Montana State University's Queer Straight Alliance has recently submitted some "Demands for Institutional Change" to their Facebook page and directly to President Waded Cruzado's email inbox.
The LBGTQIA community has grown in population (with more people coming out) and in vocal acceptance. Does that make it a public or a counter public? According to Fraser, "a counterpublic sphere is a public sphere, even if it is not perceived to be the public sphere" (p. 244). So I guess that question isn't very relevant here. I think the key word in that quote is perceived. As someone who considers herself a strong LBGTQIA ally, I have trouble thinking of the movement as a whole as a counter public still. Regardless, they still have a long way to go and smaller sects within the community are banding together and "enacting identities through new idioms and styles" ( p 242).
I'd say that QSA at MSU is still a counter public. They can imagine for themselves a better future at this school and are seeking institutional change to enact it.
"The achievement of this cultural form is to allow participants in its discourse to understand themselves as directly and actively belonging to a social entity that exists historically in secular time and has consciousness of itself" (Warner, p 75). In talking to members of QSA, I can sense their nervousness and excitement. I can sense most of all that these demands have brought them all closer while they're gaining more publicity and more and more people are ducking into their unique public, if only for a moment, to see what they're doing.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
the INTERNET
As of late, my favorite question to politically active Facebook-using friends is: "Do you block people you don't agree with?" Sometimes I'll make that question more specific. For example, I've ask gay friends if they've blocked homophobes. I've asked friends who are advocates for racial equality whether they block racists. The answer is mostly yes. This is understandable and perfectly human. Why would a person want to be regularly exposed to opinions that undermine their identity? Especially if it's so easy to hide them!
My Facebook is one of the most hateful spaces I occupy. There are high school friends posting things like "Oh great, it's White Guilt Day again" on MLK Day this past Monday. There are Freshman year acquaintances posting about how "bitches would trade a genuine dude for all those fake ass douche bags any day of the week." I know, that statement isn't political, but it left an unpleasant taste in my mouth nonetheless. My favorite might be: "Straight Pride. It's natural, it's worked for thousands of years, and you can make babies" with a picture of a happy couple in front of a blue and pink striped background. I read those posts and want to shake these people and maybe yell, but as of now I've resisted the urge to block them.
In Chapter 9, Nancy Fraser touches on this phenomena: "Some analysts fear that the type of participation that occurs on the web will result in increasing fragmentation, as people are able to seek out only that information with which they most agree and to avoid any meaningful interactions with people who have different perspectives" (p.256). I think of the 'blockers' as enclaved and 'confrontational posters' as oscillating (p. 245). Maybe the 'blockers' need time to establish their identity and be surrounded by likeminded members of their counterpublic before being exposed to the oscillating posters. However, most controversial posts I see on my Facebook aren't challenged. They are even praised, making the posters feel like "the public" rather than "a public" (p. 247).
I would argue that selective participation extends further than the web, although it certainly manifests itself obviously there. Take FOX News and CNN for example. Each media targets a specific political view. Both sides of the political spectrum can watch newscasters that reinforce their opinions. All the newscasters are pissed off just like them! But does the media shape opinions or reinforce already existing ones?
I don't know, that's for sure.
My Facebook is one of the most hateful spaces I occupy. There are high school friends posting things like "Oh great, it's White Guilt Day again" on MLK Day this past Monday. There are Freshman year acquaintances posting about how "bitches would trade a genuine dude for all those fake ass douche bags any day of the week." I know, that statement isn't political, but it left an unpleasant taste in my mouth nonetheless. My favorite might be: "Straight Pride. It's natural, it's worked for thousands of years, and you can make babies" with a picture of a happy couple in front of a blue and pink striped background. I read those posts and want to shake these people and maybe yell, but as of now I've resisted the urge to block them.
In Chapter 9, Nancy Fraser touches on this phenomena: "Some analysts fear that the type of participation that occurs on the web will result in increasing fragmentation, as people are able to seek out only that information with which they most agree and to avoid any meaningful interactions with people who have different perspectives" (p.256). I think of the 'blockers' as enclaved and 'confrontational posters' as oscillating (p. 245). Maybe the 'blockers' need time to establish their identity and be surrounded by likeminded members of their counterpublic before being exposed to the oscillating posters. However, most controversial posts I see on my Facebook aren't challenged. They are even praised, making the posters feel like "the public" rather than "a public" (p. 247).
I would argue that selective participation extends further than the web, although it certainly manifests itself obviously there. Take FOX News and CNN for example. Each media targets a specific political view. Both sides of the political spectrum can watch newscasters that reinforce their opinions. All the newscasters are pissed off just like them! But does the media shape opinions or reinforce already existing ones?
I don't know, that's for sure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)