While I won’t speak for everyone (a common mistake; misery does like company), the following is more than likely true of most seniors: we’re only now recognizing the gaping holes in our academic curricula. As a second semester senior, IR-Global Security concentrator, my inexperience with economics and the international monetary system is the latest in a series of problems for professional plans within “international development”. So, deficiency thus identified, I spent the past three weeks in a seminar on international financial crises, losing myself (and my sense of humor) to economic jargon and things about which, to be honest, interested me not at all. For the time-being, I’m perfectly happy in my ignorance, going about believing that economics can be taken for granted and, where not, explained through social and political happenings. And, while I’ll someday embrace the discipline out of necessity, thanks to the option of a preferred alternative, today is not that day. So, I’m a late-comer to the class.
Fortunately (a real overstretch of “silver-lining”), international finance and debt crises aren’t all that’s wanting in my academic portfolio: the little experience I’ve had living in an internationally-discussed climate of change and/or crisis interested me in the relationship between images of conflicts and personalities and their spatially (or socially/culturally/politically etc.) disparate recipients. The exchange of ideas and “realities” across borders is remarkable for the effects on involved parties. What’s most concerning about global media is how each exchange must every time be questioned for bias and [physical and ideological] lenses.
What then do global media accomplish? In my experience: [irrational] panic in my parents. Last summer I worked for about three months in Ethiopia, mostly in the capital, Addis Ababa. The day I arrived, the New York Times published an article that began: “In the Ogaden Desert, Ethiopia, the rebels march 300 strong across the crunchy earth, young men with dreadlocks and AK-47s slung over their shoulders” (“In Etiopia, Fear and Cries of Army Brutality,” New York Times, June 18, 2007). I can only imagine how the image of dreaded, gun-toting men, not yet learned in the best practices of the human rights regime, terrorized my mother. For those of us “on the ground,” however, we had absolutely no idea what journalist Jeffrey Gentleman and contributing reporter, Will Connors (with whom my colleagues and I later had dinner), were talking about. “What goes on here,” the article continued, “seems to be starkly different from the carefully constructed up-and-coming image that Ethiopia – a country that the United States increasingly relies on to fight militant Islam in the Horn of Africa – tries to project.”
The power of media is their projection of agendas that either increase or decrease the subject’s legitimacy in the eyes of the “global community.” The Times article cites two viewpoints on the state of Ethiopian democratic and human rights-related affairs, and my experience in the country identifies with neither of them. The media have enormous influence over the world paradigms into which we fit new information, and I’m interested to look at their many forms and get a better idea of which is most persuasive (read: persuasive ≠ objective).
Persuasion requires that an argument stand up to questioning, and Barthes makes a related point: “To question is to interpellate…so a game is set up: although each side knows just what the other’s intentions are, the game demands a response to the content, not to the way that content is framed” (319). This non-violent questioning is exactly what blogs encourage, as does this class. It seems that the strongest teacher-student relationship is that in which both parties take ownership for their speech by putting it out for public consumption and/or criticism. Writing does not as often come up against such immediate and pointed criticism except for in the new generation of media – blogging, in which, due to anonymity, ideas may be even more aggressively challenged for their objectivity. That looks to be one of the more interesting parts of this class – the exchange (albeit not in this case anonymous) of criticism of our written opinions. Writing, Barthes says, “has no smell” because of a temporal and spatial separation from the creator. I find this argument less persuasive for two – among a potential “many” – reasons: our blogs will “smell,” as did the reporting of my friend, Will Connors, who was forcibly deported to Nairobi after the second bad-press Times article ran in late July (“Ethiopia is Said to Block Food to Rebel Region”, New York Times, July 22, 2007).
As for the “over-mediated” death of Heath Ledger: it’s striking how profoundly the media have made celebrities a part of our emotional lives. The bloggers on Ledger’s death are at once so upset and so confused about his drug- and depression-related fall that you can’t help but recognize two things: first, media have a persuasive effect on what and who is important to us; and, second, media often don’t know – or tell – the half of it.

Posted by Kathleen Fleming at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Entry Assignment, William Leader

This is my entry assignment. I apologize for being late. I am a RUE student (I took five years off between sophomore and junior year) and senior concentrator in Political Science (IR track). I have always been fascinated with media. Books, films, Ataris and Nintendos mediated childhood escapism and fantasy that was much more alluring than my surroundings, which could most readily be described as a whirlwind tour of America’s most bland suburbs (my father having been an up-and-coming IBM executive during the corporation’s heyday).
My brother and I played with the first PCs made by IBM, but we devoted most of our waking hours to my father’s 8mm video camera – making primitive stop-start animation with legos and clay. What draws me to media is the power of the image. International relations is comprised basically of power relations, and the media permeates every aspect of modern life – becoming more “real” than interpersonal interaction.
I am attracted by the technologically oriented aspect of the course, along with its focus on praxis in addition to theory. The web log or “web blog” seems a particularly fitting medium for discussion of Barthes. Although technically writing, the blog more closely represents speech in its immediacy, familiarity and dissemination. This entrance assignment, and its public posting, positions each of us, the students, as subjects for analysis – by virtue of our parole vide, we are exposing ourselves while attempting to expose Barthes.
While perhaps another iteration in the motif of speaker as policeman / analysand, the implication of both audience and orator, student and teacher in speech tends to break down the inequity inherent in power. Student contribution on this level implicates us in “laying down the law” – an idea abhorrent on its face, but tantalizing.

