Author Archives: priya chacko

The controversial episode of Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, succinctly titled Saudi Arabia, is filled with questions about the media’s representation of Islam and common stereotypes associated with Islamophobia. The focus of the episode is on Mohammad Bin Salman, or MBS, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and his suspected involvement in the killing of the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. Minhaj tells the events like a narrative with a backstory of the ‘character’, MBS, followed by the change in the media’s depictions of him, from his rise to power up until Khashoggi’s murder. It seems as if the media’s positive outlook on the prince is largely due to his appearance of being a progressive leader with more democratic values than his predecessors.

One instance where this is evident is in MBS’ decision to remove the ban on women’s freedom to drive. His actions appear to disprove the trope of Islam being a sexist religion, thus winning America’s approval. Minhaj devotes part of his segment to this story, using it to show the perspective adopted by Western media of MBS being “the reformer the Arab world needed” (Minhaj). Directly after mentioning MBS’ removal of the ban, Minhaj plays a clip of a Saudi woman rapping about her newly regained freedom to drive. He uses this video mainly to joke about its low quality, but he takes the opportunity to state his support for women’s rights, even if just in passing. His comment is undoubtedly there to make a statement against the notion that all Muslims are sexist. This is another way Minhaj addresses the trope. Additionally, the inclusion of the video might serve to comment on the absurdity of the ban in the first place. Later on, Minhaj mentions how MBS is responsible for the imprisonment of female activists who fought against the driving ban and remain in prison even after the lifting of the ban. This exposes an interesting contrast. While on the surface it appears that MBS is breaking the stereotype, upon closer inspection he is actually reinforcing it. Minhaj concludes by explaining that because Saudi Arabia is central to the Islamic faith, Muslims across the world become unjustly associated with the country’s actions.

I think that Minhaj’s case goes beyond questioning MBS and whether Islam is sexist and is actually meant to respond to another trope: the idea of Islam as a monolithic religion. By simply sharing his perspective as someone within the Muslim community, Minhaj does effectively challenge this trope as he makes it clear that many Muslims feel Saudi Arabia “does not reflect” their “values” (Minhaj).

Minhaj, Hasan, and Prashanth Venkataramanujam. “Saudi Arabia.” Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, season 1, episode 1, Netflix, 28 Oct. 2018.

Michael Nicoli Yahgulanaas’ Bone Box struck me as a particularly unique artwork at the Museum of Anthropology partly because of its aesthetic, and partly because of what it represents. Located in a hallway adjacent to the museum’s Great Hall, Bone Box consists of twelve wooden panels, which comprise one unified image, that are mounted on a metal frame. The brightly coloured imagery of the painting depicts various structures, nature, and mythical creatures. On the right is a handle that, when pulled, rotates the panels to reveal a message written across the top of the panels. It reads, “A stack of plywood trays built to contain fragments of everyone’s culture.”

Interestingly, despite the image being broken up across the panels, there are no neat borders. Instead, the imagery often occupies multiple panels. I realize that this may simply be a consequence of dividing a painting into 12 equal squares, however the result contributes to its themes. The picture as a whole has a very symmetrical composition, with the broad lines and large shapes being mirrored in the right and left halves of the painting. However, the details within these shapes are distinct from one another. If Bone Box is an act of figurative repatriation, it seems that Yahgulanaas’ redefinition of Indigenous identity would be as a unified community with space to include many distinct cultures and communities.

Furthermore, the artwork is an invitation to participate. It does not rely on extensive prior knowledge about Indigenous peoples, but rather is an approachable piece that can be easily appreciated and interpreted. Bone Box’s participatory nature can be seen in a literal sense in the interactive element of the handle, which encourages viewers to physically engage with the artwork. Metaphorically, it is an invitation to participate and “get involved” in Indigenous culture. It seems that to Yahgulanaas, Bone Box represents not only the culture and tradition of Indigenous peoples, but “everyone’s culture” as the artwork’s message states. For this reason, I would argue that Yahgulanaas does not aim to achieve Kramer’s idea of figurative repatriation. Although it does include the artist’s understanding of Indigenous culture and is displayed for the viewing of a western demographic, Bone Box goes beyond merely representing Indigenous culture to inviting others to come and see and take part in it.

Works Cited:

Yahgulanaas, Michael Nicoli. Bone Box. 2007, Museum of Anthropology, Vancouver.

Kramer, Jennifer. Figurative Repatriation: First Nations ‘Artist-Warriors’ Recover, Reclaim, and Return Cultural Property through Self-Definition. Journal of Material Culture, 2004, pp. 161-182

Knowing about the debate definitely caused me to engage with Dean’s article differently. Since I knew I would be arguing against Dean’s claim, my goal was to identify the missing evidence and unsupported assumptions in her case, in addition to understanding her perspective. As I read and reflected on the article, it was very clear that Dean viewed social media’s role in sociopolitical change as having a settled conclusion.

However, it became evident through the debate that there is not only one, or even two, angles from which to view the issue. My role as a presenter of our group’s rebuttal required me to look at social media’s affect on change from as many perspectives as I could come up with. As the opposition to the idea that social media inhibits sociopolitical change, my group had to first learn Dean’s side of the argument before we could formulate our side of it. Even after all the preparation, there were still points brought up during the debates that I had not considered beforehand.

