Thursday, 14 May 2015

Internet blogging in Cuba: A representation of Bloggers and their approaches to social transformation against censorship.

                                                                       Name: Konstantinos Zantes
                                                                       Student ID: s1238604

                                                                   Class: Censorship and social transformation
                                                                   Course: International Studies
                                                                       Word count:  3772



Internet blogging in Cuba: A representation of Bloggers and their approaches to social transformation against censorship.

Internet censorship in Cuba has been an important international concern for years. “The Cuban internet is considered to be one of the most tightly controlled in the world” (Voeux, 2006). In fact “ a special permit is required to use the Internet and all e-mails are intricately monitored” (Voeux, 2006). Therefore such an act is considered a violation of the freedom of speech rights. Such restriction in internet use and other aspects of life are due to the Cuban government, the US embargo and economic limitations. So it is not a surprise that Cuba is one of the most tightly controlled countries in the world. In addition, Cuba is considered by many a totalitarian state that according to the Freedom House, Cuba’s status on the net is “not free” (freedom house, 2013). “It is widely believed that the Internet poses an insurmountable threat to authoritarian rule” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). Indeed, ever since the socialist uprising in Cuba under Fidel Castro, the Cuban government has become notorious for its severe and harsh political repression. “The government passed a law as soon as the Internet appeared in Cuba. Decree-Law 209, adopted in June 1996 and entitled ‘Access from the Republic of Cuba to the Global Computer Network,’ says that the Internet cannot be used ‘in violation of Cuban society’s moral principles or the country’s laws’ and that e-mail messages must not ‘jeopardise national security’ ” (Voeux, 2006). Such control on the internet translates into control of other aspects of the Cuban people’s daily life. “Although tourists are able to have fairly easy access to the internet through for example hotels, Cubans have to go to public internet cafes, where they first have to identify themselves (giving away their privacy) and have to wait up to 45 minutes in line to be able to access a computer” (Voeux, 2006). To receive a clearer picture of the amount of control that the Cuban government has over the internet, “the regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for its political opponents and independent journalists, for whom reaching news media abroad is an ordeal” (Voeux, 2006). “In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner” (Voeux, 2006). Therefore, “Through a combination of reactive and proactive strategies, an authoritarian regime can counter the challenge posed by Internet use and even utilize the Internet to extend its reach and authority” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). Fortunately there are some known Cuban dissident bloggers such as Elaine Diaz and her work “La Polemica Digital”, where she and her group are formulating an avenue for criticism in the country, that offers the public an alternative opinion. Also another renowned blogger is Yoani Sanchez with her work “Generation Y”, that aims for “liberating of the self from political process (Venegas, 2011). Furthermore the essay will explore the effects of government internet restriction on the politics and culture of Cuba. An emphasis on the blogs “La Polemica Digital” by Elaine Diaz and “Generation Y” by Yoani Sanchez will be made, since their works are the most influential and well known in Cuba. Such an analysis will present the attempts of Cuban citizen to cause a social transformation in Cuba as a liberalization of censorship.  This will offer insight on the effect of Cuban blogging between the relationship of the repressive government and the culture existent in Cuba.  The structure of the essay will involve, a theoretical framework, an analysis of the two bloggers, the relationship between blogging and the government, and a comparative case study with Chinese internet censorship. The research question to be answered in this essay is whether, the blogging dissidents in Cuba have brought social transformation in Cuba and to what extent.
Beginning with the theoretical framework, a lot of literature is existent upon the Cuban internet censorship and Cuban blogosphere. Such works offer indispensable insight upon the matters discussed in this essay. In her report “Going Online in Cuba : Internet under surveillance”, Claire Voeux elaborates on the authoritarian nature of the Cuban government and the censorship it applies on the internet. To clearly present her point, she states how “Political dissidents and independent journalists are not usually allowed into Internet cafes” (Voeux, 2006). This is one of the many actions that the government undertakes in order to consolidate its censorship of opposition in Cuba. Moreover Voeux explains the relationship between Cuba and China and how they exchange information and are attempting to negotiate. Also in “Freedom and exchange in communist Cuba” by Yoani Sanchez there is a blatant depiction of the lack of freedom for the people. This idea is reinforced by the quote “Fidel Castro’s socialist revolution promised to satisfy the basic needs of the Cuban people, but the price demanded was the surrender of freedoms” (Sanchez, 2010). Through this remark it becomes obvious how a lot of political dissidents feel about the regime.
The following piece of literature worthy of analysis is “Liberating the self: The biopolitics of Cuban blogging” by Venegas. Venegas clearly represents the political context of internet activism, more specifically in the realm of the Cuban blogosphere. She notes how the bloggers act upon the unfair restrictions they face daily due to the governmental actions and ideals. She further describes how blogging is a now acting as a tool to represent people’s identity in Cuba and to the world culture. Moreover,  Renee Timberlake suggests in her work “Cyberspace and the Defence of the Revolution: Cuban Bloggers, Civic Participation, and State Discourse” the difference between bloggers in Europe with bloggers in China, Iran and Cuba. For example she writes that “While a blogger in a liberal democratic country may freely partake in political discussions, bloggers in countries such as China, Iran, and Cuba are extraordinary in their determination to share their lived realities with the world despite limited access to the Internet, government censorship of certain websites, and fear of repercussions” (Timberlake, 2010).