Posted by William Leader at 05:13 AM | Permalink

As a junior concentrating in Modern, Culture, and Media: Track 2 (formally known as Art-Semiotics) I am looking to take my passion for and knowledge of media and film production outside of the boundaries of the MCM department and into today’s global media environment. Since I arrived at Brown I have concentrated all of my energies into the study of media theories and networks. I came in as a photographer, but have been drawn to video production, especially video editing, while at Brown. Last year I studied with Christopher Witmore, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, about the place for video documentation of archaeological sites. That work produced a short film documenting an underwater archaeological dig in The Black Sea, Ukraine that I was a member of the following summer, as well as peripatetic video (http://proteus.brown.edu/witmore/2241 - a form of interactive, participatory video to be played on media tools such as an ipod in places such as archaeological sites) of Patrick Dougherty’s site specific sculpture on Brown’s campus. This year my work has been focused with International Relations Professor, Kay Warren, for her Violence and the Media course. My research with her has involved producing a short film for her course depicting Bill Nichol’s theories of documentary and collecting material off the web from sites such as YouTube to be used in the course. My personal video work is mostly experimental video and digital images focused around the semiotics of fashion, exhibition culture, and electronic music.

What I am most interested in looking at is how new media and its constant change and innovation with new technologies re-defines both the reception of and the production of media. Current media makers adapt quickly to cultural change, converging the latest trend into a formal structure like the evening news, and without notice the viewer easily receives this modified form of news. Such quick adaptations change the conventional practices of viewership and bring up questions of freedom and control. New media appears ubiquitous and free in that every user of technology is also a producer. However I would like to look at the military-entertainment-industrial complex that builds and runs those technologies. I think it is vitally important to take the now with all seriousness and look at our post-industrial society as it shapes us.

The complex and well-developed structure of current media makes the serious work of cultural critique rather difficult. I would like to look at media in the way that Roland Barthes in “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers” looks at speech, as an irreversible act. Media is defined by the thought or object of its message and the style or form of how it presents itself. Once media is presented it is instantly seared into the minds of its audience, therefore media makers work “on the side of speech.” Media uses its power of persuasion to achieve personal aims and goals often within the corporate or political party it represents. Looking at the reception of current media, we can see that we enjoy our training in unawareness of the power mechanisms of media.

Yet there is a tool against such powerful systems: theory. Barthes explains that the theory of writing is able to break down the system of language through the dispersion of its elements. Theory takes apart a situated system with specific goals into a vast field of signs and referents. Here the intellectual or artists can represents theory through giving voice to the Other, the hidden or silent forces, within the system of language from the newly revealed multiple points of interest. The viewer can distinguish this central point and see the “plurality of interpretations” for every sign within the media system. To represent media through theory takes away our ingrained desire to float with media’s structure and instead breaks down media back to its sheer materiality. It is here discovering media’s framework that the fun begins and the “war of meanings” plays out. Barthes explains it is the artists or “workers of the intellect” who have the ability to “construct a revolutionary axiomatics in which the other can finally speak.” Within the codes and method of media, the artist can represent the silent, hidden resistances and slippages that evoke truth and empower change by disarming dominant power. I look forward to working with other students in this course to break apart the power mechanisms of media and give voice to those kept silent!

Posted by Megan Goetsch at 04:26 PM | Permalink

My name is Megan Billman and I am a third year student concentrating in Modern Culture and Media. During my time at Brown I have become very interested in the intersection of media and development and have pursued every opportunity to learn and think more about the relationship between these fields. I have worked as a research assistant on a Public Health project in Mali, West Africa and have spent a lot of time as a volunteer workshop coordinator at the local arts non-profit, New Urban Arts, where I have facilitated workshops in which students engage with the local community and present their findings in media form. I have worked in many different media, with words, with metal and most recently with movement, and am committed to a sustaining a dynamic relationship to information. I hope to pursue a career which combines media production and community engagement, in which I might continue to be experimental in my attempts to interpret and represent information and may arrive at a better understanding of the ways in which the presentation of information influences our response to it.

I would love to be a part of this seminar on Global Media. I bring to it enthusiasm for and experience in critical theory and media production and would benefit greatly from an introduction to historical perspectives on the role of media and a foundation in classical international relations theory.

As for Barthes’ “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers” I found this essay a meaningful way to attempt to come to terms not only with each other in our respective roles as students and instructors, but with the project on which we will embark. As we set out to learn more about the various ways in which we ‘inform’ ourselves about the world, Barthes determinedly reminds us of the limitations of the forms with which we work. He writes, “writing can tell the truth about language but not about reality”(320). I would like to consider the ways in which other modes of representation (for example, photography) might also be said to be “on the side of the law.” Do new journalistic forms like blogging and cell phone photojournalism subvert the law to which official language has traditionally been subjected?

Additionally, I would like to explore the relationship between class and the composition of the media establishment. Barthes writes that the proletariat occupies “the place of the unconscious” of bourgeois discourse but that though “other,” this “other” is itself but a “different bourgeois discourse.” What implications might this theory have for the relationship between formal media sources and grass roots level journalism made possible by new technologies?