Observation of both debates reinforced the multi-faceted nature of our subject. Although both debates centered around the same general topic, each one focused on slightly different aspects of the controversy. For example, those of us discussing Dean’s claim focused specifically on the impact of media messages and online activism. Whereas the dialogue on Dean’s perspective focused on the reasons for social media’s effectiveness (or lack thereof), the group debating Castells’ case looked at social media as a tool. The side upholding Castells’ argument chose to emphasize how communication platforms can be a helpful tool, particularly in revolutions, while the opposition pointed out how such platforms could be taken control of to suppress people. The examples used in both debates ranged from more recent news to historical events – like the Arab Spring uprisings and the massacre at Tiananmen Square – and from political events to cultural trends – such as the 2016 US Presidential Election and the ALS ice bucket challenge.

As social media has evolved, so has its usage and society’s behaviors along with it. Inevitably, the continual rise of social media will have implications, both good and bad, for our governments as well as society at large. Whether social media inhibits or enables sociopolitical change is a question that’s far from resolved. However, by examining the issue from every angle, perhaps we can find the key to making social media indisputably conducive to change.

Sources:

Dean, Jodi. “Ch. 1. Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism .” Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics, Duke University Press, 2009, pp. 19–48.

Castells, Manuel. “The Egyptian Revolution.” Networks of Outrage and Hope , Polity, 2012, pp. 54–94.

The firing of director James Gunn this past summer points out a unique capability of social media. In July, the director, who was slated to direct Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy 3, was removed from the project after some objectionable tweets came to light. The tweets, which were posted nearly ten years ago, contained inappropriate jokes about rape and pedophilia. Social media played a decidedly large role in this incident, highlighting a new usage of such platforms.

Although James Gunn’s tweets were inexcusably vulgar, a controversy was formed on the fact that it took place so long ago. After being let go, Gunn promptly responded with an apology, where he articulated that he was not the same person as when he posted the tweets. It’s impossible to definitively gauge Gunn’s level of sincerity, and perhaps that’s why social media’s ability to dig up the past is so troubling. Because Gunn’s words were the source of the problem, the credibility of his subsequent comments was damaged.

It wasn’t long before conspiracy theorist, Mark Cernovich, claimed responsibility for being behind the Gunn incident. Supposedly, these types of social media attacks on right-leaning public figures led him to employ the same strategy against politically left celebrities. Cernovich was quoted saying:

“I enjoy just the raw human visceral reaction of jumping into the arena and just swinging the hammer and seeing what is left over afterwards. Twitter is just modern-day gladiatorial combat.”

As he suggests, social media has introduced a new type of warfare. Social media creates a timeline of a person’s life on a scale that never existed before. Even the most careful record-keeping cannot rival the level of permanence of social media. Comments posted online are public and have a wide audience—unlike most personal records—so there is a higher number of witnesses, increasing the likelihood of those words being remembered and sometimes saved.

Additionally, no other documentation captures the minutia of day-to-day life. People tend to use social media in a way that reflects the now: how they’re feeling, what they’re doing, what they’re thinking about in the present. As a result, when used impulsively, social media can be a record of a person’s worst moments and, as Cernovich demonstrated, even when the comments are deleted they can be recovered. This ability to reveal the past can be beneficial, such as when it’s used to bring a criminal to justice, or it can be used for personal gain, like in James Gunn’s situation. Regardless of how we interpret these events, at very least we should be compelled to reflect on our own use of social media and the impact it has on others.

The Logan Paul video was possibly the most controversial internet incident of 2018. For the uninformed, Logan Paul is a YouTube celebrity, who is well-known for his video blogs. While traveling, Logan toured a forest that happened to be a common site of suicide attempts. During the tour, his group discovered a dead body. Filming the tour for his blog, Logan, as the New York Times puts it, “[began] to engage in the kinds of behavior most familiar to his viewers: exaggerated reaction shots and nervous laughter. The tone soon [became] more antic as Mr. Paul and the others appear[ed] to try to lighten the mood.”

When Logan posted the video blog, it was met with extreme backlash. Realizing his mistake, he released a written apology that evening. The next day, he removed the video from YouTube and posted an apology video. Opinions on the apology video have been divided, with it currently having 1.6 million likes and 2.2 million dislikes. Within these two groups, a host of opinions are represented.

Perhaps a better way to classify these opinions would be in the categories presented by 20^th century cultural theorist, Stuart Hall. In his article, Encoding, Decoding, Hall, introduces three different positions from which an audience can determine meaning (“decode”). The “dominant-hegemonic position” tends to agree with the intended meaning of the sender, the “negotiated position” accepts some elements of the dominant position while challenging others, and the “oppositional position” maintains a viewpoint in disagreement with the sender’s meaning.

Obviously, in the case of Logan Paul’s apology, the intent was to offer acknowledgment and repentance for his actions. Those ‘decoding’ from a dominant position would likely accept the apology as sincere and contrite. They might even sympathize with Paul’s shame and regret.

A person taking a negotiated position might also view the video with a degree of understanding, but would likely not dismiss his misconduct so quickly. They would probably recognize the unretractable effect of Paul’s actions, but appreciate his efforts to remedy the situation.

In an oppositional position, one might capitalize on the permanence of the damage and the inability of an apology to compensate. Additionally, one might question Paul’s sincerity and doubt his “promise to be better.”

However, these three views are forced to agree that nothing can be done to change the past. While his behavior shouldn’t be overlooked, there’s nothing more Logan Paul can do. Part of being human is making mistakes. Sometimes, all that can be done is to apologize and learn from the experience. Hopefully, this will have taught us to carefully consider what we share and the motive behind it – it could be the difference in preventing the next online catastrophe.