Press Freedom on the African Continent

A free press is considered crucial in building a strong democracy. If journalists are not allowed to collect and present opinions freely, how can true discussion ever come about? A critical press driven by debate is a cornerstone of emancipation. While in most African countries there is a broad selection of papers and radio stations to choose from, governments pressure journalists and press owners to shape the content. Working independently as a journalist can get you arrested, tortured and even killed. Underneath is a map of the Africa Liberal Network, a major advocate for liberal freedoms on the continent; it shows the situation as of 2012. On their website you can find an interactive copy showing rank and score of each country.

Amnesty International, the world's biggest advocate of human rights, listed the major crackdowns on African journalism in Amnesty In Actie ('Amnesty In Action') - the magazine for their Belgian members. A short but shocking selection:

Gambia : Ebrima Manneh, journalist for the Daily Observer, was arrested in 2006. He has been missing ever since. Court ruled recently that he was to be released and his family to be compensated. This ruling has been ignored by the authorities. That various papers had their websites hacked or have been closed down doesn't give much hope either.

Somalia : In 2011, three prominent figures of independent press have been assassinated. Among them was Abukar Hasan Mohamud Kadaf, former director of the independent radio station Somaliweyn. Since 2006 already 27 reporters have been killed. So far, none of these murders came before court.

Malawi : A new law gives the Minister of Information (oh yes, definitely need one of those) the power to forbid a publication if it should be 'in conflict with the common good'. Of course this law is used mainly to silence critical voices.

The list is in fact pretty long. I will leave it at these ones. If you want to partake in one of Amnesty's fine writing or mailing actions, visit their website. Now while as a whole Africa does terrible, the worst place for a journalist is not situated in Africa. The deadliest country is in fact Pakistan (SOURCE). Followed by Mexico, the Philippines, Brazil and Russia.

"We, The People"

My activity is on a downward slope, so it seems. My paper has me really occupied so all I can present you for now is this exciting piece of text on language and populism. It looks dull though, no links or color images involved. I promise more eye candy in the next one. Cross my heart and hope to write more soon.

See if you recognize the following reasoning: "Intellectuals look down on the common man and are estranged from reality as it is experienced by the people. They use a language infused with technobabble that conceals reality and thus gives a distorted view." Sounds familiar? It is called a populist discourse which aggressively downplays the role of theory and language. A defensive reflex against theory can be found anywhere in the political spectrum: populism is a matter of left and right, of progressive and conservative. Yet it is naive and above all it is dangerous too. By bashing intellectuals and glorifying everyday speech, populists endanger actual emancipation.

"Society is an amalgam of groups constructed along fluid identities."

First of all, the populist critique against class, gender, race, etc. can be turned against the catch-all categories like 'common man' or 'the people'. These are ideological constructs themselves and there is no reason to assume a priori that they more accurately describe reality! Indeed the populist discourse is dangerous because whoever claims 'the common man' claims a majority. This constructed majority is based on a patchwork of stereotypes: the common man is a caucasian male with limited schooling who works hard, pays his taxes, loves his family, watches popular media and thinks that all politicians are crooks. This cliché can be expanded in any direction at will to gain the favor of other identities. Quite a few things are ignored by populists which become obvious when we introduce a wider geographical area or certain historical developments into our analysis: we have high schooling degrees, deprivation is largest with immigrants/non-whites, gender is not a given thing, etc. Society is an amalgam of groups constructed along fluid identities. This fluidity should not be mistaken for a common identity or even common interests. The boundaries of classes are vague and sometimes they overlap, but the cores of classes still remain.

Populists reject any such analysis. For them the world is a simple place in which the struggle is one between elites - either misguided or malevolent - and the people. Populism therefore is in general a struggle about discourse; a struggle that encompasses more than just 'the people' versus 'classes'. That the attacks of populists are not justified can be seen in their selectiveness: they oppose theory, abstractions, terminology, etc. only when it concerns social and political phenomena. Never they oppose terms as inflation, appeal, cardiological or fusion-reactor. Why not? Because the associated fields of theory do not pose a threat to them. Nothing more dangerous to a populist than describing social reality. After all, you might get people emancipated...

