In the article, “From Steamed Bun to Gras Mud Horse”
Bingchun Meng states that when seeking to locate political discourse, “we need
to go beyond the rational, information content directly linked to policy
deliberation or political mobilization in a conventional sense.” Increasingly, the political opinions of
Chinese citizens are formed beyond the traditional sources of information. To understand the mind-set and political
arena of China, scholars must enter into the world of parody, sarcasm, irony
and entertainment.
This reminds me very
much of what is happening in the political discourse of the US. I have increasingly felt that the political
opinions formed and information obtained by my generation of Americans is
increasingly received through sources of strong parody, irony and otherwise
sources meant mainly for entertainment.
Entertainment news such as the newspaper and internet site The Onion and television program, The Daily Show are often meant as
critical social commentaries in the form of parody, irony and
entertainment. Indeed, one of the
strongest powers these programs have is their unwillingness to drop the farce
and confess that the information (presumably presented solely as entertainment)
does have strong and real world effects on the political opinions and most
importantly actions of a large population of American citizens. Many American citizens consider these as real
news sources, or in daily practice end up being one of the main ways Americans
learn about current events of the US and world.
One of the largest rallies seen on the National Mall in Washington,
DC in recent years was supported, promoted and encouraged by John Stewart of
the Daily Show and even then, he refused to admit that it was nothing more than
entertainment, though at the same time being wholly serious and passionate
about the opinions his show promotes.
It is a strange and odd world of politics. Current policy makers and representatives
must take into consideration the strong effect these ‘sources’ of news and
political news have and their constituents and not be afraid to enter into the
world of irrationality and entertainment themselves.
I agree with you about the difference between real action and “liking” a Facebook page. We had an amazing guest lecturer recently in my Political Economy class. The lady who was speaking is a long time advocate of the IMF’s improvements in transparency and accountability. Thanks to her efforts, we at least can now read the IMF’s reports explaining why they failed to predict the latest crisis. Before, they were accountable to nobody in civil society, yet they use its money and decide critical questions of global economic sustainability. Anyway, the question was asked during the lecture about her advocacy group's use of media. She conceded the importance of e-mails, fax machines etc., which help her group coordinate its actions better and quicker. But these are just tools for the actual real world action they do by going to the IMF’s meetings, bothering to ask its representatives for interviews, obtaining professional second opinions on IMF “reports,” and in all possible ways attracting attention to the problem. Her work involves a lot of expertise (she has a PhD in Political Science), a lot of energy and dedication, and a lot of networking at real, high-profile events she attends. Elites may be reading what people post on Facebook, but they themselves are not there and definitely prefer to do business face-to-face, or even behind closed doors. So I think that Facebook will be just a self-indulging game in civil society, so far as problems aren’t being addressed in a professional and well-organized manner, but rather just “liked” or “disliked” by way of one click which requires almost no effort.
Julia D.
Sorry, I meant my comment for a different post...
Julia D.