Furthermore in the literature, “Literacy, Censorship and Intellectual Freedom: The Independent Library Movement in Contemporary Cuba” by Kelsey Vidaillet, looks at “what is the freedom of expression, freedom of information, intellectual freedom and censorship in Cuba” (Vidaillet, 2007). In addition she further elaborates on the practises of the government upon the Cuban people. The final, work worth noting is “From Cyberspace to Public Space? The Emergent Blogosphere and Cuban Civil Society” by Ted A. Henken and Sjamme van de Voort. It illustrates how famous blogs and bloggers have effectively become a vital part of Cuba’s expanding public sphere.
“The political debate in Cuba appears to be shifting away from the traditional spaces of public participation created by the state” (Fonseca, 2011). Therefore with the emergence of the internet and blogging, Boje in his work discusses how “with the advent of modernity (science, technology[…]), the mechanistic overtook the organic”. Cyber activism started to emerge as a new challenging practise to the state. However this would not go unnoticed by the government. This is because, “Government policies of the United States and Cuba transform the Cuban Internet into a rough and inaccessible space where it is nearly impossible to navigate without being co-opted by the Scylla of state capture or beholden to the Charibdis of foreign support” (Henken and Van de Voort, 2014). Indeed, both governments employed such policies on the internet in order to satisfy their own self interests in terms of geopolitical and strategic goals. Therefore it becomes an insurmountable task to become a revered blogger with the independence to write about any matter he or she chooses. Elain Diaz and Yoani Sanchez are two prominent examples of exceptions of people who managed to gain the freedom to advocate their opinions of day to day repression and censorship by the Cuban government.
Elaine Diaz is better known for her work “La Polemica Digital”, where she and her group are formulating an avenue for criticism in the country, that offers the public an alternative opinion. “A professor of journalism at the University of Havana, a public institution, Ms. Díaz is an employee of the state” (Ritter, 2013). “That has not stopped her from writing publicly and with disarming directness about the challenges of daily life in Cuba on her blog, La Polémica Digital, for the last five years” (Ritter, 2013). Ms Diaz has never been contacted by the authorities, showing signs of surprising tolerance from the government. Indeed few people are able to criticise the government without some form of intervention. For example, when Ms Diaz took her leave from the blogging due to her desire to focus on her teaching, “Cuba’s more famous and far more radical critic, Yoani Sánchez speculated that she had been forced off the keyboard by a government that had lost patience with her” (Ritter, 2013). Obviously she did not know then that Ms Diaz voluntarily left blogging for her own reasons, but this assumption clearly presents the repression and intervention that the Cuban government is willing to practise in order to remove any opposition. “The Cuban government, however, has increased the surveillance by the Cuban police on Sánchez, Diaz and fellow bloggers because of this, limiting ways for the bloggers to take their protests out on the streets” (Venegas, 2010). “This of course has increased the risk that comes along with the work they do, and many bloggers fear what could happen to them” (Venegas, 2010). Furthermore, Ms Diaz’s blog La Polémica Digital, offers accounts of everyday life and criticisms through her experiences in Cuba. She wants to offer a voice for the people and the government in an attempt to merge Cuban popular culture with the government’s actions in the hope that the two become more cohesive and united. Through projecting the complaints from her blog she can give people a greater understanding of the situation and a mentality of openness and freedom of speech in Cuba. Conversely she can act as a messenger of the people to the government thus giving them the people’s perspective on certain issues involving domestic and foreign policies. Such blogging is an indispensable source of progress in such a totalitarian state which has been internationally pressurized for years.
Another well-known Cuban blogger, Yoani Sanchez is perhaps the main provocateur and actor of defamation for the Cuban government. In her blog “Generation Y” which is defined as generation “I”, thus giving a meaning of individualist independence, she casts light upon the issues of repression on Cuban society. Venegas further analyses that Sanchez’s work presents a “mobilization of life forces within the ambivalent dynamics of  technological relation – one which sets the human up as co-emerging with machines, tools, and media environments.” (Venegas, 2011). Furthermore Sanchez, offers a creative and personal catharsis in her descriptions of everyday life and social repression in Cuba, starting from 2007. In the same year she would receive International recognition and feedback from her readers that introduced the international fan base she would eventually form. It is interesting to point out that Yoani Sanchez is more widely known around the world than in Cuba due to the censorship and lack of access of the internet. In 2008 due to the increase of political repression in Cuba, Sanchez had the idea of approaching the issue with a new strategy by taking part in the public action of “La Red Ciudadana” which aimed to bring power to civil society and to consolidate the ideals of transparency and independence in Cuba. This in turn managed to bring gradual movement of political activism from the cyberspace to the public space. What Sanchez and other Cuban bloggers portray, “Generally speaking, is the recognition of the disparity between the Cuba that ideally would be (or as Sánchez says “the Cuba that was promised to me as a girl”) and the Cuba that has come into being” (Timberlake, 2010). This reinforces the idea that apart from the existence of censorship in Cuba, there is also the combination of state propaganda feeding the people with certain ideals that might not be applied in practise. It is clear that, “while Sánchez may have begun her blog with the goal of simply communicating her version of her own reality, her blog and her life as a whole are now directed at drawing attention to the severe restrictions of the current regime and to effecting lasting change in the politics of Cuba” (Timberlake, 2010). Sanchez has also taken the next steps in touring outside Cuba in order to spread awareness on the Cuban situation. Amidst all of these actions, the Cuban government has been surprisingly lenient and tolerant. Moreover, both Diaz and Sanchez “are seeking to “extend the boundaries of free speech” and to redefine how appropriate participation can look when real value is attached to the expression of critique and dissent as part of a collaborative approach to a hegemonic discourse” (Timberlake, 2010).
