In his essay, "Evil Bert Ladin: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision," James Brown recounts the complex situation where a Bangladeshi poster protesting American bombings appeared on U.S. news stations showing a picture of Sesame Street's Bert with Osama Bin Laden. A company in Bangladesh hurriedley Google searched for a photograph and included the prank picture on the sign. Individuals from all over made interpretations of the image to surmise its intention, with some even suggesting it as "some form of steganography to send a message to Al Quaida [sic] cells." Despite people's ideas, Brown clarifies that the Bert Laden image created by Dennis Pozniak – inspired by Dino Ignacio's humorous website titled "Bert is Evil" – was a mere joke. He urges that, rather than attempting to decode the image, "we should consider what is behind the interpretive impulse" because "many argue that our interpretive practices will have to change" to cope with ViRaL texts in a globally networked world. In addition, Brown hints that some things are pushed aside or forgotten in the pursuit of the hermeneutic instinct.
Brown defines ViRaL texts, which place "different cultures and different realities" in touch with each other. These texts create what Professor Davis calls a "depropriative address." An address, or message, that overwhelms our ability to make sense of things causes trauma. The address contaminates our existing notions – like the association of a childhood icon with a globally infamous terrorist leader – exposing our proximity and vulnerability to everyone else in the world. Brown elucidates that when Westerners saw Bert with bin Laden, a metonym they identified with the West alongside a metonym for the Islamic fundamentalist enemy, they realized the division between "us" and "them" is not a clear-cut line. The depropriating experience demonstrated to Westerners that their community is created through relation rather than appropriation or assimilation and is no longer based on interpretation. To handle the trauma of seeing bin Laden in the same community as themselves, readers resorted to the hermeneutic impulse.
Brown tries to extract the learning potential of the Bert Laden incident, rather than trying to interpreting it. He equates trauma with learning, where a "shattering of 'self' and 'world,' not an appropriation but an experience of depropriation and alteration" occurs. This sheds a new light on the fact that Bert and bin Laden can "collide and collude" via the Internet. Collaboration can occur among groups who never planned to cooperate. Brown identifies this "learning moment" as something that gets lost when we scramble to heal our trauma through interpretation. He points out how the very fact that Bert and bin Laden shared a poster represents a chance for peace over conflict. Brown proposes that "if we expand our definition of community" beyond one of contributing volunteers with consistent goals, we might be able to better devise a pathway to peace.
I could not help but find Brown's essay overly optimistic. He comments that words of symbolic exchange "may be hateful, dismissive, crude, disgusting," but we can "view all discourse as an opening." I'm not sure that this is true. To me, discourse that begins divisively only leads to more disagreement and polarization. I see the silver lining of the Bert Laden photo, where it at least embodies an opportunity for cross dialogue and more peaceful discourse. Nonetheless, the climate of communication will not change unless all parties involved recognize this opportunity together. The initial response to the Bert Laden image shows that people are pretty entrenched in their ways. I understand Brown's hope for peace, but I wouldn't cross my fingers just yet.
Brown is pretty optimistic isn't he? I'm a little wary of the idea that vile discourse is better than no discourse, but maybe Brown has a point here. After what happened in Tuscon, there seemed like there was a glimmer of hope. Many politicians and television personas were all calling for a more civil discourse. Unfortunately, I've studied entirely too much U.S. history and understood that this wouldn't last (as did many political analysts).
ReplyDeleteWhat I did learn from the tragedy was that forces of moderation and restraint can be powerful. So even though the shooter clearly had psychological issues instead of political intents, the incident still gave us a moment of rhetorical introspection. Perhaps if we are to travel down Brown's road to peace, it is up to forces of moderation to first restrain the inevitable vile nonsense and then root out the problem. I'm not saying that we should get rid of the vile (don't think that's possible anyways), but that we could use it to help us find out what people are anxious about and why they feel like they have to act so strongly about it.
I agree with your assessment of Brown. I don't think his goal is impossible to achieve, I just think it's doubtful. I would imagine that most people who saw the image and were offended did not think about the situation in terms of a "learning experience."
ReplyDeleteI also don't think Brown explains how exactly people are to restrain their impulses and approach these situations with the goal of peace. Are people to monitor themselves, or is there another group that's supposed to mold these situations in a way that leads to cooperation and healthy discourse? I think that's an interesting question that Brown doesn't really address.
I completely agree with you on how Brown is incredibly too optimistic. He doesn't understand how many close minded people there actually are on the internet, which defeats the purpose of living in a global village and participating in a convergence culture.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Brown is too optimistic, just unrealistic for the current generation. Advancements like these take lots of time. Hopefully, somewhere down the road his description comes true and collaborations will not only be the norm but will also be wanted and not forced upon.
ReplyDeleteI think Brown is straddling the line between realistic and optimistic. For today's world I believe that his ideas are a little too optimistic. However, I could see his ideas taking shape in future years. If he were a little more realistic (much like Jenkins was in his writings) I feel that he would have been able to make a more convincing argument and created a greater sense of authority and credibility with his audience.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I agree with you that Brown is on the line between realistic and optimistic. In one sense, we cannot control people's initial reaction to any type of media, regardless of it's original intent. These primary reactionary occurrences may be in fact what sheds light on the current state of our world's culture.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the idea that he's straddling reality and optimism. But I think the biggest issue is that he sees access to technology as the biggest cause of the bridge between cultures, and this bridge has not been effectively formed throughout the world. While our end is complete, the technological barrier is still up for many of those with conservative cultures around the world. There is no way we can expect the majority of Bangladeshi protestors, for example, to have the access necessary to our culture in order for the appropriation to be positive.
ReplyDeleteSomething that backs up your idea that Brown is a little overly optimistic is the fact that such extreme reactions came from this "Bert Laden" image. People automatically assumed the worst: Children would be scarred! Terrorists are using our young peoples' favorite puppets?! It makes me wonder whether this was a reaction because of the timing, or whether people in general tend to think like this. Why do we have to jump directly to conspiracy and terror? Rather, "HA, the terrorists are trying to be serious and they put a picture of Bert on their poster," seems to be a healthier and more realistic reaction to the picture. If Big Bird really did go over to the dark side, how many children would really care to follow him?
ReplyDeleteIn order to achieve the kind of peace that Brown alludes to, I think we would have to be more willing to give someone (we don't understand) a little more credit. Why assume the worst? And where does it get us?