This program has shown to be an incredible outlet for these men to have a temporary escape from their unfortunate circumstances. As we've learned through the film, the men's involvement in these plays serves as not only a distraction from their own lives, but also as a tool in self-discovery, personal growth and deeper healing. I definitely think that The Tempest was a good choice due to it's theme of redemption and forgiveness. Hearing the inmates explain how the story and characters helped them better understand and deal with their lives led me to consider what other plays I thought might show to benefit their personal journeys. I am especially interested in considering works that are not by Shakespeare, and therefore read and interpreted on a more direct manner. I am not very well versed in plays and literature of that genre, so I wanted to pose this question to the class.
What other plays do you think would be appropriate for these men to study and perform? Do you think that eliminating the Shakespearean writing style would change the overall experience for the men? I'm intrigued to hear if anyone thinks the Shakespearean writing style plays a significant role in the men's experience, and if so, could the same benefits be received if they used a work written in common English style?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Does It Matter That It Was Shakespeare's The Tempest?
I cannot begin to explain how thoroughly I enjoyed the film, Shakespeare Behind Bars. The amount of topics that I could ruminate about are unparalleled to any of the weeks’ readings this semester. In trying to stay within the realm of discussing literature as a focal point, I ask you to consider this: Does it matter that they’re studying Shakespeare? And, if so, how or why does his work, The Tempest, play such a crucial in the reception and reaction by the inmates?
I began asking myself if these men would be able to achieve the same purpose, and levels of self discovery, had they been using any other plays by any other authors. Was it Shakespeare that was guiding their breakthroughs? Was it the specific plot line of The Tempest that held such a deep connection for these men? It’s hard to say that Shakespeare's words united these men in the healing they were seeking.
Perhaps it’s the escape from reality becoming enthralled in a role provides. Instead of focusing on getting through one day, just to repeat the same motions again the next, these men are able to occupy their thoughts with the lives of the characters they emulate. I realize all of the men express how their participation in the play causes them to relate with, and reflect on, experiences from their own life; however, I believe that this deep self-reflection is the inevitable result of their condition as prisoners. This is not to say that certain themes and motifs present in The Tempest do not trigger specific emotions in these damned men. I just think it wise to put into perspective the mental and emotion state irregardless of delving into the words and stories Shakespeare provides.
I should disclaimer the fact that I have not read The Tempest, and therefore cannot wholly dismiss the possibility that this particular play has a profound connection and unique impact on these men. My suggestion is that it may not be Shakespeare’s words, or The Tempest’s characters and plot lines, that are serving these men in such an incredible and profound way. I believe that it is the opportunity to escape their lives. To, if even for a brief moment, believe that they are actually the characters they are portraying, and to, if only momentarily, feel the thoughts they are reciting as if they were constructed by their own words.
One of the men had said that to be redeemed is the single greatest thing in the world. To be redeemed for what he’d done is all he’s wanted during his time in prison. Playing the roles of any character serves as a chance to feel redemption. When they take on the role of the characters, they are no longer themselves, and therefore they are no longer the individuals that have actions for which they long to be redeemed from.
I also think that being left alone with your thoughts in such a mentally and emotionally battering situation can cause an individual to think of themselves, their experiences, and their lives in a sort of heightened ego-centric way. Their days are mostly spent thinking about who they are, what they believe, what they feel, how they got there, how they’ve grown, etc. This constant focus on critical self-analysis, and understanding themselves compared to the world, could reasonably affect their interpretation, reaction and utilization of studying a play and it’s characters. From this notion, it should be no great surprise that each of the men found a way to relate to The Tempest. I do not think it should be automatically accepted and assumed that the significance of the men’s experience was majorly due to the content or context of Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
I began asking myself if these men would be able to achieve the same purpose, and levels of self discovery, had they been using any other plays by any other authors. Was it Shakespeare that was guiding their breakthroughs? Was it the specific plot line of The Tempest that held such a deep connection for these men? It’s hard to say that Shakespeare's words united these men in the healing they were seeking.
