Pierre Lévy’s dream of an achievable utopia seems more and more out of reach the more we read commentary on the subject. Like with the Bert Laden episode, there will be people on either side of any debate. On the one hand, people take it for what it is, a comedic attempt by a guy with PhotoShop and too much time on his hands. On the other, though, there are the people who are highly offended by the image. The problem with our convergence culture, now, is the fact that the people who are insulted and offended by an image such as this one have full and easy access to it. Staunch conservatives and extreme liberals find themselves in the same communities, which can create a very volatile space.
My argument, then, is that, just as with TV, we are able to edit and refine what we watch, surf, and explore to fit our beliefs. So, why aren’t people doing that? If seeing a cut-out of a beloved children’s character next to a terrorist who is unidentifiable to most small children is so awful, change the channel, go to a different website, visit a different forum.
Further, I appreciate Mark Poster’s defense that cultures who find other cultures blatantly insulting are, in most cases, merely ignorant of the latter’s motivation. True, in some cases, individuals are trying to make a point against another (the only thing that comes to mind is actually intracultural: Natalie Maines’ insult of George Bush’s being from Texas, given his involvement in the Iraq War). In many cases, however, misunderstandings stem from the fact that a cultural or religious difference cannot be placed in a single cognitive compartment in our brains. Sometimes things just do not make sense, and it is possible they never will.
How can different frames of reference affect communication? Can you say someone's interpretation of something you say, do, or blog is wrong? Merely because their interpretation differs from or clashes with your own?
How can different frames of reference affect communication? Can you say someone's interpretation of something you say, do, or blog is wrong? Merely because their interpretation differs from or clashes with your own?
I agree with your assessment that motivation is an important thing to consider when making a judgment about a rhetorical act.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that people these days seem to be just too sensitive and knee-jerk. There are millions of things far worse than an image of Bert with bin Laden on the Internet, and it requires very little effort to avoid seeing such things. I think that even if the Bert/bin Laden image had been created to intentionally make a political statement, the freedom of speech would dictate that the creators should be allowed to do so. People have the right to ignore things they don't like, not shut them down completely.
Then again, the notion of freedom of speech isn't universal and is probably a result of a specific culture. Nevertheless, it seems to be a de facto "rule" on the Internet, since it allows nearly everyone the ability to say pretty much whatever they want.
Institutions may only ensure that all the types of speech will not harm anyone physically, or target any one individual. Freedom of speech differs greatly from a matter of conduct, targeting a single individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a person's safety.
ReplyDeleteI think that your argument for more self responsibility in relation to what we view/consume is partly justified. In fact, more than ever, people can nearly completely ignore news that they don't want to hear. But the case of "Bert Laden" was a little different. Granted, the parents of preschoolers likely weren't watching reports on CNN of protests with their children around, but the larger idea is that in just consuming normal, wide-scope, keep-up-with-the-world sort of news, people are exposed to evidence of their own interaction with other cultures and people that they might never have consented to.
ReplyDeleteI think the Bert example shows well that we are more connected than we think, and that we can't really ever see just what we want to see.
I want to address your comment about "why don't people just change the channel" in regards to the internet. While this is most certainly a viable option when watching TV, the internet offers a place in which we can react instantaneously, even if it's in anger. On top of that, people are aggressive by nature - it's what's kept us growing as a species for millenia, even if nobody wants to actively admit it.
ReplyDeletePut the two together, and you get your average CNN.com comment mudslinging factory. It's just how the internet works.