My name is Amy Tan and I am a junior concentrating in international relations, with a focus on politics, culture, and identity. I have a particular interest in identity politics, and how this discourse is shaped by and how it shapes global media. The formation of identity narratives takes place on a very personal level, but also on a national and international level. I think that by taking this class, I will be able to better understand the mechanism of the interplay between media and identity, and hopefully gain better understanding of the consequences of such a give and take relationship. In relation to this, I want to know what kind of effects the creation of narratives, by the media, has on foreign and domestic politics. For instance, does it matter that whenever someone mentions the Vice President of the United States, I think of the heavy breathing of Darth Vader because I watch too much of the Daily Show? We consume media and it consumes us. How does this affect how we see ourselves and, ultimately, how we determine our behavior towards others?

Now, to Roland Barthes and the student teacher relationship. After reading Barthes’ text on the limits of speech and presentation in the student teacher relationship, and the critical element of style that creates the identity of “teacher,” it becomes at the very least apparent that the teacher is under a lot of pressure. In order to gain the authority in the classroom and the respect of students, the teacher cannot fumble, mispronounce words like pedagogy, and should not give in to “progressive” stereotypes so easily accepted among students, if he or she wishes to retain any form of originality. (In the interest of closely studying language, it is worthy of note that pedagogy comes from the Greek paidaggi, from paidaggos – a slave who took children to and from school). The teacher enters into a contract with his or her students, and in doing so subjects him/herself to psychoanalysis. Barthes notes “it is not knowledge which is exposed, it is the subject (who exposes himself to painful adventures)” (Barthes 313).

Barthes, thus, presents an interesting paradox when describing the power the teacher wields with the ability of speech. This power and the relationship between power and teaching can be discussed in reference to Barthes’ statement: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power, to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (Barthes 311). The first point to take from this is that “language is always on the side of power,” meaning, among other things, that those able to utilize “good” language generally have power or are using such language to obtain power. It also signifies that the prevailing Law of language, which according to Barthes reigns in anyone who deigns to speak, is prescribed by the powerful. This law influences our style, grammatical structure, and our choice of words.

Secondly, and this is more speaking to the paradox, it is important to note that Barthes recognizes no one is safe in the space of speech, since in order for the teacher to speak and thus exercise a will to power, the teacher must also submit to the Laws. Paradoxically, the teacher continues to contribute to the discourse of power as someone in a position of power in the classroom, but at the same time is hampered by the pre-conditions of power present in the Law of speech. Barthes seems to be observing that in the student teacher relationship, either side takes on a performative, prescribed role that has a distinct script that follows rules, which cannot be broken without the risk of losing power.

And yet, Barthes ends his essay with an appeal to students and teachers to enter into a contract defined by goodwill, which is also probably why we were asked to read this particular essay on pedagogy. Instead of our professors being slaves to our silent will, Barthes appeals to us to enter into a truly constructive relationship. In the traditional student teacher relationship we, as students, take, we challenge and we judge, and we compress a professor’s carefully styled message into bulleted lists. Instead of doing this, Barthes seems to be asking that we disrobe from tradition and instead choose to “float” as we meet in “a space of speech divested of aggressiveness” (Barthes 330). In this space we disorient the Law, so we can perhaps get back to what teaching is all about – trying to connect with the art of living. Or maybe, as Barthes seems to suggest in his final paragraph, everyone should be on drugs, which brings us to Heath Ledger.

Heath Ledger’s death, though surely mourned by many, will remain meaningless until someone (other bloggers, US weekly, myself?) chooses a narrative. Related to Barthes, perhaps what we need is a cultural representative to interpret the significance of his death in terms of the axioms of popular culture, and maybe that’s why we were asked to write on this matter. Most of the blogs on this page have begun to do just that, so we are well on our way to figuring out what it all means. Should we grieve the loss of the characters he played and the loss of a great medium for speech or should we mourn the status of young Hollywood and the dangers of depression? Does Heath Ledger the staged character, as some of the blogs seem to suggest, matter more or is it his story as young person under a lot of pressure (neither of these capturing who he actually was)? My guess is we can’t decide on just one, but will choose to place emphasis on the story that fits best within our own particular axioms.

- Amy M. L. Tan