I bring these questions and many more to this meeting of media- ward minds. With hopes to explore them with you all.

Megan

Posted by Megan Billman at 01:12 PM | Permalink

I am Willem Van Lancker and I am a sophomore Economics student at Brown and a Graphic Design major at RISD. When I discovered this class online I was immediately drawn to its significance in relation to my passion, media and design. In what is becoming an increasingly globalized world every day, with the spread of instantaneous media coverage, the rise of China and the integration of interests all over the planet, I understand that my work environment will demand a view of the world as a panoptic entity. Gone are the days when we can think we will be successful in our own insular domain. I want to uncover how global media has permeated our decision making over the course of history and how it has truly become a device with its own power - not just an outlet for world news. We are on the cutting edge of a revolution in how we absorb advertising and media. I want to be able to have a better understanding of the global marketplace and how I can be most maneuvering within it.

On “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”

What first struck me after I read Barthes’ “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” was his commentary on the irreversible nature of speech, “a word cannot be retraced except precisely by saying one that retracts it” (Barthes 309). While saying this, Barthes falls into his own erratic use of language, parenthesizing all of his wayward or qualifying thoughts. When read aloud, Barthes’ piece is spoken in a stammering, difficult to follow document. However, when we, the readers, absorb it from the page, it becomes conversational and recognizable. Barthes attempts sum up his thoughts near the end of the article saying that once the written word is produced “I can objectively account for the former [writing] that ‘I’ am no longer in it” (Barthes 322).

Barthes continues to elaborate, here and throughout the article, that speech is immeasurably more powerful than writing, both for a teacher and human beings in general. Though I can agree to a point, as a student of typography and on a broader scale, Graphic Design, the written letter, word, and page hold a much more tenacious hold than the fleeting nature of a speech. Today our world is being transformed with the proliferation of digital video. When this article was written in 1971, most of the speech that was captured was very premeditated, a thoughtful act. Reading this passage brought to mind the Watergate scandal. If no one had been able to capture the spoken word, Nixon would never have been impeached. No one would believe the investigators if they had simply said, “we heard someone saying something.” The written word on the other hand, is entirely incriminating. Once the word is out there, you cannot “show the eraser yourself,” (Barthes 309). It is there; it is concrete and cannot be reversed.

This now brings me to the discussion of the power of speech in the classroom and the deconstruction of language in today’s world. It would be interesting to see what Barthes would have written had this article been published in 2008 rather than thirty years in the past. Today the contract of education that Barthes superbly lays out on pages 314 to 315 is virtually non-existent in the large university classroom. The introduction of the Internet in the classroom, where now at some large universities a student can take all of his/her classes online, has broken down the significance of the teacher student relationship. Furthermore, there is an increasing dilution of the discourse of language. If a student is sitting in his/her dorm room “attending” class the professor has no way of knowing whether or not his/her message is being received or that he/she is being boiled down to “a reduced version, dead yet substantial… not knowing if what is taken (siphoned) out of the flow of speech is erratic statements (formulae, sentences) or the gist of an argument” (Barthes 312). My closest personal encounter with something of this nature here at Brown was my Economics 11 class held in the cavernous Salomon Hall. In EC11 there was no opportunity for a teacher student relationship to be cultivated, she would stand up on stage and speak “at” us, not in a format where we were encouraged to stretch our comfort zones by participating and learning from one another. One of the most important reasons many people attend a school like Brown, is to be surrounded in a community of intelligent, motivated people. Instead, though her lectures were informative and well planned, we would sit in a passive environment one very similar in nature to staring at a computer display or television.

Today, in the in midst of the “YouTube” effect, we find that this deconstruction of language has progressed from casual speech into the media, and anyone with a video camera or phone and an Internet connection. With the introduction of video-blogging in recent years, news articles and the proliferation of ideas has become such a casual procedure that we lack the former pluralism and eloquence of writing. Watching the news today I am overwhelmed that we live in a society where even the “credible” news outlets cover the death of Heath Ledger as a “tragedy” putting on the same level of say a Mother Theresa figure (if you believe Heath Ledger affected your life or anyone’s for that matter as much as Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, or the like, please let me know). A sickening repetitive cavalcade of images bombards us, blasting our senses daily. Furthermore, everyone can offer their opinion whether informed or not and much of the blind public will accept it as a fact because the person appears to have an air of authority (Wikipedia?), something Barthes pointed out as crucial for the success of a teacher or speaker.

Both speech and writing today need to return to a world where they are regarded art forms, intellectual pursuits, not as mere outlets for self-promotion or the attempted resuscitation of worn out stereotypes. “Language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power” (Barthes 311). Language in teaching, writing, and everyday speech is a what makes us human, our ability to articulate and convey our realities with each other and coexist in an environment where we can “float,” and connect with an “art of living” (Barthes 331). I would hate to see that go to waste.

