#all the while discussing generational trauma and criticising from time to time our society | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eloisevisualculture · 3 years

Text

the hypersexualisation of young girls in the media

The abuse and use of children for an adult’s personal gain is an issue that has always existed, regardless of the existence of the internet and the media. But the propagation of this platform (social media, entertainment or fashion magazines) has lead to a whole new sets of problems like the hyper-sexualisation of children, particularly young girls. The dictionary Larousse defines “hyper-sexualisation as “in society, the fact of giving an increasingly important place to sexuality, by multiplying references to it in the public space (media, advertising)”. In some cases this has been so normalised that criticism of these portrayals can be described as purist and excessive. What is the consequence of hyper-sexualisation of children in social media? The purpose of this essay will be to discuss the way the different ways children are sexualised in media and advertising and the effects it can have on their lives. It is not uncommon to hear the phrase “they grow up to fast nowadays” when referring to the youngest generations, as a result of their exposure to the media. Of course if the only thing young girls had to fear from acting like ‘grownups” was wearing makeup earlier in life, then there would be less cause for concern. Unfortunately, the dangers always revolves back to struggle of the ill- intentioned praying on the weak and easily influenced, and the continued danger of a patriarchal mentality passed down through generations. In the highly publicised fashion industry for instance, that holds a great influence on our society, there have been many instances of very young girls chosen as models, and put into adult life contexts. A notorious example is the 2011 edition of Vogue Paris, who published photographs of Thylane Lourby-blondeau, a 10 year old model who was pictures, in revealing clothes, makeup and jewellery, lying on a bed and looking at the camera with a sultry air.

It sparked a controversy and brought up the issue of the hyper-sexualisation children. Many people and parents stated that it was inappropriate and dangerous to picture a young child in an undeniably sensual light, and that directing a shoot to appeal to post-pubescent men, while the child was too young to understand the implications. Thylane Loubry-Blondeau, on the cover of Vogue Paris, 2011, January edition Others defended it simply as ‘art’, the portrayal of a girl playing dress up, which ultimately does little to justify morals. Art was also the excuse Irina UNESCO gave after photographing and publishing albums of her daughter in sexual, pornographic scene, also nude, from the age of 4 to 11. In an interview with the purple magazine, Ionesco reflects on how her mother used her for years for her own personal gain and career, her works being widely known because they were so scandalous; “She would put make-up on me when I was a child. I slept very little, didn’t go to school. She took erotic photographs of me and made me act in erotic films, of which I was the subject. It wasn’t just about the photos — her entire approach was abusive. Sometimes she would send me to other photographers. She’d say: “You’re going to see such and such a photographer. It’s not great, but you’re going anyway.” It was becoming very dangerous.”(Ionesco). One of the disturbing things about the work Irina published about her daughter is that it is still available to purchase today, and even praised for it’s artistic value.

Eva Ionesco in her adult years has described in detail the “loss of childhood” and the life long effects she had to deal with from being sexualised and abused from such a young age “You were thrown into a world of adults, of nightlife, sex, and art very young — from the age of 12 or 13. And in one of the most liberal periods we’ve seen so far in terms of morals.” She went on to write a film inspired by her childhood and relationship with her mother. As with everything, it is important to avoid blind censure, and condemn anything without a deeper understanding. It is very easy to doggedly pursue a cause and become set in our opinions, and not allow freedom of expression to well meaning individuals, if their children are understanding and willing participants. The artist Sally Man was criticised for publishing nude pictures of her children. They were done as a celebration and a chronicle of her children’s evolution, childhood and slow progression to adulthood, and were done with the children’s understanding and consent, as was made clear in an article in the New York Times “The collaboration of the children in their mother’s work is apparent to anyone who spends time in their company. They are impish, argumentative participants, not robots. (When a photographer asked them what kind of portrait of their mother should accompany this article, they shouted, “Shoot her naked, shoot her naked.” She did.)”(2015).

Sally Mann put the safety and wellbeing of her children above personal gain, choosing to publish her photo album ‘Immediate Family”, when the children would fully be aware of their choice. “I thought the book could wait 10 years, when the kids won’t be living in the same bodies. They’ll have matured and they’ll understand the implications of the pictures. I unilaterally decided.” (2015). One of the effects of the explosion of social media, and their ease of access, is that young children know have the ability to not only watch content that might not be suitable for age but to create content themselves. On Tiktok for instance, there is a lot of content based on visual, and sensual appeal, like women doing suggestive dances in revealing clothing. Women who are old enough have the experience and sense to be fully aware, and take distance themselves from the comments, they are doing it for their own enjoyment. Young girls watch these videos and see the adulation and attention these influencers get, and want to try it out for themselves. Dr Elaine Kasket explains this system on TikTok is artificially amplifying a natural phenomenon. Unfortunately, the same ease of access that allowed the children to post these videos also means that the people who want to abuse them can see them too. Not only do they write inappropriate sexual comment in the comments, or encourage more extreme behaviour for their own benefit, they also get in touch with the minors, and message them privately. Dr Kasket explanation is well illustrated by the 2020 film Cuties shows the traumas and effects of young girls lives governed by social media. This film portrays the journey of a young eleven year old Amy, as she joins a self organised preeteen dance group and is confronted with a whole new world of social media, pressures to be sexual and grown up.

