August 24, 2004
more on that terrorism v domestic violence thing
ok, so now i'm thinking about the terrorism/domestic violence thing in more detail.
here's an interesting link: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/. add to that the domestic violence one i quoted in an earlier post...
i want the official government terrorism link that referrs to the package we were all sent at home. i wish we could get a hold of an original copy of that pack. same with the domestic violence one (like i'm so sure there was one).
i will add some bits of crappy writing i've already done on this topic in the permalink of this entry. they come from this thread on the swingtalk board. so they're aimed at swingers. but i think the thread's interesting because it demonstrates how worried some people are about terrorism. and how vulgar swingers can be.
ok, if you want the in-context version of these posts, consult the thread linked above. but for now, here are my working notes on the topic.i will have another think and put together a more coherent, less-discussion board-y version and post it here later. i have thesis research to do so of course i have to do this now.
Posted by dogpossum: June 07 2004,13:04
[Quote] (Zot @ June 07 2004,15:35)
I like to question the ongoing role of the nation-state [/quote]
this kind of referrs to something i've been thinking about while i read this post and continue with my labour-for-research form-filling-in.
specifically, the shift of national awareness of other nations, to awareness of more slippery 'groups' - terrorists. terrorists are particularly useful for stimulating a sort of panicked dependence on Official Sources for information about safety and 'protection': they're unknowable, untrackable, and decidedly amorphous, when compared to 'the Russians' or 'the Yellow Peril'. could we have had this same sort of terrorist-talk in previous ages?
i'd argue that the terrorist discourse going on today in australia is particular to this time and place. i'd also argue that it's very useful for a government seeking to justify it's international relations and internal 'security' policies.
previously we were, as a nation (well, our parents were?) cued in to thinking about the threat of nuclear war - we were advised on how to prepare and prevent it (alert, but not alarmed). the cold war justified a whole lot of dodgy stuff on the part of various governments in the western world.
similarly, the world wars also prompted various acts of social 'readiness' in australia and elsewhere - the incarceration of german/japanese citizens springs to mind, here. the propaganda (or 'advice') from government sources was responsible for some pretty fukking scary Official and private actions.
i'm not arguing that we shouldn't be sensible about safety and travel and so on. but i am arguing that we should think critically about directives like 'be alert not alarmed'. what else is going on? how are legislative changes justified by this sort of talk? what sorts of legislative changes are being wrought? how do these changes affect our individual rights?
incarceration without representation or legal recourse is pretty damn scary example - all that fuss over the treatment of prisoners by american (and other) soldiers in the middle east is a good example of how nationalist 'concerns' have faciliated gross injustices.
now i've finished writing this, i realise i actually have very little solid knowledge of these issues. it is entirely likely that i am talking out my ass.
Posted by dogpossum: June 16 2004,22:03
i'm reviving this controversial thread because i just can't stop thinking about these issues. the media studies kid in me is facinated by the way the myth of terrorism (myth in the roland barthes sense, not myth in the 'made up' sense) has permeated public discourse and affects public policy.
a couple of things have caught my interest today.
i heard a review of a book about john howard's government, which i think i'll follow up. i remember reading a fair bit about howard's govt's policies round the pauline hanson time (i did my ma on media coverage of hanson and other women mps), and it was generally held (and still is) by political science types (or observant types) that howard and hanson were presenting the same policies, but howard was a little more articulate and with a hefty party behind him (hanson, you might be interested to know, suggested temporary visas for refugees, something that phillip ruddock attacked at the time... nice one).
so i'm thinking about howard, the labour party, australia's presence (sp?) in the middle east, and the pm's current efforts to reassure the u.s. pres that we're not all keen on abandoning them...
i'm also thinking about the whole mistreatment of soldiers in prisons in the middle east, too.
then i watched law and order, where an ex soldier killed a yemenite guy because he thought he was a terrorist. the show was all about 'not giving in to fear'.
and i was just watching the sbs news, and saw a couple of interesting stories. one was discussing a study in australia which noted that islamic people's experiences of harassment and abuse have increased since the september 11 violence.
the other was discussing another study, where they quoted some scary figures about violence against women in australia. the report argued that the greatest threat to women's health is violence within the home. police reports of domestic violence goes up 20% a year - perhaps an indication of an increasing willingness to report, as well as an increase in incidents.
i'm thinking about that in reference to the recent lot of ads about domestic abuse in homes. and how the ads showed women as the victims of men's abuse - physical mostly, with less emphasis on emotional abuse and bullying.
so i'm really thinking about public perceptions of and representations of violence.
how they work and how they're used...
would you have worried about terrorism before s11?
would the bali thing have been represented in the same way before s11?
Posted by dogpossum: June 16 2004,22:12
i guess my point is that simply 'being nice to each other' really isn't the best or most useful way of dealing with what i'd like to call 'terrorist panic'. i think journlists and politians (or their pr people) have a really big role in shaping public perceptions of violence - 'justifiable' violence, institutionalised violence, etc - and citizenship and safety.
that's why i do media studies for a job. i teach future p.r. and journo people.
my point in listing those media bits above, is that living with violence every day is nothing new. but while there's been a massive, truly massive media and political focus on terrorism - one definition of certain violent acts - there's never ever been anywhere near the sort of attention to forms of violence which affect far more people in austraila than 'terrorism' ever will.
and i think it's a matter of political expediency. howard doesn't believe that domestic abuse (or lesbian parents or racial abuse or all those other nasty things that happen to other people) happens. and the terroristpanic rhetoric depends not on the reality of terrorism in australia, but on the possibility that it might happen.
so i wonder if howard really believes that terrorism will happen? of if he's more interested in the ways he can use the idea that it might exist or might happen for his own political benefit?
or is that too mean?
pft. howard's ignorance and refusal to acknowledge all the sorts of nasty things that are already happening here in australia is far meaner.