Perhaps it’s the escape from reality becoming enthralled in a role provides. Instead of focusing on getting through one day, just to repeat the same motions again the next, these men are able to occupy their thoughts with the lives of the characters they emulate. I realize all of the men express how their participation in the play causes them to relate with, and reflect on, experiences from their own life; however, I believe that this deep self-reflection is the inevitable result of their condition as prisoners. This is not to say that certain themes and motifs present in The Tempest do not trigger specific emotions in these damned men. I just think it wise to put into perspective the mental and emotion state irregardless of delving into the words and stories Shakespeare provides.
I should disclaimer the fact that I have not read The Tempest, and therefore cannot wholly dismiss the possibility that this particular play has a profound connection and unique impact on these men. My suggestion is that it may not be Shakespeare’s words, or The Tempest’s characters and plot lines, that are serving these men in such an incredible and profound way. I believe that it is the opportunity to escape their lives. To, if even for a brief moment, believe that they are actually the characters they are portraying, and to, if only momentarily, feel the thoughts they are reciting as if they were constructed by their own words.
One of the men had said that to be redeemed is the single greatest thing in the world. To be redeemed for what he’d done is all he’s wanted during his time in prison. Playing the roles of any character serves as a chance to feel redemption. When they take on the role of the characters, they are no longer themselves, and therefore they are no longer the individuals that have actions for which they long to be redeemed from.
I also think that being left alone with your thoughts in such a mentally and emotionally battering situation can cause an individual to think of themselves, their experiences, and their lives in a sort of heightened ego-centric way. Their days are mostly spent thinking about who they are, what they believe, what they feel, how they got there, how they’ve grown, etc. This constant focus on critical self-analysis, and understanding themselves compared to the world, could reasonably affect their interpretation, reaction and utilization of studying a play and it’s characters. From this notion, it should be no great surprise that each of the men found a way to relate to The Tempest. I do not think it should be automatically accepted and assumed that the significance of the men’s experience was majorly due to the content or context of Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Wild Card: Thinking Beyond The Office.. Considering TV Shows That May Provide Equal, or Stronger Connections.
As I began browsing through the various ruminations and wild cards posted by the class this week, I noticed there's a strong prevalence of connections, and references, to the TV show, The Office. I believe many in the class, including myself until now, internalized Professor Calhoun's mention of using The Office as a point of reference while reading, as him suggesting that the show could be closely paralleled to Jonson's Voldone. This is not to demean, discredit, or deny the connections or similarities explained by those who wrote on this topic; however after reading the rumination by Daniel Kolitz entitled, "Volpone, and the Modern Sensibility,"I realized that there are other TV shows that, in my opinion, could be much more closely related to this play.
After coming to this realization, I went back to Calhoun’s prologue and saw that he only mentioned The Office in terms of the show’s use of dry humor- specifically, how that might be interpreted if read as a script-as a reference to better read, and understand, the play’s use of irony and sarcasm. I am sharing this revelation I had because it drastically altered the types of connections I had been making between the play, and it’s characters, and relevant examples I saw in our modern world.
Those of you who may have ruminated about connections to The Office in any way: I am BY NO MEANS looking to correct you, or make you second-guess the points you’ve made- quite the opposite actually. I just thought that if any of you had used The Office as a primary reference while reading- because, like me, that’s what you thought the prologue meant- then you may also find it valuable/insightful to reevaluate the play, and it’s characters, with this new perspective of the possibility of there being a multitude of TV shows, and movies, that may more appropriately parallel your interpretation.
I know that as I read the play, and brainstormed different ideas for my rumination, I kept trying to decide who each of the characters would be in The Office; or what schemes, or interactions, were reflective of something I could expect from an episode. As you can tell with my resulting rumination, I didn’t end up using any of the connections I found with The Office because I kept coming to the conclusion that I didn’t view any of the show’s characters as morally flawed as those from the play.