"Teenagers are naturally interested in taking risks and they’re naturally interested in finding out about sex and The sexualisation of young girls is an issue which can be confused, but is also linked to their natural desire to imitate their mother, or older siblings. Every single child has tried at some point to act like their parents. But with the rise and ease of access of social media (instagram, TikTok), children have access to whole new world, and many try to imitate what they see on these platforms. discovering themselves as sexual beings and exploring that. "They are open to flattery, they are open to seduction, they are open to the verification they get from the hearts they get and the likes they get”. (2020, The Sun)Unfortunately, the same ease of access that allowed the children to post these videos also means that the people who want to abuse them can see them too. Not only do they write inappropriate sexual comment in the comments, or encourage more extreme behaviour for their own benefit, they also get in touch with the minors, and message them privately. Dr Kasket explanation is well illustrated by the 2020 film Cuties shows the traumas and effects of young girls lives governed by social media. This film portrays the journey of a young eleven year old Amy, as she joins a self organised preeteen dance group and is confronted with a whole new world of social media, pressures to be sexual and grown up. Through their imitation of sexualised adult women on the media, young girls inherit patriarchal and misogynistic ideals that superficial beauty determines their worth.The child beauty pageants are intensely popular in America, and raise a lot of money for charity. They parade toddler and young children in false nails, high heels, heavy makeup and heavy wigs, and are trained like performing animals to smile, pose and wave at the camera.

Naturally, many people argue that the simple fact of wearing makeup does not affect the girls in the slightest, and while that is true on the surface levels, there is much more than meets the eye. By dressing them up in all these gowns, and covering them in makeup and accessories to make them look “prettier”, the young girls are being taught that their natural appearance is not enough, and moreover that they need all these additional to get praise and win in life.

These little girls might enjoy looking “ like a princess”, but they are also adopting restrictive and superficial beauty ideals, and learning the all importance of appearance. Naturally, it is important to avoid completely vilifying pageants, they are not always the traumatic experience described by anti pageants or even shown behind the scenes pageants show. In her article for The Cut Goode collects the testimonies of other pageant stars and they are a mixed bag. Some describe that they have fond memories of competing, as ' bonding experience with their mother. An other used the platform to raise awareness about suicide, after her mother took her own life when she was 10 years old.But most often pageant are for the parents gain, and while women and mothers are often the ones organising them, they are, unknowingly or not transmitting the pressures of performative femininity to their daughters. Perpetuating a patriarchal and misogynist mindset in which Women must prioritise their appearance above all else, as the only thing giving them value.

And this cult of appearance and the emphasis on changing your appearance too fit the standards is the reason why eating disorders are so common in young girls and women. It could be argued that this is not the same as sexualisation of young girls, but beauty ideals and sexualisation are often intrinsically linked, especially if children are trying to abide to rules set by adults. While this essay has been essentially focussed on young girls, because they are the most targeted and at risk, the sexualisation and perpetuation of beauty ideals gives a toxic example to a future generation of men. Young boys are taught from a young age that pretty girls must look a certain way.

Conclusion:The sexualisation of children is a topic that is heavily discussed, by those against it and those who deny it’s existence or effects. The fact remains that sexualisation along ever occurs for an adult’s personal gain, or benefit.Little girls want to be pretty and attractive, but it is rarely for themselves.Admiring and wanting to be an adult is the most natural thing in the world, it is just tragic that they incorporate toxic ideals of femininity and beauty at the same time.

Bibliography

COTTAIS, C. LOUVET, M. (2021). The dangers of the hypersexualisation of young girls: a stolen childhood. growthinktank.org. [online] Jan. 2021. at https://www.growthinktank.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-dangers-of-the-hypersexualisation-of-young-girls_-a-stolen-childhood.pdf(Accessed 8 apr 2021)

Woodward, R. B. (2015) ‘The disturbing photography of Sally Mann’. The New York Times. At:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/magazine/the-disturbing-photography-of-sally-mann.html(Accessed 5 apr 2021)

Cuties (2020) Directed by M. Doucouré. Available at: Netflix (accessed 20 April 2018)

Ionesco, E.(unknown date) ‘Eva ionesco’. Interview with Eva Ionesco. Interviewed by O. Sham for The Purple Magazine, Paris issue num 32At: https://purple.fr/magazine/paris-issue-31/eva-ionesco/ (Accessed 9 Apr 2021)

Good, L. (2012) ‘I was a child pageant star: Six Adult Women Look Back’. The Cut. (November). At: https://www.thecut.com/2012/11/child-pageant-star.html (accessed 18 April 2021)

Hall. D. ‘How ‘supercharged catnip” Tiktok is fuelling the sexualisation of young girls an exploitation of teens.’ The Sun online. At: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10941512/tiktok-catnip-sexualisation-teens/ (Accessed 18 April 2021).

11 notes · View notes

cannabisrefugee-esq · 5 years

Video

youtube

(via "Medically Futile Care" As Ritual. I Fucking Knew It. And People Are Okay With This?)

I’ve been researching so-called “medically futile care” lately, or more accurately, it’s a rabbit hole I fell down while researching nursing and what nurses have to say about witnessing and participating in medically futile care, otherwise known as medicalized torture. My own mother is a nurse and I know that she, after being a nurse for some 30 years, started to become disillusioned by Western medicine and the horrific procedures and treatments imposed on intractably and/or terminally ill and actively dying patients. Of course, she didn’t start having a problem with it until after she had reaped the social and material rewards of being a disgusting handmaiden and middle class patriarchal enforcer for her entire adult life including subjecting her own children to medicalized torture: my own brother died from it and earlier this year she brutally criticised me for abandoning Western medicine after 2 years of conventional Crohn’s treatments that were not helping and only making me worse. With a Western medical nurse as a mother who needs a firing squad (or torturer) amirite?

https://youtu.be/ujANeiNYHU8

I have written here before about disillusioned Western medical doctors resisting their evil profession by leaving the field, including leaving via suicide. Apparently there is currently a movement headed by Western medical doctors themselves to challenge abusive practices in their field including but not limited to hazing and domination rituals in medical school and medical residency; overwork, sleep deprivation and other conditions related to employment in the Western medical field; and cruel standards of care including those implicating medically futile care where doctors feel “forced” to literally torture sick, injured and otherwise vulnerable patients lest they lose their jobs or be sued for medical malpractice. Doctors are actually feeling sorry for themselves because their jobs as patriarchal enforcers and medical torturers makes them feel bad, and while anyone who has ever worked before knows what it’s like to be coerced for money (and survival) those who literally, physically harm and torture other people in order to maintain their own standards of living will garner no sympathy from me.

