January Blog Post

Tate Volbrecht

Christina Ivey

Comm 160

1 February 2017

            So far Comm 160 has been great.  All of the in-class lessons and the readings all have a sense of applicability that I don’t necessarily have in Intro to Jazz.  In all seriousness, this class has taught me quite a bit about communication already, and class was cancelled a few times.  That says a lot.  Specifically, I took a lot from the Russo reading.  I find myself thinking about one line in particular when Russo writes “It didn’t occur to me at the time that my taking up space, my sense of ‘authority,’ and my comfort with speaking in generalities could be connected with my race, class, able-bodied, and citizenship privileges located in the predominantly white middle-class university setting, or could serve to marginalize and or silence people of color, working class, poor, and/or immigrant women, and/or women with disabilities.”  This quotation brought forth something that I felt is quintessential to communication.  Speaking for others can be inherently harmful and can actually reinforce hegemonic structures we wish to overturn.

    

        We discussed this in class on Tuesday, diving into Foucault's idea that power is omnipresent, not existing as a malevolent or benevolent thing.  What makes power harmful is what drives it.  I really enjoy learning about and discussing power, so I was immediately intrigued.  Referencing Russo, the idea of power is highlighted in what she labels as preexisting lines.  How we engage in discourse and how it functions is ultimately determined by preexisting structures.  However, when we want to challenge power, it can counterproductive.  I saw a video on my Facebook feed last night (link at the bottom) that highlights this issue.  The subject was the All Lives Matter movement and Donald Trump’s Executive Order banning Muslims from the country.  The video asks where all of the All Lives Matter advocates have gone, going further to say that they should be outraged by Trump’s EO.  What this does is emphasizes the fact that All Lives Matter basically hijacked the BLM movement.  Many advocates say they stood for equality, but when others are oppressed, ALM vanished.  This proves Russo’s point that we now reinforce the preexisting lines. 

           Russo gives a solution to this issue as well, writing that to disrupt speech, we need to embrace silence and listening.  Silence has an important role in communication, and we outlined this through the yarn activity.  Just because you don't speak as much doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't contributing, or as Johnathan Kent said, "some people can talk all day without saying anything."  This goes to show that by actively engaging with others by listening to their experience or plight is just as helpful.  This is what ALM failed to do and proves that the movement was a rouse to co-opt a revolt for social justice. 

           All in all, external media and Russo have reached an accurate conclusion.  We must be careful when delving into advocacy.  Sometimes we end up silencing those we wish to help.   In the situations below, we see the real consequences of using privilege to take over movements and "fight" for others. Instead, as Russo puts it, we should use active listening and allow ourselves to feel discomfort. This can be much more progressive in nature and also more effective in the fight for social justice.  

(Here's the video link)

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10154339902784205/