Yes, Dwight is peculiar, calculated, power hungry, sneaky- but immoral? Willing to con others for monetary gain, or personal amusement?
Yes, Jim is often manipulative over Michael Scott, and cunning in his practical jokes toward Dwight- but villainous? Willing to allow his gulling of a person to result in their grief, or demise, for his personal gain?
Yes, Angela is unpleasant, judgmental, insensitive, unfaithful- but void of all empathy? Willing to exploit the weakness in others to the extent of suggesting, or allowing, those they’re exploiting to compromise their relationships with their loved ones?
The unifying answer I found for all of those questions was: No. I saw certain similarities, but not enough that I felt confident in defending. I didn’t feel completely confident in the connections I was making, however I continued to think using The Office was an ideal way of understanding the story. If you shared in a similar experience, than I think you would greatly benefit from considering the play on it’s own right now, and opening your mind to other TV shows that better-suit how you understood the characters and story.
After reading the rumination I mentioned above, I realized that shows like Seinfeld and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, serve as much closer comparisons for me. Both of these shows have countless examples of thoroughly flawed individuals acting on, and participating in, immoral behaviors at the certain expense of others, for the simple benefit of themselves. I can think of a multitude of different scenarios in which the characters of both of these shows would display the character traits, and personal motives, reflective of those written by Jonson. The stark difference I find in comparing the play to either of these shows as opposed to The Office, is the fact that in the latter show all of the characters are shown to reveal an inner-goodness that underlies all of their seemingly negative qualities; while in the former shows all of the characters are meant to be perceived and received as the morally-flawed individuals their actions reflect. On this basis, I agree with Daniel’s suggestion: that Seinfeld, and Always Sunny, are supreme modern-day references to Jonson’s Volpone.
Do you agree with this connection between the play and these two TV shows? What TV shows, or movies, do you find as a solid point of reference when reading Volpone?
After coming to this realization, I went back to Calhoun’s prologue and saw that he only mentioned The Office in terms of the show’s use of dry humor- specifically, how that might be interpreted if read as a script-as a reference to better read, and understand, the play’s use of irony and sarcasm. I am sharing this revelation I had because it drastically altered the types of connections I had been making between the play, and it’s characters, and relevant examples I saw in our modern world.
Those of you who may have ruminated about connections to The Office in any way: I am BY NO MEANS looking to correct you, or make you second-guess the points you’ve made- quite the opposite actually. I just thought that if any of you had used The Office as a primary reference while reading- because, like me, that’s what you thought the prologue meant- then you may also find it valuable/insightful to reevaluate the play, and it’s characters, with this new perspective of the possibility of there being a multitude of TV shows, and movies, that may more appropriately parallel your interpretation.
I know that as I read the play, and brainstormed different ideas for my rumination, I kept trying to decide who each of the characters would be in The Office; or what schemes, or interactions, were reflective of something I could expect from an episode. As you can tell with my resulting rumination, I didn’t end up using any of the connections I found with The Office because I kept coming to the conclusion that I didn’t view any of the show’s characters as morally flawed as those from the play.
Yes, Dwight is peculiar, calculated, power hungry, sneaky- but immoral? Willing to con others for monetary gain, or personal amusement?
Yes, Jim is often manipulative over Michael Scott, and cunning in his practical jokes toward Dwight- but villainous? Willing to allow his gulling of a person to result in their grief, or demise, for his personal gain?
Yes, Angela is unpleasant, judgmental, insensitive, unfaithful- but void of all empathy? Willing to exploit the weakness in others to the extent of suggesting, or allowing, those they’re exploiting to compromise their relationships with their loved ones?
The unifying answer I found for all of those questions was: No. I saw certain similarities, but not enough that I felt confident in defending. I didn’t feel completely confident in the connections I was making, however I continued to think using The Office was an ideal way of understanding the story. If you shared in a similar experience, than I think you would greatly benefit from considering the play on it’s own right now, and opening your mind to other TV shows that better-suit how you understood the characters and story.
