For some one hundred days in the spring and summer of 1994, millions of Rwandans witnessed, participated in, and lived through a nationwide campaign of human extermination. As it was mentioned by the presenting group in class age, gender, and occupation were no criteria in the massacres. Rather, in hundreds of villages across Rwanda, where previously two ethnic groups had intermingled socially and coexisted peacefully for the last several decades, ordinary people were picking up machetes and killing their neighbours. Although I cannot claim to ever know the realities to this disturbing event it was made clear in the presentation that the Rwandan media have been accused of inciting the hatred that lead to the violence by using an ethnic framework to report on what was essentially a political struggle. Thus, I hope to expand on this notion by looking particularly at how this atrocity was in many ways regulated and perpetuated by the government controlled Rwandan media, most specifically the government controlled radio RTML, or Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines.
In following with this notion one is forced to ask, under what circumstances can and do media play an exceptionally powerful and heinous role? And to what extent can media incite panic leading to genocide? In trying to answer such questions one may turn to the idea of media dependency.
As in any case, fear, anger, and anxiety are potent emotions that can lead to panic and civil disobedience. Essentially, the use of radio in Rwanda contributed to this panic by reaching large populations of Rwandans simultaneously, and often in crowd settings. In rural areas in particular, the effect of low literacy and the use of radio on a widespread level had the ability to exercise major influence (Darryl, 12). It is this potential to consolidate ideas that the RTML took advantage of in its hateful and malicious radio broadcasts. While investigating this within the framework of a media dependency theory we can assume that, life in complex industrialized societies requires increased dependency on mass media’s role in disseminating information (Thussu, 50). In fact, many studies have documented and examined the heightened dependency on media during times of political or economic crisis or uncertainty. McQuail (1994) theorized that actual effects may be greater in periods of instability. This can clearly be seen in the Rwandan example wherein people become more reliant on mass media for information and guidance; people may come to know of the crucial events only through media; and media are more influential in matters outside the realm of personal experience (Darryl, 16). In the case of Rwanda, political tensions had come to a head, the country was on the verge of breakdown, and people essentially became slaves to the information being broadcast over the radio.
Additionally, of pivotal importance is the concept that due to strong traditions of hierarchy and authoritarianism, brought on by colonizing practices, the likelihood of blind obedience to the orders of officials on the radio is no doubt higher than in nations lacking a history of colonizing practices. It is thus with this knowledge of high rote obedience characteristics that government radio essentially took on the responsibility and power of interpreting the world for its people (Darryl, 17). In other words, the government used radio as an agenda setting and framing tool wherein the messages conveyed to the public were put forth in a manner seen as suitable to those in politically powerful positions. Although it is impossible for me to say precisely what extent media propaganda contributed to the genocide, it can be theorized that Radio (RTML) broadcasts assisted in the annihilation of between 500, 000 and 1, 000, 000 Rwandans during the genocide leading one to believe that a theory of media dependency is no doubt of great significance when looking at technologically mediated crisis in the developing world.
Sources:
L.I., Darryl. “Echoes of Violence: Considerations on Radio and Genocide in Rwanda.” Journal of Genocide research Vol6, Issue 1 (2004): 9-27.
Thussu, Daya Kishan. “International Communication: Continuity and Change,” Oxford University Press, London 2006.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
The SPP: A Threat to Canadian Soverignty...
According to the group presentation on the Security and Prosperity Council (SPP), this organization was the result of a collaborative effort between the heads of Mexico, the United States and Canada in March of 2005. The main objective of this newly formed group being, to increase security and prosperity among these nations, and build upon existent established relationships such as; The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canadian/United States Boarder declaration and the Canadian/Mexican partnership (class presentation, March 4, 2008). The SPP claims to build upon existent relationships by offering a somewhat diplomatic, cooperative and flexible forum to discuss, collaborate and examine issues affecting the security and prosperity of Canadians, Americans and Mexicans. Also, Under the SPP Security Agenda, there are ten goals and corresponding working groups that deal with topics as far reaching as Traveler Security and Border Facilitation to Law Enforcement strategies, and Intelligence Cooperation( class presentation, March 4, 2008).
After conducting some further research on the topic I began to question how an organization such as the SPP indeed infringes on Canadian Sovereignty, and further, who the real beneficiaries of such an agreement are? According to Jack Layton and the NDP’s, under the SPP, Canada will have less and less ability to adopt independent and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies. Meaning that, in the long run, this could have a lethal effect on Canadian public programs such as universal healthcare and public education (www.ndp.ca/stopthespp).
