Representation, Mediation

A few thoughts on today's class. Overall, I think it was a good start to an ongoing--though often frustrating or confusing--debate.

One of the points that I was trying to get across through discussion is the way in which representation has a certain contingency to it, especially as one is ideologically predisposed to represent oneself differently in different contexts (noting of course that a representation is always one shading of an infinite array of possibilities). Return to the example of the "Islamic expert" being questioned by the CNN anchor, whose interview is edited in particular ways, who is then interpreted by individuals comprising an audience. Each of these "inter-media-ries" represent particular "stuff" in the moment of performance that are to a certain extent contingent upon what he or she imagines what the other(s) a) can understand, b) wants to hear, or c) needs to be represented, d) context within which the story is situated, etc. Hence, the Islamic expert imagines and represents herself to the American people (via the anchorperson) according to her expectations of what the anchor can parse, but what the American people can parse. This is, in turn, complicated by the editing done at CNN that is performing much the same process, but might or might not be highlighting certain aspects of discourse of the Islamic expert to provide a particular "angle" on the story. And as we have learned from British Cultural Studies, we don't really have a way to fully circumscribe the hermeneutic possibilities of any "message," though there will certainly be privileged interpretations (in Hall's terms). But the problem that using this example raises is that its not a linear process, and requires a tremendous understanding of the various context(s) in which these sorts of media texts are being produced, if one can even get a grasp of a context in its entirety. Certainly, its easy enough to imagine that a concept such as 'crusade' will resonate differently in different spheres. Its fascinating, but also a little intimidating to contemplate.

The final question of the class, what anthropology can contribute to media studies, is an important one and I was a little afraid that we would end at a point of nihilism. I think its important to remember that the discipline of anthropology can nicely complicate or problematize perspectives and draw attention to the underpinnings of an ideology (though this too is a very loaded term), even while making meaningful contributions. As it was pointed out in class (citing Ginsburg, Abu-Lughod, and Larkin), critical approaches to media have informed the discipline of media and cultural studies, even as they have informed the discipline of anthropology as a whole (despite the perceived inauthenticity by some 'mainstream' anthropologists). Nevertheless, the aftermath of the "crisis of representation" highlighted by Reading Culture doesn't quite dissipate through anthropological approaches to media, indeed it may even be exacerbated by them. Where does authenticity or authentic representation lie (if its even a useful category)?

I think the course will continue to explore the multifarious conceptions of "media" in very interesting ways, andI still want to explore the point of articulation between "mediation" and "representation." Does the latter necessarily emerge from the former?

Student Comment

A student who isn't able to take the class due to a scheduling conflict sends in this very interesting commentary on "Reality Check":

I thought it was very interesting the way the relationship between the subjects of the two stories and the documenter, respectively, were portrayed.  In the first one, it was a story of youthful mishap, a desperate act on the part of a child in a situation of quite understandable need, and lastly,and most importantly, a piece of schoolhouse cannon.  It's almost like an urban legend: the kid who peed on the schoolbus, wow, she got hell for it for years after that. Look, that's her locker where they used to write "peezilla", that's her desk where they left her yellow crayons.  By relating the story, the subject confided in the documenter, putting them on the same page, so to speak - aligned.  It's a moment of shared nostalgia.

On the other hand, the story of the rancher and his pet bull evokes what is perhaps now a dying piece of nostalgia: the Lone Ranger and his horse, Dudly Doright and HIS horse (we'll forget for now that he's Canadian; the cartoon was American, after all).  A cowboy, alone in the big, wide open prairie, nothing but him and his animals standing against the enormity of nature.  One absolutely essential piece of this image is the relationship between the animal and the man.  This is a staple of the American dream, the quintessential all-American man, a man's man, and other cliches as well.  Now, this may not just be the work of the documenter.  This man may really be a picture-perfect example of this iconic figure.  That's not really the issue.  What I find interesting is how the documenter (his name is Glass, right?) interacts with this living, breathing icon.  Firstly, he questions the relationship.  I don't remember the words exactly, but he asks the wife something about how this animal could show the same affection as a cat or dog, how could it be a pet in the same way?  Then, once the couple has asserted the relationship enough, it is not an issue of whether the relationship exists, but whether it can be brought back through Chance's clone: how could it be the same, doesn't it make you miss him more, etc.

Then - and I remember this phrase clearly - after the man is attacked by the bull, Glass comments that "it seems like Second Chance was doing everything in his power to tell him, in the only way he could, that he wasn't Chance".  This, I feel, is the strongest evocation of the Lone Ranger, romanticisation of the animal in the entire story.  Now, not only is there a distinct relationship between this man and his bull, but the bull actively communicates his own feelings. He's no longer part of the icon, but his own icon in himself.

Now, I know that many studies have been done on animal communication, and I know that it is all but proven that many animals communicate very clearly needs, wants, fear, etc.  But the attribution of such a complex emotional response to an animal attacking it's owner, especially by a documenter, is pretty exceptional in my book.  Second Chance was feeling violated that his owner still thought of him as Chance, that his owner wasn't loving Second Chance for himself - this, I feel, draws upon and expands the iconic legend of the Lone Stranger, drawing it into a far more complex and developed story than it is, and in my opinion, manipulating it terribly.

So, while the documenter is constantly questioning the man about his blind faith in Second Chance, he's also strongly playing into what he's portraying as this man's near-delusion that he can bring back his beloved bull.  It's sly, but honestly, I think it's a little cheap.

Second Chance

Thinking through"If By Chance We Meet Again" (the second portion of the This American Life clip), I am once again struck by the ways in which Ira Glass produces these shows and turns them in unexpected directions--although the twist has, in some ways, become utterly conventional. In watching through it again this morning, it occurred to me just how much media was a presence. For example, it opens with series of Polaroid shots of the bull, then moving to the television clip, news cameras were discretely present at the announcement of the cloning, etc. All of these things were there, but uncommented-upon, in some cases just outside of the frame. And it all seemed so natural, a very commonplace sort of occurrence that has become naturalized in our current social context.

I must admit that I was a little shocked that they skinned Chance: I could never imagine being in that position with regard to pet that I loved. I think the fact that they chose to do this simply exacerbated the tension that exists for how we (the audience) are supposed to see the bull, the category of relationship we're supposed to place him. If he were "livestock" (a term that had not occurred to me until it emerged in class discussion), then skinning would be relatively appropriate. If he were a pet, I think it becomes more difficult: taxidermy tends to be a practice oriented toward 'hunted' animals rather than 'domesticated' animals (both ideologically loaded categories). And, I have a sense that stuffing a pet is relatively uncommon in the U.S. (I'm reminded of the Roald Dahl story "The Landlady" when thinking about it, which suggests to me that its not so common in Britain either). But for animals that are unambiguously pets (even if they lack an "owner") such as a dog or cat, I suspect that there's definitely a social stigma attached. If the bull were a family member, then the state would step in if it were skinned. The statement that the wife makes when holding Chance's skin (pelt?): "Its just so sad seeing him... he's empty" still resonates with me.

Finally, with regard to the production practices of something that's a documentary or ethnographic film: the contingency (or serendipity) of something momentous happening like the rancher being gored by the bull while the camera was there to film the aftermath. I imagine that its not so different from fieldwork: you work with what presents itself, but how you represent it is also very important. What would the segment have been without that portion?

Prelude

This is the first post for the Media Anthropology blog. The goal of this blog is to provide an example and resource for students in their own posts on class discussions. Reader comments on the issues raised in this blog are highly encouraged both by students taking the course and by outside observers.