Posted by Willem Van Lancker at 11:16 AM | Permalink

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

Posted by Amy M. L. Tan at 05:28 PM | Permalink

Who is Alejandra Piers-Torres? Well, academically you could say that I am currently a senior double concentrating in International Relations: Politics, Culture and Identity and Hispanic Studies: Literature and Culture. My concentrations have allowed me to take courses such as AN128 "Violence and the Media", SP55 "Cultures of Violence" and of course PS40 "International Politics". The combination of these classes has taught me to analyze different modules of media and consider their cultural and often multicultural impact. Not to mention, my concentrations have highlighted the humanization of violence, as it all too often becomes embedded into cultural icons.
On a more personal note, I was born and raised in “Sweet Home Chicago”. It is a city very dear to my heart and one often prone to political scandals, both disclosed and publicized. Chicago is currently trying to compete against Rio di Janeiro for the location of the 2016 Olympics and has therefore taken a greater interest in its “international” image. It has been interesting to watch the city’s international makeover with the inclusion of more cultural events and the occasional globe symbol within the city’s public domain. My mother was born in Havana, Cuba therefore I have always had a general interests in international affairs, especially as they relate to Latin America. More specifically, I have always been drawn to the often “taboo” and “controversial” depictions Cuba within US media and vice versa. I guess I feel lucky that I have been able to travel to Cuba a few times and see that people can relate outside of the exaggerated political separations.
I am interested in studying media not only as an information outlet but also as catalyst towards events. I witnessed this first hand last spring when I studied abroad in Barcelona and I was able to experience the different ways that the Spanish and Catalan media covered international affairs compared to the often censored US media. I became especially aware of this in the coverage on the Virginia Tech shootings. The local Spanish newspapers ran very graphic pictures of the victims. As a college student myself, I was obviously very sadden by the situation and I felt haunted by the images. When I called home my peers were unaware of the explicit pictures. I had to wonder how many news worthy events in my life had been sugarcoated. I think this course would be a great opportunity to develop my interests and an excellent way to top off my IR concentration.
In the essay “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”, Roland Barthes analyzes the assumptions and constraints of communication. Barthes specifically focuses on the sea-saw dynamic between speech to writing and consequently teacher to student when he says, “Language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power” (p.311). After sitting through several inspiring lectures at Brown I would have to agree that captivating an audience, especially in the context of learning has an empowering affect. I am learning this first-hand as I prepare my sample lesson plans for the Teach for America application. While I am excited about the prospect of participating in this organization, it is a very daunting thought to take on the supremacy role of a teacher. In my opinion, this inherent “power” brings into questions the idea of “freedom of speech” which many democracies seem to pride themselves on. Is one ever truly “free” to speak if they are ruled by undisclosed errors and embedded in an expressive hierarchy? I believe that the freedom of expression can survive if we take into account that this “power” is vulnerable. Even Barthes points out, “Speech is irreversible…There is nothing to be done with speech but add on more” (p.309). The “errors” of a teacher in their oratory stage cannot be concealed from the students. However, I do not see this as a negative aspect of communication. Sometimes the best lessons are learned from shared experiences, including human mistakes.

Posted by Alejandra Piers-Torres at 04:29 PM | Permalink

My name is Jessica Kerry, and I’m a senior concentrating in Comparative Literature in English and French. I want to take this class because it encompasses my most urgent interests: politics and culture; and the study and production of media. My favorite part of the five or six MCM and literary theory courses I’ve taken at Brown has been the insight they’ve given me into the subtle ways politics and power are both expressed and constituted by media, particularly media we tend to think of as apolitical. All media—not just news and documentary—take some kind of stance, intentionally or not. I think this background in critical theory gives me a different, complementary perspective to the (majority of) International Relations concentrators in the course and will make discussion and collaboration much more fruitful. I also think that the course’s IR theory will supplement and enhance my understanding of the more direct ways that politics and media influence each other.
I have been a journalist since high school (most recently interning at the Providence Phoenix June-December) and am considering entering the field professionally after I graduate; so the questions of culture, economics and politics that we will explore in this course are, for me, practically as well as intellectually pressing. I cannot be a good journalist if I don’t understand the various forces at work, not only in the issues I cover, but in my role as a media maker. This is also why the production portion of the course is particularly important for me. Although my medium has always been the written word, I don’t want to be left behind by the seismic shifts in the field of journalism over the past few years. The internet has changed the form as well as distribution of journalistic production, creating opportunities that require the practical skills I hope to learn from this course.

Barthes’ assertion that “language is always on the side of power” describes the teacher’s use of speech to claim authority over knowledge; by speaking, the teacher constitutes the content of his speech as “correct” or “accurate," negating any other possible interpretations or perspectives. This is what Barthes’ means when he says “the Law is produced, not in what he says, but in the fact that he speaks at all”—the teacher’s authority depends not on the content of the lesson but on the articulation of the lesson itself. Exposing and questioning this relationship between teaching and power is particularly important for a course that examines the workings of political power, and one that relies so heavily on student production and participation. How does the Law operate when students themselves create some of the course material (the vlogs)?
Crucially, Barthes’ power dynamic applies not just to speech within the classroom, but to all speech acts. Founding semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure argued that the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary and therefore must be determined negatively; lacking any essential link to its meaning, each word is defined by what it does not mean. In this way, language itself corresponds to the authoritative structure of teacherly speech: it constitutes itself by denying alternatives,
Understanding the fundamental non-neutrality of language is, I think, central to understanding media’s interpretations of international events and problems, especially when so many of the media producers who shape the course of events claim to be “fair and accurate,” etc. What can be dangerous about this is that the world we live in is so media-saturated, from our internet use to the sheer amount of images we see on a day-to-day basis, that it’s hard to tell anymore where reality stops and spin begins in our own heads. I can’t help but think of political campaign coverage, which always seems to turn non-issues into big stories simply by talking about them. Who holds the power when politicians are forced to respond to the newsmedia?
While some media are undeniably agents of power, however, others can also be agents for change—e.g. many documentaries, political blogs, web activists, etc. So I would propose an alternative to Barthes “speech,” which “is on the side of the law”: speaking out, perhaps the equivalent of a student talking back to the teacher. The difference between speaking and speaking out is something I’m personally interested in as I look to my (potential) future as a politically- and globally-minded writer, and I think it will be incredibly relevant to the media we examine in this course.