The same goes for Western medical nurses who my research indicates suffer greatly from vicarious trauma and professional burnout from “having” to witness torturous medically futile care in their professions. Examples of such care include flogging corpses which have no reasonable chance of being revived; continuing invasive so-called “life support” for those who are dead to the world and will probably never regain consciousness or if they do will be horrifically and permanently impaired; refusing to let extremely premature or terminally malformed or diseased infants die naturally, and so on. Get a real fucking job, no matter how low it pays, is my response to all medical professionals who have a problem with physically harming and torturing people…yet continue to do it anyway because some man somewhere tells them they have to lest they lose their jobs if they want to continue to fund their own middle- to upper middle-class lifestyles. Seriously fuck you a million times you poor, poor self-proclaimed victims of workplace abuse who continue to physically torture vulnerable people for money. You absolute monsters.

As a chronically ill person suffering from an incurable and progressive disease that is notoriously unresponsive to conventional care, I recognized awhile ago that for me to engage with Western medicine when it has nothing to offer me in terms of pain and symptom relief or a net increase in my quality of life (net meaning overall, or a positive rather than negative score in benefit-minus-risk) would be nothing more or less than an engagement with a patriarchal ritual, and one that as a radical feminist would give me no comfort. Because I see no objective or subjective value in participating in patriarchal rituals I have declined to use the doctors’ office as a confessional, to confess my sins of being a disabled female under capitalism and patriarchy to a patriarchal authority figure who can do absolutely nothing for me except to witness my confession and absolve me of the emotional burden of being sick in the first place, and medically noncompliant in the second. That is literally what Western medicine is to me now — a patriarchal ritual — and I reject that on its face as a female who is deliberately denigrated and harmed (not healed) by patriarchy and patriarchal rituals by design.

Well come to find out this business about Western medicine and medically futile care in particular being a patriarchal ritual has been described by other people and wasn’t just something I and other radical feminists have made up in our heads: researchers actually admit it’s true in a medical journal article entitled “Rituals, death and the moral practice of medical futility.” Of course, they frame the use of ritual in this context as a positive thing. Here is the abstract of that article:

“Medical futility is often defined as providing inappropriate treatments that will not improve disease prognosis, alleviate physiological symptoms, or prolong survival. This understanding of medical futility is problematic because it rests on the final outcomes of procedures that are narrow and medically defined. In this article, Walker’s “expressive-collaborative” model of morality is used to examine how certain critical care interventions that are considered futile actually have broader social functions surrounding death and dying. By examining cardiopulmonary resuscitation and life-sustaining intensive care measures as moral practices, we show how so-called futile interventions offer ritualistic benefit to patients, families, and health care providers, helping to facilitate the process of dying. This work offers a new perspective on the ethical debate concerning medical futility and provides a means to explore how the social value of treatments may be as important in determining futility as medical scientific criteria.”

Oh by all means, let’s remove the expectation that medical care provide positive “final outcomes” for the one being subjected to it — the patient. Because to ignore fail to extol the broader social function of torturing sick and dying people in a medicalized authoritative setting would be problematic, you see. Do you see what they did there? They are talking about social engineering and the effects on society at large of flogging corpses, equating zombification/maintaining a state of undead with “life support”, and spitting in the eye of natural law by refusing to allow congenitally unviable infants to not-survive infancy and so on. And while the abstract does not list or detail the alleged benefits, the writers believe the social engineering effects are positive. Sure, if the reader is one who benefits from collective trauma and trauma-based mind control among other things. The rest of us, I suppose, are just expected to adopt the perspective of our oppressors.

These medical researchers aren’t even hiding the fact that most if not all medically futile including end-of-life care is ritualistic and does not benefit the patient. They assert that it is not intended to and should not be intended to benefit the patient because why waste an opportunity for social engineering and propping up medical (patriarchal) authority by “facilitating the process of dying” as if natural law needs their help? This is megalomaniacal.

The shit icing on the cake may even be that these researchers used a woman feminist’s ethical framework in order to justify using patriarchal authority as social engineering in cases of intractable illness and injury, including at the end of life. They rely on Margaret Urban Walker’s Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, published in 1998 which is described here:

The central concept of Walker’s work is the development of the expressive-collaborative model of ethical discourse. The expressive-collaborative model is a participatory model that engages people of all different kinds in a deliberative process that develops shared morality for a community. She develops this model as an alternative to the theoretical-juridical model [which model is a top-down authoritative model that assumes a universal moral code applies and does not accept input from the community it asserts moral authority over.]

Of course, assuming Walker is actually a feminist, she is proposing an alternative to patriarchy and providing an entrance for women and feminists into ethical discussions surrounding social policy and practice that disproportionately negatively affect us.

