Accommodation of Audience to Challenge Hegemonic National Memory

An analysis of The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye‘s contributions to Singapore’s master narrative

Over this past school year, and across various courses in the Co-ordinated Arts Programme (CAP), the term “hegemony” has been repeatedly mentioned. Hegemony – the dominance of one group over another – is a concept that pervades various other broad topics that we have encountered in our classes: in history, a narrative is constructed by dominant groups that tends to neglect marginalised voices; in identity, powerful groups marginalise and silence certain identities, expecting them to conform to standards of the dominant in return; in memory, dominant groups decide what gets remembered, and what is worth remembering, even in seemingly objective situations such as archives.

At the intersection of history, identity, and memory lies the significant issue of national memory, which too tends to conform to a hegemonic narrative as dominant groups shape and tell a nation’s history (Belsey 111). This “master narrative” (Thijs 60) told by people in power allows them to define a nation’s history and culture, in turn shaping their citizen’s national identity and silencing alternative perspectives of history. Yet, just as hegemonic frameworks constrain how national memories and master narratives are told, so too does alternative literature, such as comics, have the potential to disrupt these frameworks and make their own contributions to national memory. I would also like to focus my study specifically on the accommodation of audience in said literature when thinking about national memory, and how what the author chooses to explain and similarly, leave unexplained, tells us more about how national memory is constructed.

The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye

In this final ASTU blog post, it seems fitting for me to return to the research site of my final paper – The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye by Sonny Liew – as a case study for how literature has the potential to disrupt hegemonic frameworks. The Art of is a metafictional comic biography about Charlie Chan, a fictional Singaporean comic artist who grows up alongside Singapore’s national development and draws comics that serve as socio-political commentary of Singapore’s history. Through comical techniques, Liew invites readers to think about how Singapore’s master narrative is shaped, for what purpose, and by who. In turn, Liew challenges readers to rethink their position as an audience that is easily manipulated, and to consider alternative perspectives of history.

Source: Sonny Liew, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, Pantheon, 2015

What then, first and foremost, is the dominant or hegemonic perspective of Singapore’s history – Singapore’s “master narrative”? Kenneth Paul Tan calls it “The Singapore Story” (236), which perpetuates a narrative of progress, as the dominant story is that of how Singapore developed from a “sleepy fishing village” to the global hub it is today. While there is no denying the progress that Singapore has indeed made in its short time as a nation despite its small size, the narrative is reinforced by and serves the ruling party – people in positions of power. In emphasising Singapore’s development as positive, the ruling party retains control and justifies its methods of ruling the state as it points to its track record of Singapore’s progress under its rule.

Counter-Narrative Efforts by Accommodating Audience

The most important quality of The Art of that has allowed it to craft a counter-narrative to Singapore’s master narrative, I believe, is its mass appeal. In Singapore, The Art of has received much popularity, ironically due to the widespread news of how the National Arts Council withdrew funding for it after citing its “sensitive content”. Very much like the Streisand effect, this only gave it more attention both in Singapore and in the international sphere. More significantly, it is important to note the popularity of The Art of due to how The Singapore Story is often lenient towards “alternative political expression” only because they are seen as high-brow elitist culture that have little effect on the masses (Tan 237); The Art of transcends that and creates a counter-narrative for the general public. As a comic, it is also easily accessible and readable for a wide audience.

How then, apart from drawing a wide audience, does The Art of craft its counter-narrative by thinking about audience? First, Liew accommodates readers both familiar and unfamiliar with Singapore’s history by providing detailed explanations and endnotes throughout his book. Liew also invokes multiple voices that help provide commentary on the work that we are reading, and its significance. These voices include those of both Charlie and Liew himself, who appear as avatars that speak directly to the audience with the purpose of providing basic context, to directly emphasising the importance of a particular event or work. For instance, in Charlie’s comic strips “Bukit Chapalang” – satire of the Singapore’s history leading up to its independence, Liew adds additional notes underneath each strip to provide the historical background that the strip is parodying (Liew 186-190). Later, Liew himself is cartoonised and too explains the necessary context to an unnamed child that presumably represents the reader (Liew 194-197). In doing so, Liew accommodates readers with limited knowledge of Singapore’s history, which includes not only international readers, but also local readers who may not have been exposed to the alternative perspective of history.

Source: Sonny Liew, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, Pantheon, 2015, p. 190

Source: Sonny Liew, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, Pantheon, 2015, p. 196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a later strip of “Bukit Chapalang” that depicted the race riots of 1964, Liew inverts the order of commentary, with his and Charlie’s avatar providing the context before showing the comic strip. In doing so, Liew sets up the emotional weight of the scene before introducing it, further emphasising the tragedy of the incident. Liew, speaking through Charlie, says “it didn’t seem like a situation to be made light of … not the kind of thing to joke about”, and in the strip of “Bukit Chapalang”, we see what Liew calls “a strip featuring snapshots of desolate “Bukit Chapalang” locales, emptied of its characters” (Liew 198-199), which is further void of any dialogue or captions. Scott McCloud, in Understanding Comics, identifies this type of transition as “aspect-to-aspect transitions” that “establish a mood or a sense of place, [where] time seems to stand still in these quiet contemplative combinations” (79). Here, a sombre mood is established by the lack of characters or text, with context being provided by an external voice rather than from within the strip itself. By doing so, Liew challenges how the master narrative has portrayed Singapore’s rule under the ruling party as positive and impressive, instead reminding the reader that tragic incidents have happened in the past under said rule, and to remember the darker sides of the nation’s history.

