Sunday, February 26, 2012

Leah Feutz- Blog Post

Leah Feutz- Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation Blog Post

Jarmakani’s piece, “Veiled Intentions: The Cultural Mythology of Veils, Harems, and Belly Dancers in the Service of Empire, Security, and Globalization” was a very interesting read and helped me to understand more fully how cultural globalization and subsequent media and representation of culture plays out in the specific instance of “Arab and Muslim womanhood” (141). She starts off by stating that “orientalist representations of Arab womanhood” are part of an American privilege to frame discourse and a “shifting function” of these images to continuously meet policy needs (140). Especially in the context of mounting Islamophobia from at least the 1970’s, understanding how many different identities are “conflated in the contemporary U.S. imagination” is important (141). This aspect of globalization is somewhat in conflict with more idealistic views of what globalization means, in terms of increasing interconnectedness and an open, borderless world (140). I think this is an essential assertion to start her piece with, as it places her argument in a larger context of criticisms of discourses of globalization. These discourses are not communicating universal truths of what the world is like, but instead are ways to strategically market American priorities.
            Jarmakani starts her explanation of these mythologies with the example or case study of McCurry’s famous photograph for National Geographic. This is one of the most famous photographs in the world, and so it was interesting to hear a different side of the story behind this photograph apart from knowing how widely celebrated it is. Jarmakani writes how the follow-up article to the initial photograph represented a rekindled interest because of “the crisis of 11 September and the subsequent war against the Taliban” (141). This article didn’t do anything to explain how different events had impacted this woman’s life, and instead the narrative just “[reinforced] dominant U.S. notions about the passivity and victimization of all Muslim women” (141). The author’s overall point in bringing up such an example is not to say that the American media is simply ignorant, but instead that the perpetuation of this type of narrative serves a greater purpose of “[legitimizing] dominant narratives of national security and globalization” (142). This is her idea of mythology as a representation of a (false) persistent reality to serve the dominant narrative.
I was particularly struck when I read, “the mythology of the veil, or the ‘plight’ of Arab and Muslim women, has become increasingly salient in the contemporary geopolitical context” (144). I think we can all agree that these images are extremely commonplace in any media we have been consuming. I know that almost all media I have consumed as a socially, politically, or more globally conscious adult comes from the post-9/11 era. In other words, global perception has been transmitted through the context of increasing fascination with discourses concerning the “Arab and Muslim” world. Perhaps this means that people of our generation are more susceptible to accepting this type of representation as the way things always have been and continue to be. This reading helped me to be more critical of the biases in this imagery, instead of seeing it as a natural part of the media I am consuming. I do feel like I try to be skeptical of media assertion of the “flawless certainty” of oppression of Muslim women, but I think placing it within the context of cultural globalization helps me to understand this issue and be even more critical (151). This article also made me think differently about celebrated photographers like McCurry and Annie Liebovitz, and how these photographers capitalize on fascinations with other cultures and also with on the myth of what these cultures represent. As Maggie noted, there are other examples, such as the Reebok advertisements, that are more blatantly playing to stereotypes. But when the perpetuation of these myths is more subtle, it is perhaps more complicated to discern what kind of message we are receiving. I wonder how this affects artistic integrity and what this could mean for creating more responsible, ethical journalism.
Similarly, the Kumar and Stabile article starts off with a quote from George W. Bush, and an explanation of the larger framing of the ‘War on Terror’. This excerpt from the president shows how justification for going to war was partly painted as a human rights issue and, more specifically, as a way to liberate Muslim women from the oppression they were facing. In this context, the framing of the war was about selling it to the U.S. public (776). On the whole, this article discusses the way that the ‘War on Terror’ was painted in ways that served to legitimize taking military action under the guise of human rights and under this type of ‘noble ideal’ (771). The framing also perpetuated a vision of “the restricted lives of Afghan women” that exclusively demonized the Taliban and ignored “the rise of fundamentalism in 1989, as a consequence of earlier US intervention in the region” (773). I try to be aware that political discourse is full of strategic framing in order to lend credence to certain ends, and yet this type of manipulation in order to avoid undermining American power is still extremely troubling. These types of “inaccuracies and…willful manipulation” are definitely important to be sensitive to in trying to be critical consumers of news and media (778).
The “Bolly’hood Remix” and “Boom Go the Bombs, Boom Goes the Bass” articles were really interesting in their discussion of “cross-cultural sampling” (Kevin Miller Article). They also made me continue to think about issues of framing of certain issues and themes so as not to undermine one’s own larger goals or self-perception. In the case of the song “Truth Hurts”, instead of putting our discussion of cultural globalization at the forefront of my mind, I was first and foremost struck by the realization that DJ Quik had produced the song. He is definitely one of the more renowned hip-hop and rap producers who has worked with some some very notable names like Nate Dogg, Luniz, Snoop Dogg, and Talib Kweli. He also worked on some of my favorite rap albums like Tupac’s All Eyez on Me and Jay-Z’s The Black Album. So I guess kind of selfishly I thought first of how he has contributed significantly to a lot of the music I listen to, and then that made me a little more willing to try to make excuses for why he would be involved in “issues of musical integrity and cultural representation” (Miller). In this way, I was trying not to undermine my perceptions of the music I enjoyed. I think, too, that this kind of sampling is a way for the “hip hop community and form alliances with other peoples of color”, and to communicate a sense of solidarity with what artists perceive to be related struggles and experiences. After reading the articles, I was left thinking about this issue that Miller brings up: “Of course, the unspoken question remains whether it is really the responsibility of the artist to educate or enlighten the masses. Should we expect to learn lessons in geography and culture from popular music?”. In the same vein as integrity within journalism and photography, I think that it is definitely important for all forms of expression to be self-conscious in how they perpetuate, play into, criticize, etc. cultural myths and discourses. The two photo collections “Once Upon a Time in…” also brought up the same issues of the politics behind depictions of other places and cultures. However, I don’t think that this lapse in responsibility among a large number of artists of all kinds is exclusive to their experience, and is a result of the larger societal exposure to and saturation with these misrepresentations. I think it could be interesting to discuss where moral and ethical issues come into play given the American placement within a “power axis of representation” (Jarmakani 140).

No comments:

Post a Comment