But her work is not used here to challenge patriarchy, quite the opposite. These prick researchers appear to use Walker’s alternative feminist ethical framework to support the use of medicalized patriarchal torture as ritual and beneficial social engineering…why? Because men and Western medical doctors should be included in the creation of social policy and practice and to not include them would be unfair because they are part of the communities they serve? (Have we hit peak liberal feminism yet?) Because using the bodies of sick and dying people to literally send messages to other people is perfectly fine? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, considering that men in general and Western medicine in particular, as a fundamental patriarchal institution, already wrote the whole show including the foreword, the afterword, and the credits — and have used women and women’s bodies as useful objects the whole time. The world is their stage, the rest of us only players, yet we mustn’t disallow men and patriarchal institutions their voice literal actual physical abuse because not only ethics, but because feminist ethics. Got it.

youtube

Did I mention that I was right about medically futile care being nothing but a patriarchal ritual that can only harm women because that’s what it’s intended to do? Yep. I absolutely did mention it and I will again. I have also discussed how sick women’s bodies are in fact used to send messages to other people, in the case of requiring women to accept harmful and misogynistic Western medical treatment in order to collect disability benefits, the message is comply or literally die. Of course, I also framed Western medical treatment of untreatable, incurable and progressive disease as medically futile care which for some people is probably controversial but hardly a stretch if you just think about it a little bit. Goddammit I hate being right all the time.

https://youtu.be/Auxn2VAdiKI

3 notes · View notes

reads29 · 3 years

Text

Chasing the Scream: The Search for the Truth about Addiction

By Johann Hari

Johann Hari has witnessed the pain and destruction wrought by drugs - his family members and his ex-boyfriend experienced addiction. It was primarily these circumstances that motivated him to learn more about the so-called “war” on drugs - this book is a product of that process. Hari writes about how the war on drugs began and how it has evolved over the decades. He includes the conversations he has with researchers, politicians, families, health professionals and police (https://chasingthescream.com/ includes a comprehensive listing of the interviewees and various recordings) - he talks with individuals who have had substance use problems in the past, individuals who continue to use, those whose loved ones have died as a direct result of substance use, and those whose loved ones have died as an indirect result of the war on drugs itself. For the book, Hari travelled to many places including Portugal, Mexico, the US, the UK, Vietnam, Switzerland, Sweden and Uruguay. He explores the various policies and histories of these countries.

The book has received considerable attention, it has been praised but also criticized. It was not difficult to find criticisms online from esteemed people challenging Hari’s approach, data, citations, and various historical examples. For example, one of Hari’s aims in this book, is challenging the pharmaceutical theory of addiction (i.e. drugs are “so chemically powerful they hijack your brain”). Hari cites the Rat Park experiment and relies on it heavily to argue this point. But his perspective, analysis and interpretation of this experiment is oversimplified - the experiment itself is flawed, has not been able to be replicated, and has been widely criticised. Hari argues that the experiment shows environment is the key (if not only) factor in addiction, but he overstates its influence and disregards the significance of biological contributors in addiction. Either way, his writing has definitely added to and encouraged discussion about: whether drug use should be dealt with as a health issue or a criminal/legal issue, how and why people use drugs, and how and why different people, governments and countries have implemented different ways to change drug use in society. He writes extensively about the trauma and disconnection faced by individuals struggling with substance use - how the repression and punishment of addicts arguably pushes them deeper into their addictive behaviours as they become further ostracised and disengaged.

Hari is both thorough and moving in his writing about how and why shame and stigma become further entrenched when addiction is made a crime, and how the cycle of trauma, drug use and punishment becomes endless without adequate and effective treatment and prevention. He juxtaposes the US (as an example of how policing and punishment dominate over treatment/prevention) with Portugual to illustrate how differing approaches to drug use affect stigma and a person’s ability/willingness to seek help and support for addiction. Punishing someone, shaming them, caging them and making them unemployable “traps them in addiction” whereas with the correct treatment team in a safe, trusting environment, that person can instead “do something [they] have been running away from for years - express [their] emotions, and tell [their] story truthfully.” While in parts confronting, what I found most interesting to read about was the social, emotional and cultural underpinnings of drug use - how drugs may be used in desperation, after trauma, or for pain to “fill the emptiness that threatens to destroy” someone. Below are some of the quotes from the book that I found most though-provoking:

“A kid who is neglected or beaten or raped finds it hard to trust people and to form healthy bonds with them, so they often become isolated... Professor Peter Cohen writes that we should stop using the word “addiction” altogether and shift to a new word: “bonding”. Human beings need to bond. It is one of our most primal urges. So if we can’t bond with other people, we will find a behaviour to bond with, whether it’s watching pornography or smoking crack or gambling. If the only bond you can find that gives you relief or meaning is with splayed women on a computer screen or bags of crystal or a roulette wheel, you will return to that bond obsessively. One recovering heroin and crack addict on the Downtown Eastside, Dean Wilson, put it to me simply: “Addiction,” he said, “is a disease of loneliness.”

“Could it be that these hard-core addicts were all terribly damaged before they found their drugs? What if the discovery of drugs wasn’t the earthquake in their life, but only one of the aftershocks?”

“If your problem is being chronically starved of social bonds, then part of the solution is to bond with the heroin itself and the relief it gives you. But a bigger part is to bond with the subculture that comes with taking heroin - the tribe of fellow users all embarked on the same mission and facing the same threats and risking death every day with you. It gives you an identity. It gives you a life of highs and lows, instead of relentless monotony. The world stops being indifferent to you, and starts being hostile - which is at least proof that you exist, that you aren’t dead already... the heroin helps users deal with the pain of being unable to form normal bonds with other humans. The heroin subculture gives them bonds with other human beings.”

