reading media texts journal

this week we talked about how technologies of power are used to create docile, passive subjects out of us. we also talked about if these technologies of power are the only thing that helps us become the person we are- are we only who we are based on the things around us, what culture and society demands of us and tells us to be? or is there some sense of individuality, creativity? or is it all controlled by biology?
how do we come to be the person we are?
what determines who i am?
from what i have taken from todays lecture and tute these are the things i see as most important and interesting:
1) technolgies of power (foulcaults early work)
a technology of power is something that informs our actions by being imposed on us. we used the example in class today of that of a school student. what technologies of power are instruct, inform and cause you to conform into passive, docile students, what is at play here? uniforms, rigid subjects and times (english at 9, maths at 10, p.e. in the afternoon), detentions, the teacher/student relationship as dominant/submissive and even pen licences turn us into the kind of person that is a god, typical, same student.
my reading of technologies of power is that they are created by authorative figures in order to exercise control over a large group of people by making them the same and predictable, habitual and ritualistic.
2)technologies of the self (foucaults later work)
this is like technologies of power but reversed so that the individual becomes responsible for his or her own actions and choices. the examples we thought of as technologies of power included religion, eating habits, sexuality. they are things you choose to do, regardless of what may be imposed on you from the penal system or the education system. actually, i had a bit of trouble getting this one. i think it means choices that an individual makes, despite or in spite of what has been taught to them. this is what makes people different from each other- the 40 people from my year 12 class are all very different people, despite having been taught under the same rules, the same consequences and the same expectations. we were exposed to technologies of power but through our own technologies of self, we have remained different from one another. there is something innately different about people. which leads into…
3)biology
i think people are just different form one another. there are different ways of thinking, different voices, religions, hair colours, feelings and perceptions. everything about everyone is different. i share traits with my mother and father. i have temper like my mother and a way of laughing like my father. it is true that these things may not be biological- i might have just learned these habits and ways of being by way of imitation. it could just be that everything is learned, and none of our traits and choices are made from biology alone, though there are people whose mother died when they were born but still they manage to have the same mannerisms and idiosyncrasies as their mother. i think some part of personality and individuality is biological.

in conclusion, i think that technologies of power, technologies of the self and biology are all so closely intertwined it is hard to separate them. they all meld together to form a cohesive whole.

this week we were asked to prepare a debate for next week, so im gonna try to lay the groundwork here.
our topic is “freedom of speech is an inviolable right“
we are on the affirmative.
(To start with, i dont actually fully agree with the statement, and no-one in my team does either.)
We define freedom of speech as any act which expresses opinion, meaning it could be a sentence, an artwork, a protest, anything. We define an inviolable right as a right which cannot be interfered with, that cannot be censored by anyone.
We think that freedom of speech is extremely important, but there is a fine line between speaking your mind and hurting others, whether it be morally, physically or emotionally. It is important to be able to say what you want, but it is also important to make sure that does not cross the line of what we think is right and wrong (which i am aware is a whole other thing).
Having said that, however, revolutions and change could not have happened without people freely speaking things that were found extremely offensive to people.
Black, gay and womens rights would never have been realised if people were not allowed to express ideas that others found offensive. Freedom of speech is important for change.
I, as a woman, would not be allowed to vote if it were not for someone saying something that other people didnt approve of. So, even if an act of freedom of speech is morally, ethically offensive, it may still be valid and does not neccesarily mean it should not be said.
This introduces another point- if freedom of speech is censored, who gets to do the censoring? Certainly noone in this room can claim that they think they have the almighty power to censor someone elses thoughts. then who should it be? the government? religion? a team of philosophers? how could we ever come to a point where we pick on neutral source that can decide whos act of free speech is valid and whos is not? If one person can express something than everybody should be able to. Uncensored freedom of speech makes everyones argument valid, and furthermore allows each person viewer/listener/reader to evaluate for themselves what is opinion and what is stepping the line, because these things are different for everybody.

today we talked about the danish cartoons and all the controversy surrounding them.
we talked about whether or not it was offensive, and if we should be worried that people were offended by them. i think we all decided in the end that people should be able to say what they feel, as long as it is not intended to be hateful. but then again, is hate not a valid thing, a valid opinion to express? say you were subjected to female castration and did not believe it should happen- is it wrong to express hate towards the religion and cultural values that enforce such a thing? is it wrong to express a hate for something (ie, the nazis) if by doing so can cause a percieved positive change in your life, or it can improve the situation?
i am undecided as to whether people should be able to say anything they want. on one hand it makes room for change, revolution and variety in the world. but on the other hand it causes things such as the holocaust. is propaganda free speech, or is it a subtle trick to make you believe what they are saying? is it right to force your opinion on people like that? does freedom of speech include forcing your opinion on somone.
argh, im confused.
anyway, what i wanted to concentrate on in this writing was a art piece i read about recently.
you can see it here: http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/
the main gist of it is that the artist found a dog in a slum and tied it in a gallery with no food or water. the dog died. it was considered (not by many) as a work of art.
i will look at it as a freedom of speech issue (although its not technically “speech” it is an act of expressing an opinion or a thought), and see what we can find.
why should he be allowed this freedom of speech?
- the guy is allowed to do this, legally. the gallery allowed it.
- the dog was a stray/feral and was going to die anyway.
- he is making a statement on how no-one cares about the dogs, no-one pays attention to them when they are on the street and maybe they will if he brings it into a gallery environment.
- he is also challenging what art is- is life and death the ultimate art? does art aim to evoke feelings and thoughts and cause debate (which this work has certainly done), or to look pretty?
- it forces people to evaluate how they feel about this. it forces people to decide whether they will save the dog or not, or if this is an ok thing to do.
why should he not be allowed this freedom of speech?
- because the dog is suffering
- it offends peoples morals because it is not “right” to kill animals (but most people eat meat and it is hard to see how allowing animals to be killed for consumption differs from allowing animals to be killed to arouse debate and public concern about animal welfare)
- because the dog did not consent to this, was not a willing participant
- because we dont have the right to take something else life without a reason? (murder? where does capital punishment come in?)
so it seems to me, that even though i believe that it was a cruel and horrible thing to do, my points veer strongly towards the idea that this was a valid act of free speech, with a reason and purpose, but one that nevertheless was very offensive to a lot of people. it is also worth considering that the work undoubtedly intended to offend many people, either as a publicity stunt or as a thought-provoker.
alright, im way over the word limit.