Source: Sonny Liew, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, Pantheon, 2015, p. 198

Source: Sonny Liew, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, Pantheon, 2015, p. 199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Thoughts

The Art of has shown us that alternative literature has a place to contribute to national memory by thinking about its audience – from attracting a wide audience to accommodating different readers to setting the mood for said audience. Apart from a scholarly perspective that has found Liew’s work particularly interesting, I also hold his work and my work close to my heart as this research site has allowed me to apply research skills and concepts from class to an interest of mine. Reflecting on the lessons I’ve learnt this year, the biggest takeaway, especially with regards to the concepts of hegemony and audience, would be to challenge what we are reading and consuming. For everything that is said, there remains something unsaid and silenced. We may never receive – nor be able to complete – the full story, but by looking between the cracks and reading between the lines for voices of the marginalised and censored, we can get just a little bit closer.

 

Works Cited

Belsey, Catherine. “Reading Cultural History.” Reading the Past: Literature and History, edited by Tamsin Spargo. Palgrave, 2000, pp. 103-17.

Liew, Sonny. The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye. Pantheon, 2015.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. HarperPerennial, 1994.

Tan, Kenneth Paul. “Choosing What to Remember in Neoliberal Singapore: The Singapore Story, State Censorship and State-Sponsored Nostalgia.” Asian Studies Review, vol. 40, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 231–249. doi:10.1080/10357823.2016.1158779.

Thijs, Krijin. “The Metaphor of the Master: “Narrative Hierarchy” in National Historical Cultures in Europe.” The Contested Nation: Ethnicity, Class, Religion and Gender in National Histories, edited by Stefan Berger and Chris Lorenz. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp. 60-74.

“Echo Chambers” and “Filter Bubbles”: The Hidden Pitfalls of Reddit

“Front Page of the Internet”

In her recent blog post, Natasha highlighted the trends of news consumption by internet users. Increasingly, people are getting their news from the internet and social media sites, with Reddit and Facebook as the top two sites. Yet, Facebook has faced criticism of creating what Eli Pariser calls “filter bubbles”: “the lack of exposure to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview” (Pariser). Facebook creates these filter bubbles by selectively curating news that users prefer, and editing out content that does not fit their profile, inadvertently limiting what users may see. Many users of Reddit may consider Reddit as a more reliable news sources than Facebook as Reddit has a lax content policy and censorship is up to individual community moderators. On the surface, Reddit appears to be void of filter bubbles as few algorithms control what users see, with the community being responsible for what users see. However, I argue that in leaving this filtering to the community, Reddit does still create a filter bubble, but one that is determined by the popular or majority view, rather than computer algorithms. In doing so, a dominant view arises in Reddit, while fringe or unpopular opinions are silenced. In letting a user customise what they view, Reddit also creates its own echo chamber, where users knowingly surround themselves with similar views. In this aspect, it is an even more concerning phenomenon as people willingly choose to filter out dissent and debate.

a quick explanation of how reddit works by reddit user u/thatlldopigthatld

“Hivemind”

Reddit works more like a forum than a news site, focusing on crowd-sourced, user-generated content to create a community that shares content with one another rather than a team of reporters, writers, or editors. News content are often, however, links that a user shares on the site that direct users to an online news article. Since anyone can submit a link or news article, it is up to the community to decide what is seen and what is not on the overall site, through a voting system of “upvotes” and “downvotes”; as a thread’s popularity rises, so does its visibility on the front page.

Since a post or news article’s visibility is determined by the collective userbase, it is the majority that determines what each user sees on the front page of Reddit. As a result, the dominant perspective becomes the common view that Reddit offers to users, while minority and marginalised opinions receive less visibility. For those reasons, it becomes clear that while the site itself may not directly create a filter bubble through a personalisation algorithm, content is still filtered out and selectively curated by the collective user base through a voting algorithm. An overreliance on this view for one’s news content, sometimes referred to as the Reddit “hivemind”, is dangerous because it reflects what Reddit users think, rather than a balanced view of the world.

So what does this “hivemind” think of the world? According to Adrienne Massanari, it reflects a “geek culture” (331) that has a “fraught relationship to issues of gender and race” (332), as this culture “presume[s] a white male centrality” (332). While I would not go as far as Massanari’s subsequent evaluation that this breeds a toxic anti-feminist and misogynistic culture (336), it remains clear that if Reddit’s community is dominated by a specific population, then the voting system will only perpetuate those exact views. In a perfect democracy, the mob rules.

“Echo Chambers”

Perhaps one may still find a sense of community by subscribing to subreddits that share the same beliefs and interests as them. However, I argue that this act of opting in and selectively choosing voices that you wish to hear only serves to reinforce one’s own beliefs and values, as you surround yourself with like-minded individuals, which Reddit crudely yet somewhat aptly calls a “circlejerk” (yes, it’s exactly what it sounds like).

More concerning than this act of opting-in though, is the act of filtering out. The act of searching for a sense of belonging is not inherently bad, but the coupling with a refusal to hear other opinions only traps one within their echo chambers, where they do not hear any dissent or comprehensive views. In allowing one to personalise what they see, Reddit allows for an easy filtering out of content that users do not wish to see. One key example is the subreddit r/The_Donald created during Donald Trump’s run for president, which has been a commonly filtered out subreddit by many users. In a period of incredible political division, filtering out voices and arguments, whether legitimate or not, simply makes it easier to demonise and dehumanise the other party. In ignoring different opinions, we create our own filter bubbles and echo chambers.

reddit user u/Fozzi shows how easy it is to filter out a subreddit (and their voices!)

Conclusion

While Eli Pariser argues that the problem with filter bubbles occurs when you only see what you like to see, and don’t get to decide or see what is edited out, I argue that it is an equally pressing issue to knowingly edit your filter bubble. Sites that offer personalisation, whether automated or customised, inevitably shape our worldview. By making it convenient to edit something out, we are easily trapped within our own echo chambers, hearing only the voices and opinions that agree with us. As much as we try to convince ourselves that the internet has helped people around the world connect with one another, it has truly only reinforced our own worldview when we shield ourselves from criticisms and disagreements.