“The wonder of nicotine patches, then, is that they can meet a smoker’s physical need - the real in-your-gut craving - while bypassing some of the really dangerous effects of smoking tobacco. So if the idea of addiction we all have in our heads is right, nicotine patches will have a very high success rate. Your body is hooked on the chemical; it gets the chemical from the nicotine patch; therefore, you won’t need to smoke anymore. The pharmacology of nicotine patches works just fine - you really are giving smokers the drug they are addicted to. The level of nicotine in your bloodstream doesn’t drop if you use them, so that chemical craving is gone. There is just one problem: even with a nicotine patch, you still want to smoke. The Office of the Surgeon General has found that just 17.7% of nicotine patch wearers were able to stop smoking. How can this be? There’s only one explanation: something is going on that is more significant than the chemicals in the drug itself. If solving the craving for the chemical ends 17.7% of the addictions in smokers, the other 82.3% has to be explained some other way... that the chemicals themselves are the main cause of drug addiction - that assertion doesn’t match the evidence... with the most powerful and deadly drug in our culture, the actual chemicals account for only 17.7% of the compulsion to use [difficult to quantify this directly, but won’t unload about that here...]... a [key] distinction... physical dependence occurs when your body has become hooked on a chemical, and you will experience some withdrawal symptoms if you stop... but addiction is different. Addiction is the psychological state of feeling you need the drug to give you the sensation of feeling calmer, or manic, or numbed, or whatever it does for you... you can nurse addicts through their withdrawal pains for weeks and see the chemical hooks slowly pass, only for them to relapse months or years later, even though any chemical craving in the body has long since gone. They are no longer physically dependent - but they are addicted. As a culture, for one hundred years, we have convinced ourselves that a real but fairly small aspect of addiction - physical dependence - is the whole show. “It’s really like,” Gabor told me one night, “we’re still operating out of Newtonian physics in an age of quantum physics. Newtonian physics is very valuable, of course. It deals with a lot of things - but it doesn’t deal with the heart of things.”

“The answer doesn’t lie in access. It lies in agony. Outbreaks of drug addiction have always taken place, he proved, when there was a sudden rise in isolation and distress - from the gin-soaked slums of London [1700s] to the terrified troops in Vietnam... deep driver of the prescription drug crisis [in the US]?... The American middle class had been painfully crumbling even before the Great Crash produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Ordinary Americans are finding themselves flooded with stress and fear. That, Bruce’s [Professor Bruce Alexander] theory suggests, is why they are leaning more and more heavily on Oxycontin and Vicodin to numb their pain.”

Substance abuse is “only a symptom of some suffering, and we have to reach the reasons that make addicts want to be out of their heads much of the time... You can stop using drugs for a while, but if you don’t solve the problems you have in your mind, things will come back. We have to work [on] the trauma in your life, and only then can you change the way you deal with it.”

0 notes

readyaiminquire · 4 years

Text

The Other Germany.

This is my attempt at a shorter post, giving some insight into a particular phenomenon or experience I’ve come across. While the overall intent is to shed some anthropological light on these questions, it is also more of a quick-fire approach and commentary on how I might read the topic. In this sense, it’s more the opening to a discussion than a fully formed argument. I hope you enjoy!

Almost a year ago I had a discussion over a drink or two with a good friend of mine. The focus, for some reason, had turned to Germany. He maintained that one of the issues with Germany today is their inability to be proud of what Germany, and by extension Germans, had managed to create. Germany as we know it is not what Germany was, but they were collectively saddled with a sense of guilt for their genocidal policies during the 1930s and 1940s. Even worse, he felt, was that Germans saddled this guilt upon themselves - and the great tragedy in the situation remained that they themselves failed to understand that they had changed. There was nothing inherently 'wrong' with them, at least not anymore. They should embrace their contemporary identity, and let go of their crippling guilt.

I didn't really buy this analysis at the time, nor do I now - but at the end of the day it was no more than a discussion in a pub, so it faded from memory as soon as it was over. Until very recently, that is. It was recalled from some memory bank just the other week when one of the leading figures of Extinction Rebellion, Roger Hallam, decided to voice a similar sentiment, albeit with far more tasteless comments accompanying his analysis. In essence, he criticised Germany for taking their history with the Holocaust too seriously, remarking that "the extremity of a trauma can create a paralysis in actually learning the lessons from it." At the end of the day, he argued, the Holocaust was "just another genocide" in history. Hallam’s comments have already been debunked as absurd, incorrect, and displaying a complete misraeding of history, so I won’t dwell on them here - and he has since apologised for them.

What I do want to talk about is the - apparently recurring - feeling that Germany exists under the weight of its own guilt, stopping them from taking certain actions, even in the face of reason. The guilt of what previous generations had done is simply too ingrained in their culture - it cannot be overcome. I think this is a fundamental misreading of the contemporary understanding of German subjectivity (i.e. what it means to be German). This is also an angle that has been far less discussed. To assist me in painting my particular argument, I turn to Rammstein.

Before we reach Germany however, we must first take a detour to Slovenia - specifically to raccoon-turned-human and sometimes-philosopher-always-entertainer Slavoj Žižek. Žižek makes in interesting point in the film A Pervert's Guide to Ideology with regards to Rammstein and Nazi imagery - this will be our starting point, so I will quote the script in full:

"The German hard rock band Rammstein are often accused of flirting, playing with Nazi militaristic iconography. But if one observes closely their show, one can see very nicely what they are doing, exemplarily in one of their best known songs: "Reise, Reise". The minimal elements of the Nazi ideology enacted by Rammstein are something like pure elements of libidinal investment. Enjoyment has to be, as it were, condensed into some minimal tics, gestures which do not have any precise ideological meaning. What Rammstein does is it liberates these elements from their Nazi articulations. It allows us to enjoy them in their pre-ideological state. The way to fight Nazism is to enjoy these elements, ridiculous as they may appear. This way you undermine Nazism from within."