After reading the rumination I mentioned above, I realized that shows like Seinfeld and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, serve as much closer comparisons for me. Both of these shows have countless examples of thoroughly flawed individuals acting on, and participating in, immoral behaviors at the certain expense of others, for the simple benefit of themselves. I can think of a multitude of different scenarios in which the characters of both of these shows would display the character traits, and personal motives, reflective of those written by Jonson. The stark difference I find in comparing the play to either of these shows as opposed to The Office, is the fact that in the latter show all of the characters are shown to reveal an inner-goodness that underlies all of their seemingly negative qualities; while in the former shows all of the characters are meant to be perceived and received as the morally-flawed individuals their actions reflect. On this basis, I agree with Daniel’s suggestion: that Seinfeld, and Always Sunny, are supreme modern-day references to Jonson’s Volpone.
Do you agree with this connection between the play and these two TV shows? What TV shows, or movies, do you find as a solid point of reference when reading Volpone?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
How Would the Ocean's Eleven Films Be Received During Jonson's Time?
What this play provides is avarice at it’s purest form. Each of the characters are flawed by not just their desire to acquire greater wealth, but by the lengths they will go to, and actions they are willing to take, in order to gain their financial desires. It is not that the reflection of greed in men is so startling- it’s the implications these actions have on the characters in the end. Jonson wrote this play with the intention of reflecting these characters greed as something to be looked down upon.
My question rests in whether or not these actions themselves are so vile, or if the way they are delivered in this play’s context are? Take the Ocean’s Eleven films. When we watch greed, corruption, stealing, lying, disguising oneself so to gain monetary surplus, we generally celebrated the men who did this. Due to the intricacy of the plan we watch unravel, we find excitement in theft. But when we watch Volpone and Mosca plan and execute ways of tricking people so to gain money, we find it appalling.
Does anyone truly believe that ANY of the characters involved in the Ocean’ Eleven heist were in dire need of money? Quite the opposite in the case of Danny Ocean who, portrayed as a man who has pulled off enough heists in his past, undoubtably has a comfortable amount in the bank.
What I’m saying is that the audience’s interpretation of who should be vilified is the direct result of Jonson’s personal thoughts of “greed.” He wants everyone to look immoral, so he makes them seem evil, sneaky, unlikeable, etc.; and if we didn’t get his message by the characters’ interactions, he made sure to have them all be punished in some way at the end. What we see in the Ocean’s films are characters’ being portrayed as cool, suave, charismatic, sexy, funny, likable, clever, intelligent, etc.; and if we didn’t get the message by the characters’ interactions, the movie ends with everyone of them getting away with the heist and making an exorbitant amount of money.
Perhaps we view these acts of avarice different in the Ocean’s films because it is a group of people conning and stealing from a large institution (Casino.) Maybe it’s because it appears that no one is directly being hurt or victimized by the groups’ actions. Essentially I just see a stark difference in how an audience is meant to perceive the immorality and con-artists, and that is the direct result of the playwright, or screenplay writer’s, intention.
A final thought I have on this topic... do you think the celebration of con-artists seen in the Ocean’s films would have been well-received during Jonson’s time? Is this type of screenplay the reflection of a more socially accepted and more deeply rooted prevalence of avarice in modern society?
My question rests in whether or not these actions themselves are so vile, or if the way they are delivered in this play’s context are? Take the Ocean’s Eleven films. When we watch greed, corruption, stealing, lying, disguising oneself so to gain monetary surplus, we generally celebrated the men who did this. Due to the intricacy of the plan we watch unravel, we find excitement in theft. But when we watch Volpone and Mosca plan and execute ways of tricking people so to gain money, we find it appalling.
Does anyone truly believe that ANY of the characters involved in the Ocean’ Eleven heist were in dire need of money? Quite the opposite in the case of Danny Ocean who, portrayed as a man who has pulled off enough heists in his past, undoubtably has a comfortable amount in the bank.