 

Works Cited

Massanari, Adrienne. “#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures.” New Media & Society 19.3 (2017): pp. 329-46. doi:10.1177/1461444815608807.

Pariser, Eli. “Beware Online ‘Filter Bubbles.’” Eli Pariser: Beware Online “Filter Bubbles” | TED Talk | TED.com, www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en#t-264389. Accessed 18 Mar. 2017.

An Archive’s Power to Exclude: A Quick Study of the Singapore Memory Project

Started in 2011, the Singapore Memory Project (SMP) is an online national archive that aims to collect and document memories related to Singapore from “individual[s]… organisations, associations, companies and groups”. As of this writing, the SMP has gathered over a million memories. The web portal not only encourages Singaporeans of “all walks of life” to contribute to the national memory, but accepts contributions from visitors so long that their experience is related to Singapore. By allowing a wide variety of contributors, the website aims to foster an inclusivity and construct a national narrative that is more complete and whole. However, archival scholar Rodney G.S Carter reminds us that it is impossible for an archive to cover all aspects of society (216) – memories are fundamentally personal and in preserving all of it, contradictions and conflicts arise (220). As much as the SMP wishes to be as inclusive as possible, its “power to exclude remains a fundamental aspect of the archive” (Carter 216).

Attempts to Include

Browsing the website, it appears that the SMP has done significant work to be as inclusive as possible: not only is anyone able to upload memories, but the process is also simplified by linking personal memory accounts to existing Google, Facebook, Windows Live ID accounts, etc. All content is published in the portal immediately, as the SMP “aim[s] to be as open as possible”. Furthermore, SMP partners and volunteers, acting as pseudo-archivists, interview, write, document, translate, and transcribe to collect memories from individuals and events which may otherwise have difficulty in having their voices represented in the archives. While these efforts are commendable, the work done by these archivists remain restricted by the “interpretive frameworks” (Berger 17): existing narratives that stories tend to conform to. Thus, the increased accessibility merely makes way for more stories that fit an existing dominant narrative. A quick search for “Barisan Sosialis”, the main opposition party of the 1960s, brings up a mere 55 results (most of which are not, in fact, related to the political party), while a search for “PAP” (short for “People’s Action Party”), the ruling party, turns up close to 3000 results. While one might argue that it is because the PAP has been dominating the political scene that more memories of it exist, while the Barisan Sosialis’ dissolution in 1988 is a good reason for the lack of memories of it. Yet, I would argue that it is precisely because of the SMP’s creation and existence in this decade, where the dominant narrative is that of the PAP’s success, that the SMP creates a biased and incomplete narrative. One can easily imagine an archive that existed in the 1960s that offers a more balanced perspective of the Barisan Sosialis and the PAP. By increasing accessibility of the archive in today’s Singapore, the SMP is simply reinforcing the dominant narrative that has existed for decades rather than offering a more complete look into Singapore’s past.

Thus, rather than simply increasing accessibility, Carter suggests that to create a more complete archive, archivists must actively seek out and recognise gaps and silences within the archive (217). Only then, can archivists make the effort to either bring attention to the gaps, invite the marginalised to fill in these gaps, or respect the maintenance of silence by the marginalised (Carter 217). In the case of Singapore and the SMP, one such gap belongs to the vibrant political scene of the 1960s, in particular the opposition parties of the time, who have been left out in the national memory that has often reiterated the PAP’s dominance.

Power to Exclude

In my earlier example, I have demonstrated the SMP’s implicit power to exclude in its role as an archive. Yet, at the same time, it possesses a very explicit power to exclude within its terms and conditions page:

Of the long list of prohibited conduct, I draw attention to the first and last restrictions:

“untrue, misleading, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another person’s privacy or protected data, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;”

“in violation of any applicable law, regulation, or statute.”

Indeed, one can safely assume that these conditions are in place to prevent the uploading of offensive or harmful materials. In particular, the protection from offensive “racially” and “ethnically” offensive materials is backed by the Sedition Act to prevent racial disharmony in a proudly multiracial, multi-ethnic, and multicultural country. However, a quick look at the government’s history of using the law as a tool of censorship tells a very different story of purposeful exclusion for political reasons. For instance, founding father Lee Kuan Yew has, on more than one occasion, sued journalists and opposition politicians for defamatory articles that suggested that nepotism and court manipulation were at play for the ruling party’s dominance throughout the years. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act also limits the political critique that can be published in local media, while the Sedition Act and Official Secrets Act further censors media that may threaten security or racial relations. Even without citing these laws, government bodies have had a tendency to censor or discourage alternative political commentary, such as the National Arts Council (NAC) withdrawing funding for Sonny Liew’s comic The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye after discovering its sympathetic portrayal of opposition parties in Singapore’s formative years. Yet, in its statement, the NAC merely declared that its withdrawal was due to “sensitive content, depicted in visual or text”, without mentioning clearly how it violates existing laws or policies.

Returning to the SMP’s limitations, we see how it might be challenging or even dangerous to upload memories that do not stay within, or are at the edge of, the boundaries set by the many laws that prevent alternative discourse. The power to exclude in the archive is not only active, in that it reserves the right to remove content that may not fit in the national discourse, but also passive, as Singapore’s long history of heavy-handed censorship has given its citizens a good reason to fear the long arm of the law.

Final Thoughts

The work of archival studies by Carter has helped me better understand and interpret the limitations of archives that may, on the surface, seem objective, but in reality, possess immense ability to exclude stories that do not conform to the master narrative. This quick study of the SMP has given me more insight into how my country has attempted to reinforce its dominant narrative through a “renewed and seemingly more inclusive version and performance of The Singapore Story” (Tan 244).