Let's unpack this for a moment. What Žižek is arguing is that the certain fundamental and base behaviours we intrinsically associate with Nazism - large groups of people, a sense of uniformity, German militarism, certain uses of language and so on - are in fact so base that they only acquire ideological meaning if such meaning is ascribed to them. It then follows that by decoupling these behaviours from their ideological meaning, you undermine the ideology itself by effectively removing how it is articulated. All clear so far?

This process of decoupling meaning from articulation is exactly what Germans have done with ‘Germany’. That's a strange sentence, but bear with me. Earlier this year Rammstein released a new album, and it's first single "Deutschland" has often be read as a industrial metal ode to German history, though one which paints all of its history as dark, bloody, sometimes arcane, but always with the undercurrent that it is not worth romanticising. Though I think this reading is largely correct, I would extend upon it and say that it is love letter to what I'll call ‘Modern Germany’. It is often said that there are two kinds of history: The 'academic' history that investigates the past, and the social history - which is what we remember. In terms of identity and belonging, what matters is what is remembered, not the truth of how things were. We must therefore imagine an 'Old' Germany starting perhaps with the unification in 1871 only to culminate in the crashing and burning of the Third Reich in 1945.

In this sense, Germany's history collapses into a quagmire of sorts best symbolised by the rise and leadership of the NSDAP. Given the consequences faced by Germany post-war - economic strife, denazification, partitioning between East and West etc. - the unified country that came out in 1990 was very different from the one that crashed and burned in '45. So different, in fact, that they are understood, culturally and conceptually, by Germans as two ontologically separate entities. In other words, ‘Modern Germany’ simply isn't ‘Old Germany’.

The most telling portions of Rammstein's "Deutschland" are probably these:

Deutschland, mein Herz in Flammen

Will dich lieben und verdammen

Deutschland, dein Atem kalt

So jung, und doch so alt

Translating to:

Germany, my heart is in flames

I want to love you and condemn you

Germany, your breath is cold

So young, yet so old

Followed by:

Deutschland, deine Liebe

Ist Fluch und Segen

Deutschland, meine Liebe

Kann ich dir nicht geben

Again, translating to:

Germany, your love

Is a curse and a blessing

Germany, my love

I cannot give you

The rejection of the Old Germany and all that it conceptually stood for, in essence becomes the most patriotic thing that can be done with regards to Modern Germany. In this sense, Modern Germans define themselves in opposition to the ‘old’. It is important here not to read this as a rejection of this history - for it by no means is - but rather as a rejection of what Old Germany stood for, and what pre-1945 Germany means to Germans today. By turning 'loving' Germany on its head and refusing to fall into the same nationalistic hole, you are simultaneously displaying the greatest respect and love for what Germany is today. In this sense a rejection of Germany becomes the highest display of love.

This might read as a contradiction, and to an extent this is sort of the point. It is most certainly why it’s often misread or misunderstood. Anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro has called this process "equivocation". Equivocation is, in essence, the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time because they are internalised as two ontologically different things. Another scholar, Martin Holbraad applies this concept to the Cuban revolutionary project, where he found that levying harsh criticism against the failures of the revolutionary project had become the most revolutionary action one could do - Rather than rejected the revolution, something Holbraad argues few Cubans do, through the process of equivocation, criticism and revolutionary fervour had become two ontologically different thing.

There are, in this sense, two Germanies. Rejecting the past Germany with its roots in ultra-nationalism, racism, white supremacy, and genocide, is the highest profession of love for the modern German state and culture. By rejecting this background you are effectively saying that Germany is no longer this past, and there is no place for this form of nationalistic understanding in their modern society. Though, this equivocation is also what often leads to things being so clearly misread by the outside world. Germany isn't being crushed by its own guilt, instead it is decoupling the ultra-nationalistic articulations from what it means to display any form of patriotic affiliation with Germany today. It is a continued vow to move onwards, not to regress.

And few countries boast the same promise.

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

In Conversation with with Deepak Dayal, Managing Partner, Dayal Legal Associates on ‘Freedom of Speech & Expression and the Internet’

Mr. Deepak Dayal, (M.B.A., LL.B.) is the Managing Partner at Dayal Legal Associates, Secretary-General at Society for Legal Reforms and Education, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, and has been a practitioner for many years with experience in India as well as overseas.

Mr. Dayal has enriched experience in the Banking and Finance sector, owing to his qualification in examinations from Monetary Authority of Singapore, Singapore College of Insurance, claiming expertise in Regulatory framework, including the laws and regulations, and associated codes, notices, practice notes and guidelines governing the capital markets and life insurance intermediaries in Singapore. He is also qualified in IRDA and AMFI Laws.

Additionally, he is accredited from the DIFC Courts Academy, Dubai, UAE – gaining rich insights and a better understanding of the procedures involved in implementing the DIFC courts’ laws and procedures in practicing cases.

He has served as Senior Member Infrastructure Committee in the PHD Chamber of Commerce and industry, Head of Task Force Corporate Training – ASSOCHAM, and an Executive Member of the committee on civil dispute resolution – Confederation of Indian Industry.

Mr. Dayal further strives to spread this knowledge by serving as a Visiting Lecturer and Guest Speaker in the renowned Institute of Management and Technology, IMT, Dubai and Lincoln University of Business and Management, Dubai, and SP Jain School of Management, Dubai in sharing his treasure of knowledge in International business laws.

As we all know that Twenty-First Century is bitterly known as the Internet Century. Literally, huge part of the world relies on the internet for various reasons and even it has been declared by the three-judge bench comprising Justice N V Ramana, Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai in case Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Ors where the petitioner challenged the internet shutdown in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, that “freedom to access the Internet” is a fundamental right and is protected under Article 19(1) (a) – freedom of speech and expression of the Constitution of India. We talked with Mr.Deepak to understand about this subject matter in detail. Here’s the candid conversation:

According to you, what is that appropriate line one should draw while exercising his right of freedom of speech and expression on internet?