Posted by dogpossum: June 17 2004,16:23
yeah yeah. that wasn't meant to be a statement of fact, man, but more of a personal attack-and-slander.
and you know that the effect of howard's govt's emphasis on terrorism, war, et al, is to make it appear as if they don't consider other forms of violence as important - hence invisible and therefore non-existent.
but really, if he really understood these sorts of issues, and felt any sort of empathy, he would - as our national leader and as a fairly influential voice in govt - reconsider his priorities? surely he realises there's more to everyday life than cricket? he can't possibly be the insensitive, unempathic bastard his government's policies suggest? can he?
and what can a govt do, legislatively speaking, to deal with things like domestic violence?
shall we talk about legislative change in this issue, rather than the legislative change enacted in the name of keeping us safe from terrorists?
are you kidding? can you really not figure out how a govt might go about putting [Quote]
measures in place to deal with possible acts
of domestic violence?[/quote]
shall we talk about effective funding for support services dealing with issues of violence in the home (whether against men, women, children, old people or skenvoys)?
and while we're here, what about the cultures of violence and abuse and harassment within the armed forces? should we just shrug and excuse public policy inactivity on that one as well?
of course governments have a role in effecting broader cultural change! of COURSE!
the more i think about that, the more flabberghasted i get.
isn't that the job of governments? to direct social forces - and hence cultural forces?
and of course there's a connection between the increase in harassment of muslim australians and the recent terrorism panic encouraged by our Fearless Leader. not necessarily one of direct cause and effect, but certainly one of 'moments illustrating current dominant ideology'.
Posted by dogpossum: June 17 2004,16:41
incidentally, i'm harping on about domestic violence and terrorism as somehow linked, as the new ad campaign was launched recently. there is an intertextual and connotative connection between the two. i reckon. and domestic violence and war (as a response to terrorism) are interesting examples of different types of violence - interpersonal, 'private sphere', heavily gendered violence; and institutionalised, 'public sphere', nationalised violence.
the govt's anti-terrorism, pro-war stance encourages us to believe that as Australians, we should all be supporting (or at least accepting) a war on terrorism. there's a similar theme in the domestic violence ads - 'australians say no to domestic/sexual violence'. yet we don't see massive, state funded bodies rallying to protect people from domestic violence. despite its affecting far more australians than terrorism does. nor do we see howard devoting so much time and public discursive space to domestic violence.
similarly, we are encouraged by various govt propaganda (and i'm thinking of that horrid fridge magnet pack from... 2001? particularly) and dominant ideological positions in public discourse to see terrorism as a threat to everyone - all australians, whereas we're encouraged to see domestic violence as a threat only to women, and a problem concerning only the 'women' who suffer it and the 'men' who perpetrate it.
it's really interesting. the domestic violence ads are - in the wording of their ads' theme - ostensibly seeking to establish the topic as one of concern for all australians, rather than just 'women' or 'victims' or 'the police' or 'feminists'. but the content of the ads - testimonials by women-victims and men-perpetrators functions quite differently.
the meanings we make from these ads are anchored by other, ongoing representations and cultural myths and ideologies in public discourse. to understand how these ads allow us to read them as gendering sexual violence, despite their 'nationalist' theme, we need to read intertextually - how else is violence being discussed in our community?
i'd argue that howard's role in this meaning-making is quite important. he serves as a powerful and influential figure in the shape of public discourse. how he applies this power and influence - in terms of public 'talk' (let alone legislative or policy change) - affects 'the public''s perception of the issue.
and not just because he is our Patriarchal figure of authority, or so publicly concerned with defining who and what our families - our primary domestic institution - are.
i'll just add: i don't believe that women are the only victims of domestic abuse. nor are men the only perpetrators. but women are overwhelmingly the most likely to suffer these types of violence. them and kids and old people. i think it's more valuable to imagine domestic violence in terms of relationships of power and dependency.
those with the least power in a relationship are more likely to be physically (and otherwise) abused. so the financially dependent, physically vulnerable, socially restricted are most likely to experience violence in their homes. the structures of our wider society collude with dominant ideology (of which howard is a proponent) to ensure that those most likely to be victims will be women and children and the elderly and the disabled.
interestingly, when women commit acts of violence, they are usually directed at those for whom they are responsible as carers - children, the elderly, etc.
i think one way to deal with domestic violence is to change the conditions which facilitate it - unjust social and economic policies and legislations which: make it more financially viable for a mother, rather than a father stay home and look after the kids while the other partner works (howard's preferred family model - curse him); discourage men from seeking support when they're fired from their jobs, experiencing intolerable stresses, etc; encourage particular gender roles where men are to be the strong, fierce providers and women the dependent, vulnerable carers;
and
encourage us to think of 'violence' in terms of national, public threats, rather than the private, domestic concerns of every person, where the perpetrators are known, are family and friends, rather than some scary unknown 'other' who is best identified by their dress and ethnic origin!
