Over the course of the year, ASTU was a course that studied marginalized groups in the context of popular media discourse as well as in archives. By thinking about the representation of marginalized groups in relations to archival material, this allowed me to think critically about the role of archives and how power relations are connected to them. As the year progressed, I developed a new perspective on archives and how they are important to the representation of both dominant and marginalized populations. However, by looking at articles such as “Of Things Said and Unsaid: Power, Archival Silences, and Power in Silence” by Carter, and Jiwani and Young’s “Missing and Murdered Women: Reproducing Marginality in News Discourse”, I was able to use Carter’s explanation of feminist “natural” vs “unnatural silences” to consider how there are “silences” within the media as well. Carter explains natural silences as ones that are often chosen for personal reflection. Natural silences  can be contrasted with unnatural silences that often occur through the use of covert or overt power (228). Using this conceptual outline as a way to think about marginalized groups has allowed me to further understand and consider how and why certain groups are marginalized – for whom does the oppression of others benefit?

While the idea of oppression in society is one that I cannot readily address, I can use power structures to describe silences in archives and compare these silences to the discourse about marginalized groups in the media to demonstrate how disregarded or oppressed groups receive this status. Carter explains that unnatural silences are found in archives; women, for example, do not always receive equal representation in archives if they are listed under the male family name. Therefore, the seeming lack of women in family archives due to their documents being listed under a significant male other’s name suggests that these women are unnaturally silenced. While these women receive representation, this representation is unequal in comparison to their male counterparts because of how power structures in the archives function. The assertion of power in archives can thus marginalize groups in this setting; but using the idea of natural and unnatural silences, can populations also be marginalized in the context of the media?

Jiwani and Young use the concept of framing to argue that powerful groups in the media are able to marginalize others by depicting people in the light of their choosing. To demonstrate how the media frames certain people, Schell and Rodriguez analyze how a wheelchair tennis player, Hope Lewellen, is depicted as a “supercrip” (131) for overcoming her “tragic” (129) accident that resulted her requiring a wheelchair. Rather than focusing on how her personal life has or has not been impacted by this accident, CBS portrays Lewellen as heroic for overcoming her disability, rather than focusing on the many other aspects of her life. The media’s focus on her a disability discredits Lewellen’s chance at representing herself – with the media embodying her as a disabled person, her public identity is limited in this way. Lewellen is categorized as “disabled”, rather than anything else that contributes to her identity and this disallows her to be portrayed or considered in other ways. Carter’s explanation of unnatural silences may be another way of thinking about how the media can be oppressive. In Lewellen’s case, the media simplifies her identity into only one aspect of her life, which therefore silences Lewellen in that she is publicly represented only by her disability. Using Schell and Rodriguez’s analysis of Hope Lewellen’s representation in the media, it is shown that the media uses framing as a way of silencing or limiting groups, which can only further marginalize people.

Since September, I have developed the tools to analyze power relations and marginality through our discussions and assignments in ASTU. But more importantly, by applying the frameworks we have learned in class to situations that I have personally considered myself (eg. The lack of media coverage for the Paralympics in North America), I have developed a greater understanding of how marginalized groups become marginalized. This greater comprehension can result in new ways of addressing issues and addressing oppressed groups. Although these are heavy topics of discussion, establishing and contributing to the conversation on important subjects like power and marginalization can help shift popular discourse to further address these issues.

Works Cited

Affleck, John.  “Why do the Paralympics get so little media attention in the United States?”, The Conversation, www.theconversation.com/why-do-the-paralympics-get-so-little-media-attention-in-the-united-states-65205. Accessed 07 April 2017.

Carter, Rodney. “Of Things Said and Unsaid: Power, Archival Silences, and Power in Silence.” Archivaria, vol. 61, 2006, pp. 215-33, www.archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/viewFile/12541/13687. Accessed 07 April 2017.

Jiwani, Yasmin and Mary Lynn Young. “Missing and Murdered Women: Reproducing Marginality in News Discourse.” Canadian Journal of Communication vol. 31, no. 4, 2006, pp. 895-917. Accessed 07 April 2017.

Rodriguez, Stephanie and Schell, Lea Ann. “Subverting Bodies/Ambivalent Representations: Media Analysis of Olympian Hope Lewellen.” Sociology of Sport Journal, vol. 18, 2001, pp. 127-135, www.journals.humankinetics.com/doi/pdf/10.1123/ssj.18.1.127. Accessed 08 April 2017.