Posted by Jessica Kerry at 03:58 PM | Permalink

My name is Jessica Kerry, and I’m a senior concentrating in Comparative Literature in English and French. I want to take this class because it encompasses my most urgent interests: politics and culture; and the study and production of media. My favorite part of the five or six MCM and literary theory courses I’ve taken at Brown has been the insight they’ve given me into the subtle ways politics and power are both expressed and constituted by media, particularly media we tend to think of as apolitical. All media—not just news and documentary—take some kind of stance, intentionally or not. I think this background in critical theory gives me a different, complementary perspective to the (majority of) International Relations concentrators in the course and will make discussion and collaboration much more fruitful. I also think that the course’s IR theory will supplement and enhance my understanding of the more direct ways that politics and media influence each other.
I have been a journalist since high school (most recently interning at the Providence Phoenix June-December) and am considering entering the field professionally after I graduate; so the questions of culture, economics and politics that we will explore in this course are, for me, practically as well as intellectually pressing. I cannot be a good journalist if I don’t understand the various forces at work, not only in the issues I cover, but in my role as a media maker. This is also why the production portion of the course is particularly important for me. Although my medium has always been the written word, I don’t want to be left behind by the seismic shifts in the field of journalism over the past few years. The internet has changed the form as well as distribution of journalistic production, creating opportunities that require the practical skills I hope to learn from this course.

Barthes’ assertion that “language is always on the side of power” describes the teacher’s use of speech to claim authority over knowledge; by speaking, the teacher constitutes the content of his speech as “correct” or “accurate," negating any other possible interpretations or perspectives. This is what Barthes’ means when he says “the Law is produced, not in what he says, but in the fact that he speaks at all”—the teacher’s authority depends not on the content of the lesson but on the articulation of the lesson itself. Exposing and questioning this relationship between teaching and power is particularly important for a course that examines the workings of political power, and one that relies so heavily on student production and participation. How does the Law operate when students themselves create some of the course material (the vlogs)?
Crucially, Barthes’ power dynamic applies not just to speech within the classroom, but to all speech acts. Founding semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure argued that the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary and therefore must be determined negatively; lacking any essential link to its meaning, each word is defined by what it does not mean. In this way, language itself corresponds to the authoritative structure of teacherly speech: it constitutes itself by denying alternatives,
Understanding the fundamental non-neutrality of language is, I think, central to understanding media’s interpretations of international events and problems, especially when so many of the media producers who shape the course of events claim to be “fair and accurate,” etc. What can be dangerous about this is that the world we live in is so media-saturated, from our internet use to the sheer amount of images we see on a day-to-day basis, that it’s hard to tell anymore where reality stops and spin begins in our own heads. I can’t help but think of political campaign coverage, which always seems to turn non-issues into big stories simply by talking about them. Who holds the power when politicians are forced to respond to the newsmedia?
While some media are undeniably agents of power, however, others can also be agents for change—e.g. many documentaries, political blogs, web activists, etc. So I would propose an alternative to Barthes “speech,” which “is on the side of the law”: speaking out, perhaps the equivalent of a student talking back to the teacher. The difference between speaking and speaking out is something I’m personally interested in as I look to my (potential) future as a politically- and globally-minded writer, and I think it will be incredibly relevant to the media we examine in this course.

Posted by Jessica Kerry at 03:58 PM | Permalink

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
(L. Caroll – Through the Looking Glass)

When Foucault claimed, ”we need to cut off the King’s head” if we want to find the sites of power other “avenues” became important. Needless to say, power is still ”exercised” from above, but in the ages of the Global Media, this is perhaps the most interesting place to search for new forms of power.
That explains pretty much why I want to take this course. If the Global Media is where power functions, then I would – as interested in both power and politics, like to acquire “tools” to decipher those mechanisms as well as get skills to “re-/built” new power platforms. Hence the production of media/medium

I agree with Hannah Arendt (and Nietzsche for that matter) that language cannot tell who I am, but only what I am – and what I am is Kristian Walther. I’m (still even though I attend Brown this spring) a graduate student at the Department of Political Science at University of Copenhagen – Denmark. My primary interest within the last couple of years has been International Relations and Political Theory and History of Ideas.
That also means that I have no experience in the production of media, but this is what I hope at least for a beginning to get from this course.

Barthes on “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”

Since the text is esoteric and contains a number of interesting issues, I only focus on pages 309-312.