Another key issue surrounding the SPP is that the talks have all gone on behind closed doors where even elected MPs have been kept out of the discussions. Though the extent of the SPP agenda has largely been kept secret, it is known to involve over 300 policy areas that seem to stretch far beyond the realm of security and economic prosperity, and enter into much more shaky territory, including pesticide use, food safety, civil liberties, human rights, and environmental protection, as well as oversight from Washington in particular, over security decisions and energy policy.
Being a patriotic Canadian, the mere concept of a Security and Prosperity Partnership appears fundamentally bizarre and above all, uncanadian in my eyes. As a nation, Canada has been built upon, and thus prospered under the principles of equity, democracy, and in particular, sovereignty, especially from the likes of our Southern neighbors. Judging by the majority of the world’s hatred oriented towards the United States foreign policies, imperialistic practices, and most importantly, their military regime, it has been in these recent times of uncertainty that I have remained proud in my countries sovereignty and our decisions to stay out of hostile military situations such as Iraq.
According to a Global Research study of Canada’s sovereignty and the militarization of North America, there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a nation. Namely, that by endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence as the SPP affirms, Canada would become a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", meaning that Canada would directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East (www.globalresearch.ca...).
With this integration comes the threat of Canada no longer having an independent foreign policy, and thus losing our sovereignty as a nation quite separate from the much disputed US policies. In the end it is essential that Canadians themselves have a say in the agreements their Government signs, and the SPP is a sad case wherein the greater public interest has been pushed aside in order to cater to big business and the often imperialistic and unjust policies of the United States. As a Canadian not in support of US policies ranging from security to foreign trade my only hope is that, as this issue is being debated in parliament, Canada eventually overturns its agreement to join the SPP before we see the integration of Canada and the US as one.
Sources:
Chossudovsky, Michel. “Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America.” Centre for Research on Globalization. August 17, 2007.
“Standing up for Canada by challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)” NDP website. http://www.ndp.ca/stopthespp.
After conducting some further research on the topic I began to question how an organization such as the SPP indeed infringes on Canadian Sovereignty, and further, who the real beneficiaries of such an agreement are? According to Jack Layton and the NDP’s, under the SPP, Canada will have less and less ability to adopt independent and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies. Meaning that, in the long run, this could have a lethal effect on Canadian public programs such as universal healthcare and public education (www.ndp.ca/stopthespp).
Another key issue surrounding the SPP is that the talks have all gone on behind closed doors where even elected MPs have been kept out of the discussions. Though the extent of the SPP agenda has largely been kept secret, it is known to involve over 300 policy areas that seem to stretch far beyond the realm of security and economic prosperity, and enter into much more shaky territory, including pesticide use, food safety, civil liberties, human rights, and environmental protection, as well as oversight from Washington in particular, over security decisions and energy policy.
Being a patriotic Canadian, the mere concept of a Security and Prosperity Partnership appears fundamentally bizarre and above all, uncanadian in my eyes. As a nation, Canada has been built upon, and thus prospered under the principles of equity, democracy, and in particular, sovereignty, especially from the likes of our Southern neighbors. Judging by the majority of the world’s hatred oriented towards the United States foreign policies, imperialistic practices, and most importantly, their military regime, it has been in these recent times of uncertainty that I have remained proud in my countries sovereignty and our decisions to stay out of hostile military situations such as Iraq.
According to a Global Research study of Canada’s sovereignty and the militarization of North America, there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a nation. Namely, that by endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence as the SPP affirms, Canada would become a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", meaning that Canada would directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East (www.globalresearch.ca...).
With this integration comes the threat of Canada no longer having an independent foreign policy, and thus losing our sovereignty as a nation quite separate from the much disputed US policies. In the end it is essential that Canadians themselves have a say in the agreements their Government signs, and the SPP is a sad case wherein the greater public interest has been pushed aside in order to cater to big business and the often imperialistic and unjust policies of the United States. As a Canadian not in support of US policies ranging from security to foreign trade my only hope is that, as this issue is being debated in parliament, Canada eventually overturns its agreement to join the SPP before we see the integration of Canada and the US as one.
Sources:
Chossudovsky, Michel. “Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America.” Centre for Research on Globalization. August 17, 2007.
“Standing up for Canada by challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)” NDP website.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Primordialism: Is a Revision Neccessary?