Overcomplicating things is never a good thing. Explaining social phenomena in a understandable way is a must for the advantaged. The real evil lies however in the opposite of oversimplification. When you keep them stupid, you can keep them down. So do as Bob Marley sang and emancipate yourselves of mental slavery. Dare to deconstruct your language, but always with a constructive attitude.

Turning the lens around

Recently I told a good friend of mine about the concept détournement. I was quite amazed that he didn't know it, since it is a valuable contribution to anyone's mindset. Therefore I wish to share it on my blog. Détournement is a French term that translates as 'deflection' or 'distortion'. It was developed as a technique in the 1950s by a group of radical artists and thinkers called the Letterist International. Founder and exponent of this movement was Guy Debord. He described détournement as "using spectacular images and language to disrupt the flow of the spectacle". This sounds more difficult than it actually is, as it comes down to using imagery handed to you by common culture and deflecting its message so that it becomes critical of that culture.

Big corporations and their unethical practices are often the
target of détournement messages. Especially since the most
dominant field for this technique is anti-consumerism.

As an artistic technique, détournement is closely related to other forms of art you might know better. A parody, for instance, takes common imagery and symbols to construct a new message often critical of that which is parodied. Parallels can also be found with Pop Art, which expresses a critical attitude against a high arts-low arts division. To speak of détournement, however, something more is needed: the goal of the trick must be social change. Détournement is rooted in Marxist thought and as such it seeks to alter society for the better. While the filosofical concept might be marginal in terms of popularity, manifestations are nonetheless visible. Just think of so-called culture jamming; groups of activists who create satirical and cynical messages on consumerism and globalization.

For people who like heavy material on détournement and the surrounding structure of theory, I recommend Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle. This work deals with the idea that, in a state of advanced capitalism, mass media and dominant cultural patterns oppress human potential. The eponymous film is enjoyable if you're into Marxist social theory. For all the others I refer to more accessible - less radical - material of people such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein or even Michael Moore. They all make use of détournement or promote similar ideas.

My favorite piece of détournement art by street artist Banksy. If you have no idea what this is about,
check out this picture. It was taken during the Vietnam War, after an American napalm-strike...

The rise of social media: A conservative revolution

The title of this post is inspired by my love for the oxymoron: a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. After all how can a revolution be conservative? Well, consider the latest revolution in the way we communicate. There is the increasing importance of mobile communication, we have a proliferation of social network sites, and let us not forget the blog, of course. When you are just like me skeptic towards this digital (r)evolution people tend to classify you as 'conservative' or 'backwards'. Yet I dare to argue that not the critics but the revolution is conservative. At first this statement might sound silly but allow me to explain.

The communication revolution that brought about chat services and facebook is just a next step ahead on the road to modernization. I wont argue against that. However, it is just a next step down a certain road. It might be modernization, but it is mainly the intensification of an already existing process. Look at it from an historical viewpoint: way back, when man still had an oral culture, few individuals controlled the information stream trough tradition. Over time, various communication revolutions (writing, printing, etc.) have freed the individual from this control. The balance in society shifted from traditional/communal thought to more modern/individual modes of expression. New ways of communicating actually liberated the private sphere from community control and brought about the modern individual. So far so good. But now for more recent changes in our communication: the rise of mass media and, subsequently, of social media. In effect, this evolution is sucking us back into the communal world of before. Television and social network sites seem to stress the dominant value patterns in society. Two mechanisms are at work here: first of all our identity becomes increasingly fragmented. We have become hyper-individuals who associate with numerous groups at a time. This is not bad per se, since I like to see the influence of say religious or ideologic dogma waning. At the same time however this leaves us vulnerable for the second mechanism: the socialization of dominant values.

How contradictory it may seem, growing individualism brought us to a point where people become socially inert. The majority of us no longer questions things in a fundamental way. As a society we do not care for change or justice, we have become indifferent towards our own future. People are more empowered than ever, but at the same time they have lost a critical awareness. Therefore I advocate an alternative use of the tools that currently enslave us to a pensée unique; I want the digitalized media to be used for liberation and true empowerment. The essence of my plea is captured beautifully by this quote from Edward R. Murrow on television:

Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late. [...] if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

Feel free to replace 'television' with 'twitter' or 'facebook'. I could go on for [p]ages, but this post is getting long and complex enough. If you feel the need to more thorough explanation, I can point to Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Or you might enjoy the ideas of bright chaps like Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci. Feel free to use the comments section too!