The relationship between power and language is significant. As Barthes points out if one wants to be “properly” understood one needs to invoke “the Law” i.e. the grammar of language and thereby authority. The alternative is the human, all-to-human (in a paraphrase of Nietzsches book, with the same title) – the free spirit, the artist, who breaks the chains of the Law, but then is faced with the audience.
What is the alternative? – Well as Barthes points out, there is actually no alternative. Whenever one invokes language, one always produces and reproduces power. Whether the relationship between the teacher and the audience is to be taken literally or not it signifies the importance of language in shaping perceptions. This is also the case when we receive information. If the social reality only exist through perspectives it also means the each discourse invoke some kind of authority, which structures it. Teaching then should not just be in the form of learning a theory or a discourse, but in addition to critical investigate what kind of authority, power and (perhaps) interest a given discourse serves. This is hopefully the task of this course. To learn to participate in “the battle of discourses”

I apologize for not letting Heath Ledger play the (in-)significant role, that was intended

Posted by Kristian Rune Walther at 03:41 PM | Permalink

My name is Chantal and I am a sophomore most likely concentrating in IR – PCI track and Middle East Studies. I’m very much in the process of discovering new avenues and abilities of media, and my interest is honed on media frontiers in the Middle East specifically, and the developing world in general. I will be going on a Students of the World trip this summer, where other members of the Brown chapter and I will work to document the work of a yet-to-be-determined NGO and its effects the community through film, photography, and writing. I’m currently writing and editing for a radio documentary called “Between Iraq,” comprising stories of Iraqi refugee families that I recorded in Syria last summer. I also have a radio show at BSR, and I’ve worked a few summer jobs at the kind of newspaper that requires you to bring your own digital camera.

I’m particularly interested in specifically motivated media that is bought and paid for – propaganda, if you will – and its relationship to what we, as viewers or as media producers ourselves, consider “legitimate” media. When I was in high school my mother had a job directing and producing promotional films for the U.S. army, and our house was flooded with tapes called “Best of Iraq Freedom: Parts 1 and 2” and similar. I’ve also spent time living in Syria, where dozens of quasi-militaristic posters of Bashar Assad faced my bedroom window. It’s easy for us in classrooms to dismiss such media as “Army of One” or a head of state lounging in army fatigues, but its easier, I think, to underestimate the extent to which people respond to simple kitsch, “motivated” or no. And within the vast abyss of various media sources available to us right now,
the dialectic of motivation – paid or no – and objectivity seems obtuse. What exactly is our standard – can there possibly even be a standard – for “objective” media? If, as Barthes tells us, all speech aspires to power, can we not say that all speech, and all media, is motivated? And how are we to go about judging the “legitimacy” of these motives, if at all?

So on to Barthes: The quote on pg 311 hints at something I find fascinating, which is the idea of our speech as separate from ourselves, and perhaps more powerful than ourselves. More often than not, we are armed only with our speech to represent ourselves, giving our language power not just over our audience, but also over us, the speaker, he who seeks to represent and be represented. Language creates space for interpretation and possible misinterpretation, which can easily become judgment and criticism – or “reduction,” which Barthes discusses soon hereafter. For a here-and-now example, this can degenerate further into a tit-for-tat “he said – she said” situation à la Barack and Hillary, which arguably lends power to neither party. It’s worth noting that although we may aspire to power through speech, it may achieve for us quite the opposite.

So what can we do about it? Barthes is unsympathetic. Like with footprints in the snow, we can turn on our own speech, backtracking and trying to obfuscate our original position, but we run the risk of just making a mess. The canvas of our speech – a classroom, a dinner table conversation, etc – will never be “innocent” of its tracks. As Barthes would say, it “smells.” This permanence of speech differs from writing in that there is no delete key, no White Out. If I am typing by myself, and I don’t like this sentence, I can delete it, and like a good hit job, no one will ever know what went down. Written word is more vulnerable to our whims, to our sense of style and pacing, to our pretensions and apprehensions about how our words represent us. The fact that this entrance exam is written rather than oral is telling of the kind of representation we are meant to achieve in completing it.

Barthes also says: “It is difficult for a teacher to see the “notes” taken during his lectures: he has no desire to do so... out of fear of discovering himself in a reduced version.”
“Imagine that I am a teacher: I speak, endlessly, for and before someone who does not speak... I am the one who, under cover of an exposition, proposes a discourse, without ever knowing how it is received, so that I can never have the reassurance of a definitive (even if damaging) image which might constitute me.” (both page 312)

In this section, Barthes discusses the institution of class notes and how they privately “reduce” the teacher in form and/or content. With regards to my experiences at Brown, this passage evokes another institution, the end-of-semester teacher evaluation. The teacher evaluation introduces a way for the teacher having a “definitive (evening if damaging) image of what might constitute me” in his students’ eyes, something that Barthes does not consider a part of the teaching relationship. It has the same characteristics that Barthes assigns to notes – the representative and reductive qualities, the possibility for an interpretation of the “message” that would offend the “sender” – but adds an analytical dimension, one that has larger ramifications for the teacher. The evaluation associates the students with a power higher than that of the teacher (department head, etc). It is, in theory at least, a momentary reversal of the student-teacher power dynamic, that of sender and receiver, criticizer and criticized.