What I’m saying is that the audience’s interpretation of who should be vilified is the direct result of Jonson’s personal thoughts of “greed.” He wants everyone to look immoral, so he makes them seem evil, sneaky, unlikeable, etc.; and if we didn’t get his message by the characters’ interactions, he made sure to have them all be punished in some way at the end. What we see in the Ocean’s films are characters’ being portrayed as cool, suave, charismatic, sexy, funny, likable, clever, intelligent, etc.; and if we didn’t get the message by the characters’ interactions, the movie ends with everyone of them getting away with the heist and making an exorbitant amount of money.
Perhaps we view these acts of avarice different in the Ocean’s films because it is a group of people conning and stealing from a large institution (Casino.) Maybe it’s because it appears that no one is directly being hurt or victimized by the groups’ actions. Essentially I just see a stark difference in how an audience is meant to perceive the immorality and con-artists, and that is the direct result of the playwright, or screenplay writer’s, intention.
A final thought I have on this topic... do you think the celebration of con-artists seen in the Ocean’s films would have been well-received during Jonson’s time? Is this type of screenplay the reflection of a more socially accepted and more deeply rooted prevalence of avarice in modern society?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Amish: A Reflection of How Utopians Would Exist Today?
Written in the early 1500s, Sir Thomas More was unable to foresee how this idea of Utopia would translate in modern society. One can agree with this place described, and even go as far as to say it is an ideal society that we would benefit from modeling ourselves after today; however I just wonder how those same supporters feel about converting to Amish lifestyle and customs. This utopian society he describes is very similar to the Amish sects living here in the US.
Essentially Utopia thrives and survives on the fact that there is little, if any, communication or contact with others outside their society. I believe the Amish are a sterling example of how this theory of Utopia would play out over time. The key to Utopia’s success, and furthered maintenance, rests profoundly on the necessity of isolation.
Essentially Utopia thrives and survives on the fact that there is little, if any, communication or contact with others outside their society. I believe the Amish are a sterling example of how this theory of Utopia would play out over time. The key to Utopia’s success, and furthered maintenance, rests profoundly on the necessity of isolation.
This notion I offer can be supported by the eroding of customs, lifestyle and prominence of the Amish in the US. More and more Amish youth are leaving their communes to be apart of American life. Along with that, more and more leniency is given to the customs they have held for centuries to better adapt to the increasingly modernized and industrialized world around them. I believe the Utopian society described would inevitably succumb to the types of corruption that infects all modern societies of man if it were faced with the type of globalization that is present today.
In terms of equality and moral code, perhaps one can argue that the Utopians, and Amish, seem to have it better; however what of quality of life? Cultivating creativity and passion. Experiencing personal achievement and celebrating individuality. These are things that Utopia does not account for, or hold in any high regard. At the time of More's publication, societies that function in this manner had not been observed over long periods of time to know whether or not such a place would actually function as a "utopia" for those who live there.
In terms of equality and moral code, perhaps one can argue that the Utopians, and Amish, seem to have it better; however what of quality of life? Cultivating creativity and passion. Experiencing personal achievement and celebrating individuality. These are things that Utopia does not account for, or hold in any high regard. At the time of More's publication, societies that function in this manner had not been observed over long periods of time to know whether or not such a place would actually function as a "utopia" for those who live there.
In my opinion, the Amish represent a longitudinal study of how a place like Utopia can exist over time, and how such a society would maintain itself today. I believe they highlight the efficiency of such a community being self-reliant; however the issues of discontent that arise from the forced compliancy and suffocated individuality that is inherent in such a society, along with the knowledge of starkly different ways of life that is available to them due to industrialization and globalization, reflects the reason a place like Utopia would not exist in harmony over time.
What we find is that Utopia sounds ideal in theory.
What we find is that Utopia sounds ideal in theory.