I think one has to be very careful. Young adults should implied like putting themselves in front of their elders- parents, college professors, teachers, future bosses, colleagues, siblings, grandparents, honourable judges; imagine like you are in front of them. All that you would speak in front of them, the language which you would use, the expressions you would use, think like they are in front of you and in such circumstances how you would be behaving in front of them, in that way you would be online.

The reason I am giving you this example because what is happening is people think they are anonymous behind the virtue of being online and can easily do acts of cyber bullying, or set up a fake account and no one will know and they can write and get away with everything.

The point is anything which we do on such strong technologies where IP addresses can easily be traced; gone are those days where you can get away with such acts. The crime branch of police department, the IT cell today are very strong, they will get to you. You sent the Whatsapp, your number can be traced, and you write something from the fake account, IP addresses can be traced very easily. So, my point is do not write anything, you yourself feel is inappropriate. Just because when you are free at 2 o’ clock in the night from your mobile or laptop writing something or commenting something with the belief that no one is watching you, but in reality everyone is watching you and they exactly know who you are, where you are, and what you are doing. The key is self-restraint is most important because you don’t want to get into trouble with law. And you all are student of law; we all know “Ignorance of law is no excuse”. There cannot be any excuse of ‘Oh! I didn’t know this, as I have not read the privacy policy of Facebook’ or ‘I have not read the Article 19(1)(a) in detail’. Hence, one should be very careful of what you are writing, think like if you are in front of audience and/or known ones, at that point how carefully you will be speaking. So on the internet also, whether it is to your friend or Facebook group, be careful. You cannot as young adults can excuse by saying ‘this was a joke’ or ‘I was just talking to my friend’.

Hence, we have to be careful of our actions, look at yourself and you yourself will come up with the answer. When in doubt, keep your mouth shut, God has given us two ears and one mouth for a basic reason that listen more, absorb more; speak less but wisely and take responsibility of whatever we write on the internet.

Your views on the level of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression the legal and media fraternity enjoy in the developing world.

The freedom of speech and expression also has to be dealt responsibilities. Like, yes we have right to criticise, but one has to know the difference of opinion, criticism and what lead to defamation, and when are we crossing the line, ‘the Laxman Rekha’. The Honourable Supreme Court has used the word ‘Laxman Rekha’.

Even in developed countries, Singapore, I would say, you cannot speak up against the government. One has to be careful; you can have a very constructive criticism but arbitrarily throwing everywhere allegations stating, “ABC is corrupt” or “XYZ is a criminal” without having a proof and evidence for such claim is wrong.

In fact in a developed country, you can be sued much more and by living in India also you can be sued by them. Hence, you should be careful upon freedom of expression.

Every right comes up with its responsibilities. So, you cannot make a derogatory remark, sexist remark, racial remark or religious remark which hurts the sentiments of someone else. There has been such instances and that’s what courts are doing in India and even oversees that if somebody has made such remarks and in consequence you have violated someone’s sentiments and it can cause them mental trauma, you are liable for it- both civil as well as criminal penalties.

According to you, whether the new perspective of media trial and social media trial is a boom or bane to our system?

Obviously we are seeing the Sushant Sigh suicide/ murder case; we all understand that media trials are absolutely, without any doubt a complete mess.

Media can try and this scenario is not just in India, it has happened and does happen in all other countries like US, UK, Australia as well. This is the Age of Media and every country has 24X7 media coverage, minute by minute there have been updates reporting.

I don’t think there is any disagreement to the fact that Media Trials are absolutely not good for any incident and any country. But media does play an important role because many a times, due to various activities many crimes have been brushed under the carpet.

If you look back in our history also, there have been so many cases which were brought up only because of media, because there was such a mass movement even the honourable courts had to look up and take notice. Not every case goes automatically to CBI for inquiry, CBI comes into play when there is misconduct happening at some stage or it is of such a sensitive matter. So, media does play an important role in highlighting issues, irrespective of political parties or vested interest.

But the moment there is a media trial, obviously it is a complete circus because witnesses are being brought up on the media and are being questioned but that has no validity, even if someone comes up and claim that he has done the crime it does not hold good in law of courts.

But it is very difficult to stop the media and that is where restraining orders are taken these days by individuals as well as various parties in order to stop people from talking to the media. And I think these media trial does hamper real justice, which can only be given in law of courts. As the media scenario is there is a two week hype of a particular case, and suddenly some other case will come up and they will just completely fail to follow up on what is happening on that previous case, because courts will decide and in India, court trials take very long process from the Sessions Courts to District Courts to High Court to Supreme Court, whether it is the Aarushi case or any other case if we look back, they goes for at least 15-20 years and media focusing on them for approximately couple of weeks only.

Also, obviously the conclusion drawn by media draws no relevance; the media can put somebody guilty completely but it has no meaning.

In countries like US, there is a further problem as there is a jury system, made up of individuals who are not even legal experts to take up the decision of the case and they have to keep away from all the social media and news influence is now getting increasingly difficult in those countries as well.

Do you think the increase in media coverage has evolved the entire objective of the media of providing information to the public?

I think media debates are two-edged swords. One needs to understand the difference between news and discussions. Earlier on, news could be coming in 1 hour of news at 7 in the morning and 1 hour at 8 in the evening. Now, we have news channels which are 24X7 and there are over maybe 30 news channels simultaneously. But discussions and opinions people can keep giving over and over again, and by repeating or shouting, something which may be true or might not be true will not change the fact. I think there is an overreach of media, by overreach I mean that media cannot be the advocates and judges and cannot be taking over what honourable courts have to do. You can have a media debate but what is it solving really and concluding someone guilty or not guilty has zero value in the real world, which is in the hands of the court to decide. Like the investigative agency has not even fully started its work and you are declaring someone as culprit of the crime; when the process of investigation takes very long time and that too can be challenged on basis of its admissibility.