 

Works Cited

Berger, Stefan. “The Role of National Archives in Constructing National Master Narratives in Europe.” Archival Science, vol. 13, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10502-012-9188-z.

Carter, Rodney G. S. “Of Things Said and Unsaid: Power, Archival Silences, and Power in Silence.” Archivaria, no. 61, 2006, pp. 215-233. Archivaria, http://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12541/13687. Accessed 25 Feb. 2017.

Tan, Kenneth Paul. “Choosing What to Remember in Neoliberal Singapore: The Singapore Story, State Censorship and State-Sponsored Nostalgia.” Asian Studies Review, vol. 40, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 231–249. doi:10.1080/10357823.2016.1158779.

“Feminist” Identity in Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis

In Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi chronicles her journey from adolescence to adulthood amidst the backdrop of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Satrapi’s memoir-in-comic-strips details her coming of age and independence while recognising how closely intertwined her history is with that of her country’s – she bears witness on behalf of herself and others to stories of oppression and rebellion; hope and revolution; fear and despair. Alongside these themes is also that of feminism, which has been thoroughly explored by scholars such as Hillary Chute and Nancy K. Miller. Chute claims Persepolis as a “feminist graphic narrative” (93) for dealing with the themes of trauma and remembrance, while Miller suggests that “Persepolis offers a new perspective on familial legacies and feminist generations” (13). Yet, what strikes me as odd is that for all the feminist themes Persepolis purportedly contains, Satrapi herself has mentioned on multiple occasions that she is not a feminist. In an interview with Annie Tully, she states:

“You know, the feminists become very angry when I say I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. I believe in human beings. After what I have seen in the world, I don’t think women are better than the men.”

Likewise, in an interview with Emma Watson for Vogue, she states:

“But is that really the fault of men? I don’t think so. That is our responsibility, and when we blame it on men, we always put ourselves in the situation of the victim. And we are not victims. We are human beings. . .

. . .  The feminist movement for a long time has been there to cut the guy’s penis off. And this is not a good thing. We cannot make the same mistake as men did with the gentlemen’s clubs—to exclude them. We have to be more intelligent and say, We will make life together with you, we will collaborate, and let’s be together.

. . . I need a new kind of feminism where we are brighter than the stupid men of a century ago and we teach them the lessons. That is how good we can be. Let’s construct this world together. Let’s behave toward each other in a nice way, in a humanistic way, and maybe we can do something better”

Satrapi has often declared herself as a “humanist” rather than a “feminist”, as she believes. While one might argue that this makes her a feminist after all, since feminism refers to the equality of both genders. Rather, the portrayal of feminism as the idea that women are better than men has instead misconstrued her philosophy. Yet, in her interview with Tully, the following exchange occurs:

 “So do you think the definition of feminism is to define that women are better than men?

That is what I feel. When they talk about “The men ruined this, the men did that,” it is a person, and their sex comes after what they’ve done. I believe that we say too much “We the women” and “We the men,” but should say “We the human beings.” There are really two types of human being — the ones who care about environment, who want a more just society; and the other ones who care about greed and war. So it’s not a question of East and West, and American and Iranian, and women and men.”

Satrapi’s “Humanism”

And so Satrapi’s main conflict of interest with the feminist movement is how it seems to put always attach a label of sex before the discussion of equality. And it is for that reason that Satrapi instead uses the term “humanist” to describe herself and her work. When reading Persepolis, I found that Satrapi does indeed place her discussions of equality before her gender. For instance, when Satrapi describes trying to pee standing up like a man because she had read that that would change women’s “perception of life”, she found it “disgusting” and instead concludes that “before learning to pee like a man, I needed to learn to become a liberated and emancipated woman” (175). Here, rather than emphasising gender and seeing the need to be like men, Satrapi recognises the importance of liberation and emancipation instead. Indeed , a large part of Satrapi’s philosophy is that both men and women have to be educated (the panels preceding her attempt to pee like a man have her emphasising that she has to “educated [her]self”) to achieve gender equality. Satrapi described that just as there were fundamentalist men and modern women in post-revolution Iran, there were also modern men and fundamentalist women (75). The divide then was not between men and women, but between the educated progressive and the traditionalists.

Likewise, when Satrapi protests the dress code in her university, though she highlights the discrimination and hypocrisy of gender, where women have to be covered up but men do not, her first argument is an appeal to common-sense logic and practicality (297). Furthermore, her discontent with the status quo is not with the opposite gender, but rather with the school administration which holds these discriminatory and hypocritical views.

Final Thoughts

As I read about feminist themes in Persepolis with the knowledge that Satrapi herself rejects the label “feminist”, I am reminded of what Kay Schaffer and Sidonie Smith wrote about life narratives: that “stories are received and interpreted in unpredictable ways by the audiences whose attention they seek and garner” (15). Whether or not one chooses to label Satrapi and Persepolis feminist, I believe that Satrapi’s humanist philosophy of considering equality without the labels of gender will lead us to a more productive discussion. With that, I leave you with one final quote from Satrapi’s interview with Emma Watson:

“We have to bring up our kids telling them, “You are first and foremost human beings.” Your gender matters only when you are in love and when you are with your lover, yes, your gender matters. You can be a woman or a man, whatever you want to be. The rest of the time, just behave like a human being. Full stop.”

 

P.S. Liked this discussion on feminist identity in Persepolis? Check out Merial’s blog for a discussion on national identity in Persepolis!

 

Works Cited:

“Bookslut.” Bookslut | An Interview with Marjane Satrapi. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2017. <http://www.bookslut.com/features/2004_10_003261.php>.

“Emma Watson Interviews Persepolis Author Marjane Satrapi.” Vogue. Vogue, 01 Aug. 2016. Web. 13 Jan. 2017. <http://www.vogue.com/13462655/emma-watson-interviews-marjane-satrapi/>.

Chute, Hillary. “The Texture of Retracing in Marjane Satrapi’€™s Persepolis.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly 36.1-2 (2008): 92-110. Web.

Miller, Nancy K. “Out of the Family: Generations of Women in Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis.” Life Writing 4.1 (2007): 13-29. Web.

Satrapi, Marjane. The Complete Persepolis. New York: Pantheon, 2007. Print.

Schaffer, Kay, and Sidonie Smith. “Conjunctions: Life Narratives in the Field of Human Rights.” Biography 27.1 (2004): 1-24. Web.

Examining discussions on the “Single Story” and its link to “Stereotype Threat”

In her TEDtalk, novelist Chimamanda Adichie “warns that if we hear only a single story about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstanding.” She highlights this issue by recounting her personal experience of being viewed as uneducated and backwards as a Nigerian by people she encountered in the West. Indeed, cultures and lives comprise of numerous stories, and to rely solely on one set of lens would lead us to a dangerous conclusion of the lives of people we do not fully understand. This concept of the “single story” was taken up for discussion by several of my classmates in their previous blog posts, where they identified either representations of the “single story”, or attempts to counter it, in various settings. In this blog post, I would like to examine their various interpretations of the “single story” and link it to the sociological concept of “stereotype threat” to aid in our understanding of the harms of the “single story” and the importance of asking ourselves: What are we not shown?

The Single Story in various contexts

Anna argues in her blog that Western media is a significant contributor to the single story as a misrepresentation or limited representation of other cultures. She shows how the media does so in the example of the media coverage of Haiti following the devastating earthquake of 2010, as well as the recent (and similar) coverage of Hurricane Matthew. In both situations, Haitians are depicted as “vulnerable people waiting for western aid” and “in need of our aid, unable to improve their own situation without it”. This depiction of Haitians as helpless victims is fuelled by the limited “single story” framed by Western media, which excludes the stories of the Haitian community standing strong and rebuilding together. Anna argues that this depiction is dangerous, as it limits our understanding of other cultures as relying on us for help, which leads to our kind, but blind efforts in helping their cause. In order for us to truly help communities such as Haiti, “we must acknowledge that the “single story” the media has ingrained in our mind about Haiti is not accurate”. Here, we turn to Elena’s blog, where she shows us how Dany Laferriere’s The World Is Moving Around Me provides us with counterhegemonic frames in the wake of the Haiti earthquake. She suggests that Laferriere’s writing is “affected by the negative portrayal of Haiti” by these “single stories”, and “counter[s] that by showing the strength of the people in the midst of a tragic event.” By sharing stories from the perspectives of himself and those who experienced the earthquake with him, Laferriere offers us a different representation of Haiti than that provided by the Western media. He also reminds us that these people exist beyond the earthquake alone by sharing stories of their lives before and after the event. In doing so, Laferriere challenges the perception created by “single stories” of Haitian people living only in disaster and poverty.

Gurveer succinctly summarises the concept of the “single story” as “essentially, the product of stereotypes founded on single sources of information.” Yet, it is important to note that stereotypes alone are not harmful; they are, after all, merely simplified descriptions that we consciously or unconsciously apply to every person in the same category. Everyone is prone to using stereotypes to make quick decisions and intuitive judgements, even if they have good intentions. There is usually some truth in stereotypes, or they wouldn’t work in the first place. The real problem with “single stories” occurs when we rely only on these stereotypes generated by the limited frames provided by the “single stories”. Gurveer applies this concept to the media representation of women – as women are often sexualised, objectified, and presented as “passive and vulnerable” in advertising, the “single story” of women presented in advertising normalises violence against women and desensitises society’s reaction to it.  Thus, women are “not viewed as people, but exist only as possessions belonging to male counterparts.”

Stereotype Threat

Understanding the harm of “single stories” as a result of an overreliance on stereotypes brings us to the concept of “stereotype threat”, introduced by sociologist Claude M. Steele in Whistling Vivaldi. Steele defines “stereotype threat” as “the idea of a situational predicament as a contingency of their group identity, a real threat of judgement or treatment in the person’s environment that went beyond any limitations within.” (59-60) Through his experiments, Steele shows that stereotypes are powerful social constructs that have the ability to influence the performance of people within the group, and this effect is strengthened when they are reminded of their identity and belonging to these groups and stereotypes. For instance, women do poorer on math tests under the stereotype threat that they are worse at math than men. When we identify “single stories” as drawing from and contributing to stereotypes in a cyclical relationship, we see how “single stories” may reinforce the stereotype threat: women feel less self-worth than men; Haitians view themselves as lesser than others even on an even playing field.

Final Thoughts

Through the works of Anna and Gurveer, we see that Adichie’s concept of “single stories” applies to many other media representations beyond Nigeria, such as women and Haiti. And by understanding the harms of “single stories” in the form of stereotype threat, we can better recognise the importance of broadening our lens to other works that challenge these limited frames, through counterhegemonic texts such as that introduced by Elena. When presented with information in the media, we should always remember: What are we not shown?

 

P.S Remember to check out the blog posts by Anna, Elena, and Gurveer!

 

Works Cited:

“The Danger of a Single Story.” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story | TED Talk | TED.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. <https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en>.

Steele, Claude M. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.

Expanding the Sociological Lens: Impression Management in Cockeyed

In my previous blog post, we examined Ryan Knighton’s presentation of his blindness and society’s response to his condition in Cockeyed through the sociological theories of George Herbert Mead, such as the “Self”, “I”, and “Me”. By analysing such instances of Knighton’s and society’s “I” and “Me” in his book, we learnt how Knighton’s identity as a disabled person is shaped by social constructs and stigmas. In this blog, I would like to expand our use of the sociological lens to focus on how disabled individuals such as Knighton are forced to portray themselves to society, so that we can better understand how society tends to generalise and discriminate against the disabled population.

Goffman’s Impression Management

Sociologist Erving Goffman argues that everyone conducts some form of “impression management”, which he explains as “when an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey” (3). Individuals thus have an incentive to carry themselves in certain ways due to how society would respond. In Cockeyed, Knighton finds himself “playing Blind Man for the crowd” (70) by making his cane visible to the public. He further writes, “Hey, look at me! I’m acting like a guy who needs a stick. Even I don’t think I need one right now, I’ll casually swing it around until it seems useful again” (70). Here, Knighton shows that he needs to manage the image of a blind person by using a cane so that society will treat him with extra caution, even when there is no need for his cane.

The dichotomy Knighton faces in presenting himself as a blind man without an audience can be further explained through Goffman’s “dramaturgical perspective”: individuals are always performing for society (Cole). Thus, an individual’s self consists of the “front stage” and “back stage”: in the former, the individual performs a part while aware of a situation or audience, while in the latter, the performance ends when nobody is watching or when the individual thinks nobody is watching (Cole). Knighton faces a dilemma in continuing the “front stage” act of a blind man when no one is watching because that is his “back stage”, where he should be free from societal expectations and drop the performance. Knighton questions this issue when he asks, “If nobody’s around, and everything is safe, how does somebody enjoy a stick?” (70). Indirectly, he is using a sociological lens to highlight the dichotomy between the front and back stage.

Norm Breaching and Deviance

In Cockeyed, Knighton also describes his friend Jane’s impression management of her deafness, albeit in a different way. By concealing her hearing aids, Jane presented herself as a person free of disabilities, which she preferred. However, rather than help her be more accepted by their bar friends, Jane “inevitably felt outside the group” (88). Ironically, one could argue that had Jane presented herself as a deaf person instead, the group would have been more accommodating and inclusive of her. Instead, her concealment of her deafness as an identity excludes her from the group. This can be understood as a form of deviance: actions that violate formal and informal cultural norms (also known as norm breaching), which in turn lead to some form of punishment. In Jane’s situation, by not conforming to the norm of presenting one’s disability, she ends up being excluded from conversations as a punishment as others cannot react accordingly.

Final Thoughts

By studying the different ways Knighton and Jane are treated for presenting their identity of disability differently, we can see how society forces disabled people to perform their disability if they want to be treated equally. If they conceal it, such as in Jane’s case, or if their disabilities are simply not visible or obvious, they risk being punished by society through exclusion or lack of accommodation, as society has generalised expectations of the disabled and discriminates against those who fall outside of these views. Yet, Knighton’s narrative shows us that the impairments of disabled people can be very different. As such, they should have the right to present it however they choose, and society should learn not to discriminate against these choices.

Further Readings

The idea of invisible disabilities is expanded upon in Anna’s blog, where she highlights that people with invisible disabilities face an additional stigma of skepticism, as society doubts their condition and assume that they are looking for special treatment.

The examples used in this blog are also explored, in conjunction with Jillayna Adamson’s experience as a deaf person, in Gurneet’s blog where she argues that society has a common perception that disabled persons are “ugly” and “look unpleasing”.

Works Cited:

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Print.

Knighton, Ryan. Cockeyed: A Memoir. New York: Public Affairs, 2006. Print.

Cole, Nicki Lisa. “What’s the Difference Between Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior?” About.com Education. N.p., 20 Sept. 2016. Web. 07 Nov. 2016. <http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/fl/Goffmans-Front-Stage-and-Back-Stage-Behavior.htm>.

Adamson, Jillayna. “‘But You Don’t Look Disabled… ‘” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 07 Nov. 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillayna-adamson/but-you-dont-look-disabled_b_6208986.html>.

Presentation of the Self in Cockeyed: A Sociological Perspective

In his disability memoir Cockeyed, Ryan Knighton details his experiences with love, travel, work, and loss as he descends into blindness. Through Knighton’s interactions with society as a blind person, we gain insight on how society perceives, acts, and reacts to Knighton’s disability. At the same time, we see how Knighton has to present himself to society due to his blindness and the expectations that come with it.

The “I” and the “Me”

The presentation of the self as a result of society’s expectations is best understood through American sociologist George Herbert Mead’s theory of the “Self”, which can be attributed to two components: the “I” and the “Me” (Mead 320). According to Mead, the “Me” comprises of the socialised aspect of an individual, which refers to the expectations and attitudes of society that an individual internalises. On the other hand, the “I” refers to the individual’s responses and actions as a result of these values he/she has internalised from the “Me”. Essentially, the “Me” tells an individual how to act and respond as the “I”.

In Cockeyed, Knighton’s “Me” tells him how people recognise and respond to him as a blind man. For instance, when he first uses his cane, Knighton starts to recognise the various ways people respond when they encounter a blind person on walkways: Some are stumped and remain rooted in his way, while others panic and sidestep at the last moment (72). These expected responses come to comprise Knighton’s “Me”, and allows his “I” to react accordingly. For Knighton, he finds this amusing and “too fun to cause that much trouble” (72) and as such, uses his cane to elicit such responses from society. Likewise, Knighton’s use of his cane allows the public to identify him as a blind person, and this tells his “Me” that people will take extra caution around him, and as a result, his “I” is able to “take less care” (73) and “take more risks” (74).

Cockeyed also explores the “Me” and “I” of society with regards to disability and disabled people. The actions of society’s “I” helps us understand the attitudes assumed by society’s “Me”. When Knighton narrates his story of being mugged, and then let off with an apology when the robbers discover that he is blind (94), he shows how society’s “Me” sees blind people as weak and deserving of pity. In another story, Knighton’s experience with a blind man’s wife’s over-eagerness to help shows how the “Me” views blind people as helpless (227). Through these experiences, Knighton finds society’s attitudes towards the disabled troubling: in assuming all of them as weak and helpless, society inevitability discriminates and marginalises disabled people, even if it were for good intentions. Knighton, in his story about being mugged, comments that he felt a loss of dignity because “Discrimination feels like discrimination, even when it’s for the best”. He also writes “I wanted to lose. I wanted to lose like everybody else in order to keep that bit of dignity” (94). Knighton shows how society’s “Me” has internalised disabled people as second class, and challenges that this notion has to change as it is discriminatory.

Final Thoughts

Instances of the “I” and the “Me” are found throughout Cockeyed. By looking out for these presentations of the self from the perspective of a disabled person and the society that acts in response to the disabled, we can better understand how hidden rules and behavioural norms are shaped by the society around us. Knighton’s narrative offers us a rare and much-needed perspective that helps us understand how constraints of disability are often a result of social constructs. With this knowledge, we can work towards eliminating these stigmas to better accommodate the disabled.

 

P.S Learn more about Mead’s “I” and “Me” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

P.P.S Check out Merial’s blog where she explores how Knighton’s disability memoir challenges the marginalising attitude of society.

 

 

References:

Mead, George Herbert. “Self.” Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. By Scott Appelrouth and Laura Desfor. Edles. Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge, 2008. 311-21. Print.

Knighton, Ryan. Cockeyed: A Memoir. New York: Public Affairs, 2006. Print.

Aboulafia, Mitchell. “George Herbert Mead.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 13 Apr. 2008. Web. 16 Oct. 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/#IMe>.

Malala: Nobel Peace Prize Winner or Western Propaganda?

On Goodreads, I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban currently holds a 4.03/5-star rating from over 170,000 ratings and nearly 12,000 reviews at the time of writing. While it is important to study reviews, for they are a form of epitext (elements outside a book), which Gérard Genette argues can affect how a book is interpreted and received by various reading communities (Smith and Watson), rather than studying how majority of readers are reading the book, I would like to explore how critics of the book are reading it. After all, it is easy to find good reviews (74% of reviews are 4 stars and above) about the book talking about how “inspirational” and “powerful” Malala’s story is.

reviews

Book ratings on Goodread.

However, by exploring what critics dislike about the book or the author, and why, we can better understand what Malala’s story lacks or misrepresents, or even why some critics see her story as a form of Western propaganda. To do this, I will be looking at one-star reviews found on Goodread.

Misrepresentation

One key criticism of Malala’s life narrative is the misrepresentation or exaggeration of the situation in Pakistan. In a review by Muhammed Syed, he writes,

“Most alarming thing for me was that Pakistani’s(sic) oppress women. This could be attributed to rural areas but not at all applicable to cities or urban towns. We have doctors, teachers, accountants, nurses, air force and commercial pilots.”

In another review by Ayesha, who in response to a line from Malala’s book (‘I agree that female teachers should educate girls,’ he said. ‘But first we need to educate our girls so they can become teachers!), says,

“Anyone living in Pakistan can see how false this statement is since majority of the teachers are women here.”

In both reviews, there is a common sentiment of anger and shock at how Pakistan is being portrayed as backward, oppressive, and discriminatory, which the reviewers claim is overblown and exaggerated. It would appear that from their point of view, Malala’s descriptions are either false, exaggerated, or over-generalised for the entirety of Pakistan solely from her own experiences in her town. This brings about questions on the authenticity of Malala’s book, and whether her retelling of her stories were shaped in such a way to garner a more sympathetic attention from readers, particularly from the West. This is especially so when we consider that her book was not her effort alone, but in collaboration with a British journalist, Christina Lamb, who is listed as a co-author. In her review, Guardian writer Fatima Bhutto too questions the purpose of the book when she writes,

“here in Pakistan anger towards this ambitious young campaigner is as strong as ever. Amid the bile, there is a genuine concern that this extraordinary girl’s courageous and articulate message will be colonised by one power or other for its own insidious agendas. She is young and the forces around her are strong and often sinister when it comes to their designs on the global south.”

Arrogance

Another criticism of Malala’s story is how cocky or arrogant Malala comes off in her descriptions of herself, which critics found as a turn-off. In the same review by Ayesha, she comments,

“We don’t need to know about how high and mighty and how different from every girl you are in like every chapter.”

In another review by Colleen, she writes,

“Much of what other people were saying was how great Malala was. The book is filled with a nauseating amount of self-praise and humble brags. Oh, she is always quick to point out that other people are the ones saying those things.”

When readers find that the author of an autobiography comes across as arrogant and cocky, they become less invested in the story the author has to tell. As a result, readers may be less receptive of Malala’s intended message in her book, as the book had become a weak medium to transmit this message. In fact, Colleen is supportive of Malala’s message and cause, but instead finds the book a poor means of promoting it, as she writes,

“Let me start by saying that what Malala has lived through and accomplished is incredible. I do not want my low rating of this book to imply that I am in any way unsupportive of her cause… But this book is so poorly written that it seems to counteract Malala’s cause. As harsh as it sounds, while reading this book I kept wondering how she became famous from her writing if it was all as passionless and choppy as this book.”