We live in an age today in which so much depends upon our strong sense of global community, and yet so many of our problems trace back to how weak this unifying sense is. This theme is obviously most tragic when it appears in the form genocide, ethnic cleansings, and other manifestations of the deadly politics of identity. After our discussion in class during the Rwandan Genocide presentation I began to question how indeed an ethnoscape or rather the politics of identity can lead to implications surrounding the primordialist thesis as discussed by Appadurai.
According to Appadurai the greatest barrier to being able to map the interaction of disjunctive flows is a widespread attachment to primordialism. But what is really meant by primordialism? Is it simply the idea that culture and identity are rooted in, often unconscious, sentiments of belonging to a primary group, wherein a collective identity is based on conceptions of shared geography, ethnicity, or language?(lecture, Feb. 26, 2008)) Or is it something far more complex or specific having to do with strong ties a particular group has, based not on the unconscious, but rather, continually reinforced ideas of belonging, being a direct result of the current globalized media?
There is no doubt that breaking the vicious political cycle of ethnic or religious identity determining ones worth, or appropriate place in the world, is difficult. But it is possible. As it was mentioned in class, Rwanda and now Darfur are prime examples of missed opportunities for intervention. Breaking this destructive ethnocentric cycle is necessary for many tangible reasons, as these conflicts both feed into, and perpetuate other conflicts, including the current panic surrounding terrorism.
Arguably, it was the relatively autonomous developments of large and aggressive social formations in the Americas and Kingdoms of Africa and the overlapping of Eurocolonial worlds that set the basis for a permanent traffic of ideas of peoplehood and selfhood, which created the imagined communities of recent nationalism throughout the world (Appaurai, 28). With this idea in mind it is easy to draw a link between colonial possession and rule over a country, such as the Belgians in Rwanda, and a paradox of constructed primordialisms, namely the European constructed ethnicities of the Hutu’s and Tootsies. So what then, can be done to reverse the implications of the times past? And furthermore how can we theorize about the world within this primordialist view?
It is true after all that many policymakers, as we saw in the case of Rwanda, take the primordialist view of these conflicts, viewing them as the playing out of histories of fixed, inherited, deeply antagonistic group identities. In trying to make sense of this ethnic strife however, while history shapes, it does not necessarily determine conflicts nearly to the extent posited in such theories. A number of studies, for example, have shown that ethnic identities are much less fixed over time and that the frequency and intensity of ethnic conflict vary more than primordialist theory would have it (www.harvardir.org...). In the example discussed in class, the Tutsi and Hutus of Rwanda never really thought of themselves as being very different from each other prior to the European colonization of this county. With this simple fact in mind, can we move towards a new kind of primordialist theory, that is not based so much on specific ethnicity or language, but one wherein the implications of our increasingly globalized world starts to play a more pivotal role? My assumption is yes, not only because of the theoretical significance that this change would prompt, but also that it may prevent further tragedies from happening by way of a more modern look at current ethnoscapes and thus the reasons for ethnic conflict.
Sources:
Appadurai, A. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minnesota, 1996.
Jentleson, Bruce W. “A Responsibility to Protect: the Defining Challenge for Global Community.” Ethnic Conflict, Vol. 28 (4) winter 2007.<>.
According to Appadurai the greatest barrier to being able to map the interaction of disjunctive flows is a widespread attachment to primordialism. But what is really meant by primordialism? Is it simply the idea that culture and identity are rooted in, often unconscious, sentiments of belonging to a primary group, wherein a collective identity is based on conceptions of shared geography, ethnicity, or language?(lecture, Feb. 26, 2008)) Or is it something far more complex or specific having to do with strong ties a particular group has, based not on the unconscious, but rather, continually reinforced ideas of belonging, being a direct result of the current globalized media?
There is no doubt that breaking the vicious political cycle of ethnic or religious identity determining ones worth, or appropriate place in the world, is difficult. But it is possible. As it was mentioned in class, Rwanda and now Darfur are prime examples of missed opportunities for intervention. Breaking this destructive ethnocentric cycle is necessary for many tangible reasons, as these conflicts both feed into, and perpetuate other conflicts, including the current panic surrounding terrorism.
Arguably, it was the relatively autonomous developments of large and aggressive social formations in the Americas and Kingdoms of Africa and the overlapping of Eurocolonial worlds that set the basis for a permanent traffic of ideas of peoplehood and selfhood, which created the imagined communities of recent nationalism throughout the world (Appaurai, 28). With this idea in mind it is easy to draw a link between colonial possession and rule over a country, such as the Belgians in Rwanda, and a paradox of constructed primordialisms, namely the European constructed ethnicities of the Hutu’s and Tootsies. So what then, can be done to reverse the implications of the times past? And furthermore how can we theorize about the world within this primordialist view?
