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?