The method of the teacher’s (or of any speaker’s) “reduction” is key and potentially problematic. Is what we write truly a compound analysis of the teacher over the course, or a polaroid of our relationship with yesterday’s lesson, with our current mood, with our most recent grade? Barthes talks about the teacher’s “fear” of discovering himself in some mutilated form (shrunken head metaphor drives this home), and of realizing that he is not in control of the destiny of his speech once it is stripped of its style (“compressed”), and in this case, submitted for his own evaluation. This harks back to the volatility of speech in general.

And finally: “... for political language itself is constituted by stereotypes.”

I chose not to write on this phrase, because ranting about how political rhetoric is stereotypical is itself a tired stereotype, but it reminded me of my favorite Youtube video of the week, which I think everyone should watch.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gEaS-K3j3M8

Posted by Chantal Berman at 03:23 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by albert huber at 03:20 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “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” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:17 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “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” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:08 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “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” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:08 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Alan Johnson at 02:53 PM | Permalink

My name is Josh Sargent. I am a sophomore in the Global Security track of International Relations and am studying Arabic to meet my language requirement. I want to take this class because I believe Afghanistan and especially Iraq are the first blogged wars as Vietnam was the first televised war and this has changed the nature of the Global Media. I feel the media has segmented and now, instead of there being a universal figure like Walter Cronkite was during the Vietnam War, there is Fox News for conservatives, NBC/CNN for moderates, Jon Stewart for liberals (and yes I understand the irony of mentioning a comedian as a news source) and a blog for whatever an individual's ideological viewpoint is. Instead of a universal media for all cultures, I see a media that is becoming more and more divided and I want to understand how that effects issues of global security, especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “Global War on Terror.”
“The militant who in the name of praxis (the idea that philosophy should actively change the world) dismisses all discourse as trivial”
I would disagree with this statement and say in this age of terrorism violence becomes a form of discourse. 9/11 and the train bombings in London and Madrid were statements, not strategic targets. Al Quaeda has a very sophisticated propaganda department and presents very different faces to different audiences. For example, Bin Laden’s offering of peace to the United States was not intended for American audiences (who vehemently rejected it) but for Muslim audiences to establish his own credibility as a leader in the Muslim world. Also when Bin Laden darkened his beard he was attempting to remind Muslims of how he led the mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan (the mujahideen darkened their beards with henna before going to war) and again establish his credibility as a Muslim leader. The terrorist organization Hamas is now the ruling party in the Palestinian Territories and just blew a hole through the Eqyptian border so that they can establish legitimacy by reestablishing control over the border (and how convoluted is that). Discourse is necessary for legitimacy and legitimacy is what every militant group requires in order to maintain its existence.
Legitimacy is at the heart of every discourse. When Barthes mentions a “will to power,” that power is being recognized as a legitimate authority on a subject. In speaking some of this legitimacy comes from a speaker's physical characteristics, which are out of his control, while writing comes almost from a void and a writer can be legitimate regardless of his speaking ability or physical characteristics. Terror subverts this paradigm because it can attach a power to a group that it cannot attain through the more ordinary methods of speaking and writing.
I should be in this class because I want to do this work and I think I bring a unique perspective because I want to focus on security issues and the media's usually facile interaction with them (the "surge", the causes of terrorism,). These issues cannot be explained in terms of sound bites or absolutes such as defeat or victory yet the media tries to pinhole them into these terms in order to meet their qualifications of what they think their audience wants.

Posted by Joshua Sargent at 02:38 PM | Permalink

My name is Elizabeth Berger; I am a member of the class of 2010 pursuing an independent concentration in Persuasive Communication. I am fascinated by the power of language to affect change in the thoughts and actions of others. I want to find the synthesis of language – between what is written and what is spoken, what is said and what is heard, what is gathered and what is disseminated. While I am not a senior, I believe I bring a unique perspective to a project of this nature. I have experience using the web not only in all the usual ways, but this past semester I worked with a nonprofit and the Weinstein Co, using online advertising and viral marketing to build buzz about a film, The Great Debaters (a media company propagating itself through other forms of media – how elliptical!) In addition to a lot of writing and academic research experience, I am a hopeless media junkie – and by media I don’t mean solely the frantic cult of celebrity. You mentioned the death of Heath Ledger – what about the death of Benazir Bhutto, the news of which was completely sublimated on US news stations by the escape of a tiger in the San Francisco zoo? Popular culture is more than Andy Warhol or the Superbowl; it is information, the vocabulary to cultural literacy. We are what we consume, in fat and facts. I want to understand this craving, and use it to change the world that barrages us with language every day.

Reading this article, I had one great regret upon its conclusion – that Quel published this in 1971, before the internet became the great equalizer of language. Quel details a comparison between the writer, the intellectual, and the teacher, separating the written word from the spoken word. The power of language, thus, is divided, and wielded only by those with power in each of those separate spheres. But what would happen if those spheres of influence were united? A blog, a discussion forum, a Twitter entry – these are all spaces in which anyone and everyone has the power to contribute to a dialogue. To claim that “language is always on the side of power” (311) is no longer true, or at least does not have the same elitism it once had. There are two ways to consider this argument: either those without power at last have a forum to express their own thoughts, or, by providing a free forum, the internet has redistributed power among the masses.