Definitely, I think the overreach of news media is harmful to all the sensitive cases.

The boom of the OTT platforms has evolved the entire entertainment sector, but don’t you think that this increase has also lead to increase in easy exposure of dangerous and obscene content to general public. Like, take an example of the series 13 Reasons Why, the series does contain the content related to suicidal acts. Doesn’t this object the moral sentiments of the public? Whether there is a need of Censorship laws related to this platform citing the moral obligations of Media, Entertainment and Advertising industry?

Yes, definitely. This all has been coming under the purview of IT laws. Especially, with the introduction of Netflix, Amazon Prime and many others and its shows and even the releasing of movies on these platforms, there has been the need. The certifications which were required for the movies to be released are not applicable on these platforms. We have smoking scenes, swear words, objectionable content which were not allowed by the Censor Board when released through the official channel of the theatres in India.

Now, it has been released through international platforms outside the purview of the Board. We, ourselves are also in a little flucks to the fact that we have internet connection and mobile and we can go to websites which are streaming all kinds of stuff just a type away.

The government has power to control them and even various developed countries has powerful tools also, but then technology hacks are also available where they are able to bypass the system. It is very challenging in today’s day and age, because these platforms are global, yes they have Indian content but they are being released simultaneously all over the world; we have to look after which countries’ rule to apply, the jurisdiction for same: does Indian laws are applicable.

If the platforms themselves are not based in India, they are based oversees; thus, there is a fundamental question that does India have a direct jurisdiction, can it play a role there or not? Even if we pass laws, will that administration of justice be implemented?

In this case, there are more questions and fewer answers; these questions are those which we are still struggling to get answers and these answers we will only be getting through courts after judgements are declared and only after that things will become clearer as these sectors are evolving right now. In fact it is in current process, especially with COVID 19, every focus is on the internet and technology.

Can our laws keep up with the technological changes and how do we enforce them are the questions we are constantly battling to find the answers.

Even after the SC declared Right to internet as a protected one under the constitution there are many parts of India which still cannot access the internet properly. Such non-availability has deprived them of their right to education (online). What are your views on this and please suggest few measures.

As a lawyer, I will be very clear that laws are made up by the legislation who we elect and we should mainly focus on implementation of the same.

I would also encourage you, young lawyers and law students that do not get in too much debates regarding your views or subject, we can discuss law but we can get into things which we does not have direct control over, because right of education is a fundamental right but if you look into the implementation side what is the literacy rate in India, except for Kerala which has probably the highest literacy rate of somewhere like 80-90%, but if we look at rural India – look around us what is the literacy rate- we are one of the least educated country, when we look at the population of India and part of it who is literate, that number is very low. And that is the difference what we call a developing country and developed country. Education is the fundamental, biggest reason which our Honourable Prime Minister has realised; the focus is on the new education policy and these issues.

Education, explicitly I would say right to access Internet is now becoming the fundamental right because the reach is so much more.

I think my views do not matter and I would say one should not have so many views on these subjects; we need to focus on implementation, understanding and following the rules which are already there. We have one of the best laws in the world, out problems and challenges are in its implementation and execution stage; without blaming bureaucracy and State Government but those are our challenges. So, laws have been really good; our Constitution is absolute and even so many forums have declared Indian Constitution as one of the best in the world. We should be proud of the Constitution which we have, we are no less than the Constitution of America or UK or Australia.

Implementation is where we lack and I am confident that with the support of Young India, the youth of India, we all will get better execution and you ask questions for these also.

Sir, your tips and piece of advice for law students and young lawyers on the New and Emerging Field of Media, Entertainment and Advertising Laws Industry.

According to me, the young generation should definitely focus on as this is the future- The Media, Entertainment, Cyberlaw. Because what is happening is that these laws are very new. Look at the lawyer of 30-40 years of experience, in our time we never knew what mobile was. The internet was discovered in my generation. But all of the young ones have grown up with these technologies, you understand it very well. So what is happening in the young generation already understand technology; law is something you need to understand now. So you all have an edge over very seasoned lawyers because the majority of them do not understand technology. You all understand technology so you all can come up to a lawyer with 30 years of experience in just two years of experience because of this edge. These laws are also very new, like the IT Act itself is very new and the scope and future is this only. Rather than going into mainstream older subjects, like Property law, yes they are important but it is very important to focus on something at the right time and at the right place. So, these sectors, Media, Entertainment, Advertising, and Cyber Laws are better to focus upon. And I am confident enough that you all will have great opportunities, not just in India but overseas as well.

Technological Companies like Amazon, etc. want international lawyers. We know the common law of India, even their laws are not very difficult to comprehend. We are the talent pools, what Engineers and Doctors; you know what India used to export to the rest of the world, now it’s the day and age for Lawyers. Now you all are stressed upon with the fact that you are not getting internships and jobs but that is very short-lived. Just increase your knowledge levels and you will have great opportunities in the next few years, I am very confident upon that.

Interviewed by Mannat Sardana, Research Assistant (Student Division) at Dept of Media, Entertainment and Advertising Laws, Legal Desire

The post In Conversation with with Deepak Dayal, Managing Partner, Dayal Legal Associates on ‘Freedom of Speech & Expression and the Internet’ appeared first on Legal Desire.

In Conversation with with Deepak Dayal, Managing Partner, Dayal Legal Associates on ‘Freedom of Speech & Expression and the Internet’ published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes