This past week I've come across several news articles about President Obama and his decisions on releasing torture memos to the public that were used by the Bush administration and even more recently that Obama will not prosecute any CIA people who have participated in acts of torture that have violated the War Crimes Act of 96. Also, he states that his administration will not use torture. Apparently, he will not reprimand those who have committed acts of torture because they were simply following orders and or the law. I think that while Obama may accept that torture is immoral by stating not to use it in his administration (although he also says that all future presidents may use it despite what the law says), he also understands that those who have committed these crimes were not fully trained in their understanding of their acts (something Scarry would state). What do you think Foucault or Scarry would say about this?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Release-of-OLC-Memos/
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Sovereign in Domestic Violence Re: Scarry
A lot of what we develop in this class is also addressed in my gender and human rights class. I feel like as I'm asking a question in one class, I'm answering one in another. Seeing these themes brought out in different contexts really helps my understanding what we're talking about- I often have no clue- because it becomes applicable to something I can see or care about.
I realized this today as we talked about Guantanamo Bay in my Gender and HR class. Although we've discussed torture before- we began to look at the relationship between domestic violence and state-sanctioned torture. Two themes keep coming back to me: The rights of citizenship and the power of voice and participation. I had a hard time reading about Scarry's voicelessness in pain until I stopped thinking about literal voice, (though I doubt this was her intention). These acts of torture are much more deep rooted than simply waterboarding. Pain for power is inflicted in so many ways in the domestic sphere and that pain is inaudible by many women- they lose language not only as a physical ability, but as a right as a citizen.
This got me thinking about the sovereign-torturer-tortured relationship from Foucault and found a really strong connection to violence in the domestic sphere. To assign (generalized and obviously not always true) titles, the woman is tortured by the male torturer. So then, who is the sovereign? Who is this being done on behalf of? I feel the sovereign is the cultural construction of the ideal American family and home. It has been created by government, media and culture, and it reigns supreme as the picture of the American dream; and female devotion to this is vital. Any deviation from this questions the assigned gender roles, and becomes an attack on the state. The female partner attacks the state in refusing to be a sexual submissive or burning dinner. In order to rectify the situation the torturer must reassert the dominance of the sovereign. I know these are generalizations etc, but just something I was thinking about...
I realized this today as we talked about Guantanamo Bay in my Gender and HR class. Although we've discussed torture before- we began to look at the relationship between domestic violence and state-sanctioned torture. Two themes keep coming back to me: The rights of citizenship and the power of voice and participation. I had a hard time reading about Scarry's voicelessness in pain until I stopped thinking about literal voice, (though I doubt this was her intention). These acts of torture are much more deep rooted than simply waterboarding. Pain for power is inflicted in so many ways in the domestic sphere and that pain is inaudible by many women- they lose language not only as a physical ability, but as a right as a citizen.
This got me thinking about the sovereign-torturer-tortured relationship from Foucault and found a really strong connection to violence in the domestic sphere. To assign (generalized and obviously not always true) titles, the woman is tortured by the male torturer. So then, who is the sovereign? Who is this being done on behalf of? I feel the sovereign is the cultural construction of the ideal American family and home. It has been created by government, media and culture, and it reigns supreme as the picture of the American dream; and female devotion to this is vital. Any deviation from this questions the assigned gender roles, and becomes an attack on the state. The female partner attacks the state in refusing to be a sexual submissive or burning dinner. In order to rectify the situation the torturer must reassert the dominance of the sovereign. I know these are generalizations etc, but just something I was thinking about...
Law Enforcement in Entertainment
I haven't had too many formative run-ins with the police. I don't know if that's because I'm not very exciting- or I can just run really fast. So in terms of readings and discussion I started thinking about the image and feelings that are associated with the law etc. There has been such a rapid transformation in the last few decades but I haven't really looked at this until now.
In looking at old movies and family sitcoms there is a very prominent image of American police and firefighters, (excluding some individual images like the sheriff of the wild west). The police officer we often saw was the bumbling, friendly, rotund beat cop that patrolled white picket fences and gave moral advice to children playing on manicured lawns. Or he was the valiant hero, arriving to a bank robbery in the nick of time or helping little old women cross crowded intersections. It was also the firefighter who's brawny chest marked them 'dreamy', and the female viewer fawned over him while he rescued children from burning buildings and cats from trees.
What now? Our police officers and firefighters are seen as disturbed and angry as more and more drama television focuses its attention on the personal lives of these previous heroes. In "Rescue Me", Dennis Leary is a grumpy, recovering alcoholic who can't seem to get himself together; while on NYPD Blue there wasn't a character without a substance abuse problem or history of abuse. Not only are they human and "like us", they're worse off! Their jobs are less heroic and more menial, their morals are questionable and behavior objectionable. I'm so shocked that this is still prevalent, especially with the change in tone in our post- 9/11 world. Whereas in the news we see heroic imagery and stories of bravery, in entertainment the police are still not far off from the criminals. I wonder if this is a trend that will begin to reverse itself, and if not- why do we not want heroes any more? Yes, there are good cops and bad cops- I don't want to get into that discussion here- I'm more curious about what we do with the image of police and what we want to see.
In looking at old movies and family sitcoms there is a very prominent image of American police and firefighters, (excluding some individual images like the sheriff of the wild west). The police officer we often saw was the bumbling, friendly, rotund beat cop that patrolled white picket fences and gave moral advice to children playing on manicured lawns. Or he was the valiant hero, arriving to a bank robbery in the nick of time or helping little old women cross crowded intersections. It was also the firefighter who's brawny chest marked them 'dreamy', and the female viewer fawned over him while he rescued children from burning buildings and cats from trees.
What now? Our police officers and firefighters are seen as disturbed and angry as more and more drama television focuses its attention on the personal lives of these previous heroes. In "Rescue Me", Dennis Leary is a grumpy, recovering alcoholic who can't seem to get himself together; while on NYPD Blue there wasn't a character without a substance abuse problem or history of abuse. Not only are they human and "like us", they're worse off! Their jobs are less heroic and more menial, their morals are questionable and behavior objectionable. I'm so shocked that this is still prevalent, especially with the change in tone in our post- 9/11 world. Whereas in the news we see heroic imagery and stories of bravery, in entertainment the police are still not far off from the criminals. I wonder if this is a trend that will begin to reverse itself, and if not- why do we not want heroes any more? Yes, there are good cops and bad cops- I don't want to get into that discussion here- I'm more curious about what we do with the image of police and what we want to see.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Media and Somali Pirates
Earlier in the semester, we discussed the media representation of certain events. Through this media representation, we are led to believe a certain perspective on events presented in the media. Last week one of the biggest stories being covered throughout the American media, especially on the main television news networks, was the issue of Somali pirates off of the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean. The story that was brought to our attention by the American media was a story of pirates that hijacked a large shipping vessel flying an American flag, taking the captain and its crew hostage. As the story continued, the news networks updated us on the actions of the U.S. Navy's efforts to intervene. Eventually, the crew of the shipping vessel was able to partially take over control. This left the four pirates on one of the ship's lifeboats, with one hostage. Mid-afternoon on Sunday, U.S. Navy sharpshooters were able to simultaneously incapacitate three of the four pirates with fatal head shots. These actions allowed for the release of the final hostage, the shipping vessel's captain, and the capture of the fourth pirate.
The above summary is just an overview of the events that occurred; however, the media represented the entire event in a tragic manner. They discussed the overall impact of pirates on shipping operations. They discussed how security has been expanded for some shipping companies, in order to have some defense against pirates. They discussed how some companies alter shipping routes in order to avoid the Somali coast. There were many other aspects of the situation that were discussed, but very few of the perspective presented touched on the perspective of the Somali people and the root of their actions as pirates.
Historically, the coastal Somali people are fisherman. Their fishing industry was the main industry in the coastal region of the country. In addition to providing an income for many Somali families, it also provided a means of feeding their families. In the early 1990's, during the collapse of the Somali government, many developed nations and corporations from those developed nations took actions that neglected to take the Somali people into consideration. Two actions were taken by these nations and corporations - the U.S. included - that started to diminish the fishing industry that the coastal Somali people used to provide food and income for themselves and their families. First, industrial fisherman from around the world over fished the area to the point that the stock of fish available to the Somalis was depleted. As the stock of fish was depleted, corporations from developed nations began to dump hazardous waste off the coast of Somalia. These contaminated the water and killed off remaining populations of fish. As these actions were being taken by corporations from countries, like the United States, the Somali people tried to bring their case the U.N. Security Council. When those efforts were ignored, the Somali people had only one choice - to take matters into their own hands. This was the start of Somali pirates.
As fisherman, the Somali people were comfortable out at sea. Initially, they were not regarded as pirates in the sense that we are now viewing them. At first, they would forcibly board shipping vessels to inspect for hazardous materials. Eventually, as they found ships that had such materials on board, they would take over the ship and demand ransom for the ships crew from the company that owned the shipping vessel. This regulation of their offshore waters continued for a while, but eventually greed took over. After time, instead of just inspecting vessels and only taking over the vessels with hazardous materials, these acts of piracy became very lucrative. One ransom would bring in millions of U.S. dollars for these pirate organizations. Unable to turn away from such lucrative opportunities, piracy became a new means of sustenance for the coastal Somali people.
Though I am not condoning the actions of the pirates, I was interested to see an alternative perspective to the many perspectives that were presented to us by the American media about Somali pirates. I realize that their actions now are rooted in greed; however, this perspective leads me to wonder if Somali pirates would have ever been a problem if developed countries had given more consideration to the Somali people back in the early 1990's. If the coastal Somali people could still be sustaining themselves as fisherman, would the issue of piracy even be a problem today? If you are interested in learning more, the above link is a YouTube video featuring K'Naan, a Somali-born rapper. In an interview, he discussed the perspective that I just shared with you. In the video, he discussed an effort to submit an Opinion piece to The New York Times. I have not yet been able to locate that article, but would be interested to see what additional details would be shared in that article.
The above summary is just an overview of the events that occurred; however, the media represented the entire event in a tragic manner. They discussed the overall impact of pirates on shipping operations. They discussed how security has been expanded for some shipping companies, in order to have some defense against pirates. They discussed how some companies alter shipping routes in order to avoid the Somali coast. There were many other aspects of the situation that were discussed, but very few of the perspective presented touched on the perspective of the Somali people and the root of their actions as pirates.
Historically, the coastal Somali people are fisherman. Their fishing industry was the main industry in the coastal region of the country. In addition to providing an income for many Somali families, it also provided a means of feeding their families. In the early 1990's, during the collapse of the Somali government, many developed nations and corporations from those developed nations took actions that neglected to take the Somali people into consideration. Two actions were taken by these nations and corporations - the U.S. included - that started to diminish the fishing industry that the coastal Somali people used to provide food and income for themselves and their families. First, industrial fisherman from around the world over fished the area to the point that the stock of fish available to the Somalis was depleted. As the stock of fish was depleted, corporations from developed nations began to dump hazardous waste off the coast of Somalia. These contaminated the water and killed off remaining populations of fish. As these actions were being taken by corporations from countries, like the United States, the Somali people tried to bring their case the U.N. Security Council. When those efforts were ignored, the Somali people had only one choice - to take matters into their own hands. This was the start of Somali pirates.
As fisherman, the Somali people were comfortable out at sea. Initially, they were not regarded as pirates in the sense that we are now viewing them. At first, they would forcibly board shipping vessels to inspect for hazardous materials. Eventually, as they found ships that had such materials on board, they would take over the ship and demand ransom for the ships crew from the company that owned the shipping vessel. This regulation of their offshore waters continued for a while, but eventually greed took over. After time, instead of just inspecting vessels and only taking over the vessels with hazardous materials, these acts of piracy became very lucrative. One ransom would bring in millions of U.S. dollars for these pirate organizations. Unable to turn away from such lucrative opportunities, piracy became a new means of sustenance for the coastal Somali people.
Though I am not condoning the actions of the pirates, I was interested to see an alternative perspective to the many perspectives that were presented to us by the American media about Somali pirates. I realize that their actions now are rooted in greed; however, this perspective leads me to wonder if Somali pirates would have ever been a problem if developed countries had given more consideration to the Somali people back in the early 1990's. If the coastal Somali people could still be sustaining themselves as fisherman, would the issue of piracy even be a problem today? If you are interested in learning more, the above link is a YouTube video featuring K'Naan, a Somali-born rapper. In an interview, he discussed the perspective that I just shared with you. In the video, he discussed an effort to submit an Opinion piece to The New York Times. I have not yet been able to locate that article, but would be interested to see what additional details would be shared in that article.
Real Pain Fake Medicine
Along the lines of what K Stein wrote about, I thought it may be difficult to tell a doctor how something hurts or if the person is faking the pain. However if the patient is in pain, there may be ways of tricking the pain away. That is to say, giving placeboes or sugar pills can make pain go way just as morphine or other pain killers can. I began to think what doctors do when the don't have the right medicine or medicine at all for people in combat or an remote areas of the world. I thought about the boat taken over by pirates off of Somalia. If a boat filled with medicine was captured and raided, what would the doctors do for medicine for injured solders, or hurt civilians? I recalled an episode of MASH where the doctors gave their patients placeboes, because their pain killers did not come in because of a raid of the truck that was carrying them. The doctors gave sugar pills to the hurt solders and over half of them felt better and started to fall asleep. Would this work in a real life army hospital or even a civilian hospital locally? It seems to me very likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)