It is true after all that many policymakers, as we saw in the case of Rwanda, take the primordialist view of these conflicts, viewing them as the playing out of histories of fixed, inherited, deeply antagonistic group identities. In trying to make sense of this ethnic strife however, while history shapes, it does not necessarily determine conflicts nearly to the extent posited in such theories. A number of studies, for example, have shown that ethnic identities are much less fixed over time and that the frequency and intensity of ethnic conflict vary more than primordialist theory would have it (www.harvardir.org...). In the example discussed in class, the Tutsi and Hutus of Rwanda never really thought of themselves as being very different from each other prior to the European colonization of this county. With this simple fact in mind, can we move towards a new kind of primordialist theory, that is not based so much on specific ethnicity or language, but one wherein the implications of our increasingly globalized world starts to play a more pivotal role? My assumption is yes, not only because of the theoretical significance that this change would prompt, but also that it may prevent further tragedies from happening by way of a more modern look at current ethnoscapes and thus the reasons for ethnic conflict.
Sources:
Appadurai, A. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minnesota, 1996.
Jentleson, Bruce W. “A Responsibility to Protect: the Defining Challenge for Global Community.” Ethnic Conflict, Vol. 28 (4) winter 2007.<>.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Bollywood and the Effects of Cultural Imperialism...
Trade liberalization and economic growth have given more people than ever before the means to become consumers of media entertainment. The rising literacy levels in developing nations and access to Western (meaning mostly American) entertainment offerings no doubt play a significant role in creating media consumers that are more demanding in terms of their traditional cultural and entertainment industries. With these notions in mind, I seek to propose that, cultural imperialism is indeed a viable and extremely useful theoretical model in analyzing the relationship between American cultural production and the rest of the world.
Out of this model important questions begin to emerge: What are the implications of Western media globalization for indigenous cultures in developing countries? What kind of influence, is Western media globalization having on indigenous media industries? And finally, in this age of media globalization, are there any indications that cultural influences may be taking place both ways – between the East and the West – rather than only from the West to the East? If so, do these counter-flows really challenge cultural imperialism?
The expansion of democracy and economic liberalization in the last two decades especially, has no doubt unleashed unparalleled Western cultural influences around the world. Biggins (2004) says that globalization, with an adverse advocacy through the media, has brought in a “landslide transformation of existing local culture and identity into a new form of culture with no frontier” (www.razonypalabra.org...). With this in mind I wish to address the Bollywood film industry in India, and more importantly how this industry reflects the globalization of media imagery, making it an almost cultural clone of the Western vision of life
According to Schiller, Cultural imperialism occurs with the Western countries’ influence on the language, values and attitudes, including religion, ways of organizing public life, styles of politics, clothing styles, and many other cultural habits (Thussu, 48). Thus, when considering this definition, perhaps a most compelling example of this is the incorporation of the Hollywood production formula seeming to consist of themes of sex, violence and alcohol in Bollywood films.
India’s movie industry, which turns out more than 800 feature films a year compared to about 250 produced by Hollywood annually, is the largest in the world. However, in recent years, movie theater attendance has fallen substantially because the industry’s traditional song-and-dance storylines and hokey treatment of love scenes has not produced big hits. As a result, the Bollywood film industry has started to deal openly with sex and show generous doses of skin in an attempt to draw audiences. For example, Agence-France Presse reported that the biggest grossing film in 2003 was “Jism” (Body), which tells the story of a woman who is unapologetic about using her sexuality to persuade her lover to kill her rich husband. "The success of Jism showed that Indians are no longer ashamed of watching a steamy scene in a full house," said leading filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, who wrote the film's screenplay. Bhatt said the film reflected a change in the mindset of the Indian viewer (www.razonypalabra.org...).
Now, what can one make of situations like this, can we truly attribute this change of direction in film to the Western ideas of what constitutes entertainment? I say yes, not only because of the correlation seen between increased flow of Western cultural products and the change in Indian film having a role in this change, but also because of what I have seen through personal experience. While visiting India this past summer I was stunned by some of the mere advertisements I came across. In a culture where I had to pay special attention to dress, not showing any skin above the knee or the elbow I was stunned to see scantily dressed models of a much fairer complexion than is characteristic of this part of the world, grazing the billboards of down town Calcutta. It was evident that the advertisements were indeed a reflection of the luxuries and way of life that are displayed through western ads, film, and television, rather than that which is characteristic of India.