Yes, they may meet all practical functions to live such as food, shelter, clothing, occupation, protection, however there are more to modern man's needs than merely survival. This can be seen with the Amish communities. Their way of life is almost exactly how Utopia is described, and most agree that this way of life is undesirable compared to American society and culture. This is not to say that there isn’t much to be learned from Amish culture and customs, however I believe the key point here is “learned from.” We can gain an arguably purer perspective from their customs and ideals without having to convert to their lifestyle, just as Europeans could learn from the description of Utopia, and consider adjusting aspects of society, without supporting the complete upheaval of Capitalism for Communism.
Obviously the Amish culture is based wholly on religious beliefs, however their lifestyle, moral code, general isolation, work ethic, rules of dressing, communal self-sufficiency etc. can be closely paralleled to that described for Utopians. So do you agree that the plight of the Amish, that are trying to maintain their customs and culture, are a good example of how More’s Utopia would fail to stand the test of time?
Obviously the Amish culture is based wholly on religious beliefs, however their lifestyle, moral code, general isolation, work ethic, rules of dressing, communal self-sufficiency etc. can be closely paralleled to that described for Utopians. So do you agree that the plight of the Amish, that are trying to maintain their customs and culture, are a good example of how More’s Utopia would fail to stand the test of time?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Letter: From Confused Post-Grad to Her Friend
Dear Tess,
I've been feeling weird again lately. It's hard to describe how I feel, but it's just not "normal." I find myself feeling very lost since graduating and constantly wondering- what defines a person? What defines a life well spent? How must one tread this steep path of existence without a map to find their way?
Ya know, I often preach truths and consider myself endowed with certain answers to the mystical journey of satisfying existence, however I cannot seem to reach them. I do not know how to acquire the results I seek, yet I believe with every fiber of my being that I have been given the equations to get there. But what is one to do with the answers- with the means to reach their personal all encompassing end- when they are inept with the understanding of how to use them?
I don't for a moment believe that all have been given this ability to see the truth of life and their desired ultimate goals; however I hesitate to call this a gift. At times this seeming "eternal wisdom" feels like a burden to carry. To know what you should be, and to see how beautiful like can be, before you fully possess the capacity to properly employ the necessary steps toward that illuminating future is often debilitating and all consuming in its very nature. It's like I feel too much too soon and know too much too prematurely for this to show to benefit me in any way beyond passionate bursts of verbal wisdom in the shape of outward declarations to a mind unstable.
I'm writing to you, Tess, because I cannot keep these thoughts and feelings to myself anymore. My thoughts reside within me as a knot in my conscious being. Trying to assert my time and energy toward unravelling this knot has shown to inhibit me from making any concrete progress in life, outside of my inner struggle that is my current existence.
I can see the light at the end of this tunnel I'm in. I know I will find my place in this world, and that I will fulfill every goal and dream I've set for myself, I just feel like I'm struggling with turning these dreams into reality and myself into a full adult.
I look forward to hearing back from you, and I'd also like to hear about how you've been as well.
Sincerely,
Kate
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Journalism's Affect on the Colonization of the New World and the Imposition of Democracy in the Middle East
When reading Hariot’s travel journal, I was keen to keep in mind how his accounts were meant to persuade his European audience to support this colonization. His audience was living in a time of little prospect for social mobility, and thereby highly vulnerable to the appeal of a land of boundless opportunity and possibility. By exaggerating and accentuating the native cultures as being primitive and simple, Hariot depicted these native populations in a way that Europeans wouldn't feel as badly about colonizing or, if need be, killing. I believe these alluring ideas about the potential this new world would hold, led to the acceptance and rationalization of European supremacy over the seemingly savage native population and any land they held. This tactic is one that would not fare in our humanitarian global society that we live in today.
Just as governments in power during the time of these travel journals used these writings to promote and gain mass support for the colonization of the "new world," perhaps the governments in power today are utilizing the reports and writings of journalists and news correspondents to gain the support of imposing democracy throughout the Middle East. The difference is that we are living in a post-colonization, post-slavery, post-WWII society. Strict ethical codes have been established that all nations are expected to abide by. In today's society we would not accept learning of more primitive cultures and agree to their colonization or mass killing. However, if a seemingly less civilized society--or nation of people--was deemed as being savage and a threat to innocent people, especially our own nation, we may see the great majority agree to the use of military force to establish a democracy that we see fit.
