Skimming through the textbook pondering on what to write, I was interested in the intertwining of power and communication. Although power is "not always evident or obvious... or what kinds of meaning are constructed" it is found universally, especially in Morocco.
Living in a monarchy, the influence of power is quite evident. Even though we have a parliament, the King has the last words. On a primary dimension, gender is an issue. Men and women are still not fundamentally equal, and in the rural areas the conception of a "house wife" still stands today. On a secondary dimension we cannot speak ill of the King no matter what our socioeconomic status-- we'd all end up in prison.
Although Orebe claims that the "power is not a simple one-way proposition". In comparison to Morocco, that is false. Not only is there a constraint on speech, but there is censorship in our newspapers. Accidents, or murders are rarely published, thus we citizens perceive our nation to be free of crime. This alludes to the question how much good does this bring to an individual?
Moving to the United States for university, where there is a democracy is a culture shock. You may disagree with the President openly, yet how much good does that bring? Or constantly listening to the news about deaths, crimes and murder... its weary to hear such sad stories day after day. Would more power within the government actually do some good to the average American?
More power to the government? Yes, in some aspects, this may be a welcome change. However, if the question is government intervention in the media, then I would categorically disagree. Though we in the United States appear to live in a time of government accountability (that is, compared to various regimes throughout history), this is due primarily to democratic mechanisms set forth in the Constitution, one of them being a free press. Perhaps this issue is more benign in Morocco, but there are many examples around the world where government regulation of the media has led to gross excesses of power. The idea that citizens have the ability to investigate and document their leaders and their society serves as a bulwark against those who might attempt to game the system.
ReplyDeleteI would ascribe the preoccupation with death, crime and murder to a sensationalist media, one driven by a desire for viewership and ratings. It's an unfortunate by-product of capitalism, but then again, these things do occur on a daily basis. To overreport them is annoying; however, in my opinion, it certainly doesn't warrant government intervention.
Maria, first of all I really enjoyed reading about the different aspects of your life in Morocco. I understand the differences in gender perspectives because of the religion that is found there is instilled with such beliefs and values; however, I was a little surprised by the censorship on media. But then again I don't follow Moroccan policies.
ReplyDeleteTurning to the questions concerning American policies, I myself work on Capitol Hill for my congressman and get calls everyday about what people think on the issues and they actually do consider their views. So when you say we can disagree with the President, yet what good does that bring? That is the point sometimes it doesn't do anything, but the fact that at other points in history protests have had some positive impact we continue to express our opinions today when we want change. I value the fact that I can go out and march for a cause without worrying about being arrested. And I agree that it is sad to hear all the stories happening in regards to crime and war, but then that gives us things to appreciate and value.
I am not saying by any means that you don't value things, but I know for me that it was my childhood and history or seeing people challenge things and see people fight for better social conditions shaped me and I can't imagine having that taken away.