With this in mind, what then can we say of the counter-flow of culture, and does this flow of east to west really challenge any notions of western society? With a projected movie market that is essentially larger than that of Europe and maybe even North American some day soon, how long will Hollywood remain immune to these Asian influences on its own style of filmmaking? My instincts lead me to believe that within the next 20 years one can expect to see a huge change in the production of Hollywood films, not because of a genuine desire to move towards the Asian style of movie making, but perhaps as an attempt to simply infiltrate the Asian movie market as these populations become more economically powerful and influential in the world arena. So really, this reverse flow of culture is in no way near the point of challenging cultural imperialism, and rather stands as a further developing and expansion point of Western media.
Rampal, Kuldip. “Cultural Imperialism or Economic Necessity? The Hollywood Factor.” Razon Y Palaba.< http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/anteriores/n43/krampal.html>
Thussu, Daya Kishan. “International Communication: Continuity and Change,” Oxford University Press, London 2006.
Out of this model important questions begin to emerge: What are the implications of Western media globalization for indigenous cultures in developing countries? What kind of influence, is Western media globalization having on indigenous media industries? And finally, in this age of media globalization, are there any indications that cultural influences may be taking place both ways – between the East and the West – rather than only from the West to the East? If so, do these counter-flows really challenge cultural imperialism?
The expansion of democracy and economic liberalization in the last two decades especially, has no doubt unleashed unparalleled Western cultural influences around the world. Biggins (2004) says that globalization, with an adverse advocacy through the media, has brought in a “landslide transformation of existing local culture and identity into a new form of culture with no frontier” (www.razonypalabra.org...). With this in mind I wish to address the Bollywood film industry in India, and more importantly how this industry reflects the globalization of media imagery, making it an almost cultural clone of the Western vision of life
According to Schiller, Cultural imperialism occurs with the Western countries’ influence on the language, values and attitudes, including religion, ways of organizing public life, styles of politics, clothing styles, and many other cultural habits (Thussu, 48). Thus, when considering this definition, perhaps a most compelling example of this is the incorporation of the Hollywood production formula seeming to consist of themes of sex, violence and alcohol in Bollywood films.
India’s movie industry, which turns out more than 800 feature films a year compared to about 250 produced by Hollywood annually, is the largest in the world. However, in recent years, movie theater attendance has fallen substantially because the industry’s traditional song-and-dance storylines and hokey treatment of love scenes has not produced big hits. As a result, the Bollywood film industry has started to deal openly with sex and show generous doses of skin in an attempt to draw audiences. For example, Agence-France Presse reported that the biggest grossing film in 2003 was “Jism” (Body), which tells the story of a woman who is unapologetic about using her sexuality to persuade her lover to kill her rich husband. "The success of Jism showed that Indians are no longer ashamed of watching a steamy scene in a full house," said leading filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, who wrote the film's screenplay. Bhatt said the film reflected a change in the mindset of the Indian viewer (www.razonypalabra.org...).
Now, what can one make of situations like this, can we truly attribute this change of direction in film to the Western ideas of what constitutes entertainment? I say yes, not only because of the correlation seen between increased flow of Western cultural products and the change in Indian film having a role in this change, but also because of what I have seen through personal experience. While visiting India this past summer I was stunned by some of the mere advertisements I came across. In a culture where I had to pay special attention to dress, not showing any skin above the knee or the elbow I was stunned to see scantily dressed models of a much fairer complexion than is characteristic of this part of the world, grazing the billboards of down town Calcutta. It was evident that the advertisements were indeed a reflection of the luxuries and way of life that are displayed through western ads, film, and television, rather than that which is characteristic of India.
With this in mind, what then can we say of the counter-flow of culture, and does this flow of east to west really challenge any notions of western society? With a projected movie market that is essentially larger than that of Europe and maybe even North American some day soon, how long will Hollywood remain immune to these Asian influences on its own style of filmmaking? My instincts lead me to believe that within the next 20 years one can expect to see a huge change in the production of Hollywood films, not because of a genuine desire to move towards the Asian style of movie making, but perhaps as an attempt to simply infiltrate the Asian movie market as these populations become more economically powerful and influential in the world arena. So really, this reverse flow of culture is in no way near the point of challenging cultural imperialism, and rather stands as a further developing and expansion point of Western media.
Rampal, Kuldip. “Cultural Imperialism or Economic Necessity? The Hollywood Factor.” Razon Y Palaba.< http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/anteriores/n43/krampal.html>
Thussu, Daya Kishan. “International Communication: Continuity and Change,” Oxford University Press, London 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)