I am not calling everything we learn and read about in the news to be propaganda or some kind of conspiracy theory. I just think it would be reasonable to suggest there is a distinct possibility--just as society has evolved in so many ways to become more humanistic based on the trials and tribulations of history--that the methods of delivering information to the public, by those aiming to control what we’re told and steered to believe, have evolved to cater to this new social context as well. Therefore a practical way for a government to succeed in an agenda to radically change a group of people's way of life today, would be to convince their citizens--through journalism and the media-- that the elusive "other" is in some way a threat to innocent people, and to promote the establishment of democracy, by military force, as socially acceptable and even ethically obligatory.
So the question I leave you with is: Is the journalism we form our opinions with today necessarily any different that the travel journals, such as Hariot’s, that Europeans based their opinions on during the years leading up to colonization? One could say that the travel writings catered to describing the native populations in such a way that would make it easier for their audience to support questionable treatment of these people and their land, for the better good of themselves. Just as one could also say that news journalism of today reports on and describes the Middle Eastern populations in such a way that would make it easier for their audience, us, to support questionable military action and imposition of our political ideology, for the benefit of feeling safer and possible control over oil.
What I am offering here is not necessarily a directly paralleled situation. I do not believe that our nation has ulterior motives, or is in any way seeking to claim territory through our involvement in the Middle East. My only intention is to highlight how we are now, as we were then, only as informed and aware of our nation's political agenda, as the reports and writings that they provide us with--specifically aimed to shape our beliefs-- through journalism and the media.
Just as governments in power during the time of these travel journals used these writings to promote and gain mass support for the colonization of the "new world," perhaps the governments in power today are utilizing the reports and writings of journalists and news correspondents to gain the support of imposing democracy throughout the Middle East. The difference is that we are living in a post-colonization, post-slavery, post-WWII society. Strict ethical codes have been established that all nations are expected to abide by. In today's society we would not accept learning of more primitive cultures and agree to their colonization or mass killing. However, if a seemingly less civilized society--or nation of people--was deemed as being savage and a threat to innocent people, especially our own nation, we may see the great majority agree to the use of military force to establish a democracy that we see fit.
I am not calling everything we learn and read about in the news to be propaganda or some kind of conspiracy theory. I just think it would be reasonable to suggest there is a distinct possibility--just as society has evolved in so many ways to become more humanistic based on the trials and tribulations of history--that the methods of delivering information to the public, by those aiming to control what we’re told and steered to believe, have evolved to cater to this new social context as well. Therefore a practical way for a government to succeed in an agenda to radically change a group of people's way of life today, would be to convince their citizens--through journalism and the media-- that the elusive "other" is in some way a threat to innocent people, and to promote the establishment of democracy, by military force, as socially acceptable and even ethically obligatory.
So the question I leave you with is: Is the journalism we form our opinions with today necessarily any different that the travel journals, such as Hariot’s, that Europeans based their opinions on during the years leading up to colonization? One could say that the travel writings catered to describing the native populations in such a way that would make it easier for their audience to support questionable treatment of these people and their land, for the better good of themselves. Just as one could also say that news journalism of today reports on and describes the Middle Eastern populations in such a way that would make it easier for their audience, us, to support questionable military action and imposition of our political ideology, for the benefit of feeling safer and possible control over oil.
What I am offering here is not necessarily a directly paralleled situation. I do not believe that our nation has ulterior motives, or is in any way seeking to claim territory through our involvement in the Middle East. My only intention is to highlight how we are now, as we were then, only as informed and aware of our nation's political agenda, as the reports and writings that they provide us with--specifically aimed to shape our beliefs-- through journalism and the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)