The factors of dissemination of information have changed. Even the language of the internet has changed communication. All the “abbreves” associated with IM and text messaging have spread to all forums of communication (one would be hard-pressed to find someone who did not recognize “lol” in even a spoken conversation). Grammar, political correctness, even capitalization has lost its power to legitimize information. The informalization of written language brings it somehow closer to speech, with all its flaws and imprecision. While the written word can be endlessly edited and perfected, Quel makes the fascinating point that “Speech is irreversible: a word cannot be retraced except precisely by saying that one retracts it. Here, to cancel is to add…” (309) The internet has established a language somewhere between the two. While more information can be added to, say, an article on Wikipedia, once something is posted on the internet it can never be completely deleted from existence – it remains on a server somewhere, regardless of its merit. Things are copies and pasted, quoted and shared, posted and reposted. The sheer quantity of the compiled language and information is staggering.

How similar is this to Quel’s description of the relationship between teacher and student? When a professor lectures in front of a class, no matter the quality of the information or presentation, it is copied down in note form, discussed in sections and at lunch tables, repeated in essays – in short, disseminated through a variety of means, mutating from its original form into a sprawl of tangents and new ideas. Authenticity can be lost because there are no checks in place to counteract the natural tendency towards confusion and chaos. The endless dialogue of the internet preserves the authenticity of text while allowing it to go through the endless process of discussion and verification. What the internet provides that teaching lacks is an addition to the teacher-student contract – it invites dialogue, and, through the efflorescent cacophony of voices, perhaps also invites truth.

Posted by Elizabeth Berger at 02:27 PM | Permalink

I spent the first year of my undergraduate experience as a film and television major at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts before transferring to Brown to pursue a liberal arts education. I am currently a senior in my last semester at Brown. I concentrate in architectural studies, but my true passion is documentary filmmaking and I have engaged this passion over the past three years through documentary, anthropology and history courses at Brown, working as an artist mentor in filmmaking at a Providence youth arts non-profit called New Urban Arts, interning with a youth media non-profit in Charlottesville, Virginia, and working on a Watson fellowship as Public Information and Media intern with the International Rescue Committee in Thailand this past summer. My decision to leave an intensive film training program at NYU in favor of a liberal arts education at Brown was rooted in my belief that filmmaking (especially documentary filmmaking) itself is not the driving force for ideas, but rather ideas are the driving force and film (media) is a uniquely powerful instrument for turning those ideas into real change. When I graduate in a few months, I plan to pursue documentary work and in my last time at Brown my goal is to expand my understanding of what “documentary work” means, and what, in fact, a media-maker is capable of on an international scale. Last semester I had the privilege of taking a course called “The Good Fight: Documentary Work and Social Change”. In thinking about the title of the course and what it meant for me personally (and this is also the reason “Global Media” is a logical next step), I arrived at this: ‘The good fight is the fight to create opportunities for empowerment and connection through one of the most powerful forces at our disposal: the media. In video and film technology we have an awesome tool for reaching out across traditional boundaries, giving voices to those who would otherwise be silent, and binding people through honesty and common experience. The good fight can be fought on a small or large scale, as long as the fundamental goals of the fight do not become lost in the search for something artificially real. The good fight is a process, not necessarily a product.'

Looking back on this idea of striving for an effective process to connect people and experiences (what else is media, really?) while reading Barthes’ Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers, lent a particular resonance to the text not only as a piece on teaching, but also as a piece on communicating, and as such, also a piece on media-making and messaging. Barthes assumes a top-down “teacher”-“student” relationship of exchange in which the “teacher” holds power of speech and position over the “student”. When, on page 311, he writes, “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,” he points also to a fundamental challenge of the “teacher”, and I would venture to say that his discussion could be broadened to equally include the “media-maker”. His essay resonates loudly today in an environment of unprecedented access to information seemingly limitless forms with which to mediate/communicate that access.

With regard to the relationship of speech to writing, the Democratic primaries seem a perfect example of the ‘powerful’/’puncturable’ position of the teacher/speaker (I will conflate the two here). Clinton and Obama each have their points, well-researched, well-spoken, but they are open immediately to criticism (crisis) when the other candidate takes jabs (it is not even an issue of positioning here, as they are side by side and above the audience). Barthes describes the very situation: “…when the teacher speaks to his audience, the Other is always there, puncturing his discourse; and his discourse, though sustained by an impeccable intelligence, armed with scientific “rigor” or political “radicality,” would still be punctured: it suffices that I speak, that my speech flows, for it to flow away” (313)). Presumably, writing does not expose one to the same level of immediate and interruptive nakedness. I would argue, however, that blogging might actually disrupt the speaking/writing binary Barthes proposes, by increasing the speed and availability of the latter and thus exposing it to some of the same “out in the open” dangers that Barthes ascribes to the former. What that means for this class is that we are dealing in a realm of entirely new possibilities for communication and that through the technology (and equally, new ideas about positioning) at our disposal, the speech/writing binary is only one of myriad binaries we have the power to destroy. This means we can create an international playing field with traditional and non-traditional players if we can get our imaginations juiced up to envision it.

-Bremen Donovan

Posted by Bremen Donovan at 02:12 PM | Permalink