Final Thoughts

When we consider that Malala’s message may have been poorly received due to her descriptions being interpreted as arrogance, distancing the reader and the writer also causes more scepticism to Malala’s story, which exacerbates the first criticism of her story being exaggerated. And it is this possible misrepresentation of her story that has a huge influence when we question the purpose of the book: While Malala may have wished to share her story and stand for freedom and education, the book itself may have been edited and published for the sake of demonising the East and praising the West instead. And it is this perceived purpose that may explain why some critics see Malala, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, instead as Malala – propaganda of the West.

 

P.S. Check out Andrew’s blog where he discusses how Malala’s book is received in Pakistan.

 

References:

Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2001. Print.

“I Am Malala.” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17851885-i-am-malala>.

Syed, Muhammad. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/739633268?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1>.

Ayesha. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 09 June 2016. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1498107513?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1>.

Colleen. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 01 Oct. 2016. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1711186955?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1>.

Bhutto, Fatima. “I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai – Review.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/malala-yousafzai-fatima-bhutto-review>.

The True Story Of Anne Frank

The story of Anne Frank is a well-known and simple one. It is not this historical story that I will be examining in this post. Instead, I will be examining the concept of identity and self-representation in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. Unlike Rigoberta Menchú, Malala Yousafzai, and Olaudah Equiano’s autobiographies, “The Diary of a Young Girl” was published posthumously. This meant that Anne Frank herself had no say in which manner she wanted to be portrayed in her own memoirs.

 

Diaries – The Most Authentic Form of Self-Representation?

 

Anne Frank’s autobiography, “The Diary of a Young Girl”, as the title suggests, takes the form of diary entries, which recorded both the musings of her daily life as well as her innermost thoughts and dreams. In her first diary entry, Anne Frank writes:

“I hope I will be able to confide everything to you, as I have never been able to confide in anyone, and I hope you will be a great source of comfort and support” (Frank)

It is clear that for Anne, the form of a diary provides a platform for her to record and reflect her true feelings, thoughts, and expressions, with no underlying motive or purpose. Diaries might be seen as the most authentic form of self-representation, as it is addressed to the self and a highly personal object.

Yet this is not the absolute case for Anne Frank’s diary. In 1944, following a request on the radio for diaries written during the war to be kept and published after the war, Anne decides to rewrite her diary. This results in two versions known as A-Version, the original diary of writings up till her last one in 1 August 1944, and B-Version, Anne’s rewrite that consists of multiple edits, omissions, and additions that she made up till March 1944 (Stichting).

From this, we can see that Anne Frank had engaged in self-editing and censorship in anticipation of being viewed as a writer. She wished to be seen as a more mature writer and to hide the more emotional, childish side of her that A-Version represented.

For instance,

“in the A-Version Anne tells about a psychological wound her mother inflicted on her several years ago. It still hurts, when she thinks of it. In the B-Version she eliminates the whole episode” (Stichting).

This challenges the original idea of a diary as the most authentic form of self-representation, as by rewriting her diary, Anne herself selectively chooses how she wishes to be represented in her book. As such, we can say that A-Version was the most genuine version of Anne at the time of writing, while B-Version was the version which Anne wished for the world to view her. However, that does not necessarily mean that A-Version is the absolute true version and B-Version was a falsity, but rather two different versions of different time periods of the same person; after all, who is to say Anne Frank, the child of the past, was “truer” than Anne Frank, the writer of the present?

 

More Versions and More Complications

 

The idea of multiple versions of Anne Frank is further complicated by the text which the world first comes to know her. After all, “The Diary of a Young Girl” was published posthumously by Otto Frank, Anne’s father. More importantly, Otto Frank had created a new version, known as C-Version, from the two texts, A-Version and B-Version, that he had in his possession (Stichting). By carefully selecting parts of each text, Otto Frank had effectively added a level of mediation and created a new identity of Anne: Not an emotional child, or a maturing writer, but a daughter he lost whose complex feelings he was trying to comprehend. And it is this identity that the world first meets Anne, and loves and empathises with.

Some might argue that this makes Otto’s compilation the truest version of Anne, for after all this was the version which first gained widespread popularity. Yet this brings up issues of authenticity, especially in the case of the Anne Frank Fonds listing Otto Frank as a co-author (Carvajal). While largely a copyright move, this suggests that “The Diary of a Young Girl” was not the work of Anne Frank alone (Tricoire). And if that were true, then it would no longer be possible to suggest that this was an accurate representation of Anne herself, and calls into question the authenticity of the diary as a medium of self-representation.

 

Final Thoughts

 

If Anne Frank had been alive at the publishing of her own diary, which version would she have used? It becomes obvious that she would have mostly used B-Version, seeing as those were written with the intent of publishing in mind. Perhaps she would have made further edits after the war. But more importantly, would this identity of a mature, budding writer have gained the international fame and touched so many hearts as the identity of an innocent, hopeful girl as curated by Otto Frank that we have all learnt to love and empathise with?

In the end, perhaps the true story of Anne Frank is best interpreted by reading all three versions to understand not only how she felt at the time of writing, but also her hopes of becoming a writer, and her father’s ideal image of the perfect daughter that he lost.

 

References:

“Anne Frank – Anne Frank”. Annefrank.ch. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Biography.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Amazon.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Carvajal, Doreen. “Anne Frank’S Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ In Copyright Move”. Nytimes.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Frank, Anne et al. The Diary Of A Young Girl. Print.

Stichting, Anne. “Anne Frank’s Hostpry: The Different Versions Of Anne’S Diary”. Anne Frank House. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Stichting, Anne. “The Story Of Anne Frank: Anne Frank’s Diary Is Published”. Anne Frank House. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Stichting, Anne. “The Story Of Anne Frank: Reception Of The Diary Of Anne Frank In America”. Anne Frank House. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Stichting, Anne. “The Story Of Anne Frank: Taken Seriously As A Writer?”. Anne Frank House. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.