. The development of a global media community has enabled many to attain power through speech just as it has humiliated and exposed many others. As more people “exercise a will to power” (311) by speaking to the world, the world shrinks and people come closer together, creating opportunities for those on opposite sides of the world to better understand each other.

My name is Alan Johnson. I’m a Junior (’09) IR - Global Security concentrator. In many of the classes that I have taken at Brown, the media, whether domestic or international, have been important tools for studying issues in history, political science, international relations, statistics, comparative literature, history of art, and cultural studies. In these areas I have studied topics through the media but have never had the opportunity to take a deeper look at the media itself. I have always wanted to learn what is, and was, behind it all, to see the foundations that lie beneath so much of what I have studied. This seminar would make a perfect complement to my course of study, aside from being a requirement. With my diverse background and interests, I have much to contribute and so much more to learn from this course.