I am Albert Huber in the class of 2009. I am a political science concentrator with a focus in international relations. I have taken the introductory international relations theory course and I have also taken “The Illicit Global Economy.” I have not taken any media analyses courses in the MCM department, but I have studied a different sort of media and communication in the theater department, where I have taken classes such as “Performance Theory and Theater Histories” and “Acting,” where we not only study the theories of performative communication, but also how do communicate. Extracurricurally, most of my time is taken up by working in some way or another at the theater, acting, directing or helping with production elements. Bridging my interests in performance and communication with my interest in international relations is something I have been trying to work out and I think this class would be a perfect place for me to continue doing that. I have become very intrigued by the spread of user-generated media, such as youtube, and how that affects political relations between states. I want to learn how this phenemenom has come about, but more importantly, I want to become a part of it. I think that this class could help guide me in how to constructively contribute to the already oversaturated pool of information and how to produce my own quality media.

“Language is always on the side of power.” (Barthes, 311) What I love about this statement is the distinction that it draws from the idea that language is power. Barthes is pointing out that instead of using speech to weild one’s own power, power, or the law, is consistently constraining and guiding one’s speech. Barthes points out that a way to fight against this, to be the “free-thinking artist,” is to resist the rules of language, to stammer and correct and not speak smoothly and elegantly. The laws therefore, are not still constraining you, right? Wrong. When someone speaks in this manner, especially from a position of power or respect, they quickly lose that respect and become a bumbling fool in our minds, whether or not they are a fool. This reinforces stereotypes that language brings along with it. One who speaks smoothly is elegant, one who doesn’t speak much is deep in thought, one who makes smart sarcastic remarks is the snarky intellectual, and one who stammers and corrects is a fool.

One section about speech that resonated with me was the section on questions. Many times when a student asks a question, it is not actually a question, but a statement. Barthes writes, “To question is to interpellate…What I receive is the connotation; what I must give back is the denotation.” (319, Barthes) I think it is particularly interesting that while both participants in the dialogue know that the intent of the question is not in the answer that will be received, they are constrained by language to continue as if there was no other connotation other than the question itself. The relationship between the student and the instructor here is constrained by language in which they perform the parts of people who are asking and answering these questions without any unsaid connotations, and yet there are. This situation then begs the question, who are they performing for? And, How do we then break out of playing our parts in this performance of a classroom?

It seems that the only way to escape the power that speech brings with it is through writing. Written word allows the author to correct, revise and rethink his/her thoughts, without stammering and stumbling. S/he can truly be the freethinking artist without the social label of fool. Also, writing allows one to be their own objective observer of their thoughts. When speaking, one must always be defending oneself. When writing, one can even attack oneself. One can rethink one's own ideas by deleting them, instead of adding on to them. Footnotes aren't necessary a lot of the time when a good backspace button is on hand. Can this different kind of discourse, this more refined conversation that doesn't necessarily pigeon-hole people into the roles that spoken word attempts to, be utilized in the teacher-student relationship? Maybe. Can these thoughts about language be applied to the untimely death of Heath Ledger? Absolutely.

People in the general public are not mourning the death of Heath Ledger, most people in the general public have probably not seen Heath Ledger speak more than 10 of his own words. People are mourning the death of characters he played, characters which spoke words all written by someone else. Characters who spoke words other people wrote and touched people through Mr. Ledger. The power of someone else’s language was wielded through this actor, and that language then controlled him and defined him. So yes, to most Americans, the death of Heath Ledger is meaningless, but the death of the words he wielded is not. America can mourn the loss of a great communicator who was in our eyes defined by the language given to him.