The relationship between the concept of blogging and the government is a very intricate one since it involves the conflict of the regimes principles and practise of ideals. As mentioned in the introduction, Cuba deploys multiple methods in order to sustain its tight knitted controlled on the Cuban population. This is achieved through limited internet access for the locals, Propaganda in the media, and censorship of material against the regime’s ideals. More specifically several specific cases of blogs have been technically blocked and the famous blogger Sanchez had been denied the permission to leave the country until recently. That is why as mentioned before, Sanchez is organizing her tour worldwide, in order to finally present her views as she has always wished. Also, “Sánchez and other unauthorized bloggers have been portrayed as mercenaries of the revolution´s enemies” (Trimmer, 2014). Nonetheless, the repression and attempt to fight back the so called “internet insurgents” is also translated through the “operation truth” in which the “State embraced the new medium to counter the ideological challenge” (Trimmer, 2014).  This operation in turn relates with the Gramscian ideological “struggle” of hegemony, since it clearly represents the battle for rights between the leadership and the oppressed classes. Operation truth involved the emergence of official blogs as top-down initiatives and the purpose was to combat the “media terrorism” proclaimed to be existent by the bloggers such as Diaz and Sanchez. For example Fidel’s twitter page. Named as “Reflections by Fidel” ultimately is an attempt by the regime to pave an ideological path for the accepted ideals, that society should abide to. Also it is an attempt to give the people a form of intimacy with their leader through the cyberspace.
In Cuba blogging is perceived as an empowering action that defines individuals as “senders” in a global media reality. From such a statement it becomes apparent that, “In Cuba such an ability to circumvent media filters challenges the state´s grip on the public sphere” (Trimmer, 2014). Cuba is such a unique case in this aspect, because blogging in this country was born out of the constraint  on public debate in the physical world. From the moment the physical world was repressed, new alternative methods had to be discovered and utilized as a response. In the initial stages of blogging, people would “set up the blogs on a server outside of the island (“blind blogging”)” (Trimmer, 2014). This is a clear indication of the passion driving the people to get their point across to the state and the citizens. On the other hand the “State´s tight control served as a political magnifying glass” (Trimmer, 2014). Therefore both sides pushed each other in order to accomplish their aims regardless of the other. According to Christina Venegas, “Blogging emerges simultaneously as a measure of the difficulty of, and need for being in the world”. Moreover she mentions that “the networking that occurs constructs a bio politics where personal practices emerge alongside technology, political debate and, increasingly, broader economic forces” (Venegas, 2010).
Both sides are struggling to represent themselves above each other. The government due to the tools at its disposal is able to easily keep dominance on this front. According to the columnist Nat Hentoff “In Castro’s Cuba…there were no newspapers, except official ones. No books, except those sanctioned by the regime…jails filled with prisoners – from those who violently opposed the regime to those who simply dared speak out.” From this quote, the conception of the government’s dominance over the insurgent messages against the state repression is consolidated. Moreover in Hentoff’s article three main actions of the state to supress freedom of expression are stated. The state is said to have nationalized the communications industry, implemented severe and harsh punishments on Cubans who violate government restrictions and it denied the people of access of foreign information sources. Therefore once again, it is blatant that the people are at the mercy of the state and it really depends on those few pioneers who blog the truth and are allowed to do so by the government. In hindsight, the situation is improving and the Cuban state is gradually opening up to the world.
China is another example of a regime having complete control and supervision on the internet. What this entails is that by “Examining the experiences of these two countries may help to shed light on other authoritarian regimes’ strategies for Internet development, as well as help to develop generalizable conclusions about the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). In this part of the essay a comparison of the two regimes will be made in terms of how they supervise internet usage within their sovereign borders. In both cases it is historically proven that they have the means to counter the multiple insurgent fronts they face from the development of the internet. Moreover, they both use very similar pro-active strategies in order to achieve their state interests such as internet usage restriction to the local population. Conversely, the two countries have differences in their reactive measures of control. “Cuba’s strategy hinges on control of access to the Internet, including a prohibition on individual public access and the careful selection of institutions that are allowed to connect to the Internet” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001) . “In contrast, China has promoted more widespread access to the Internet and has tried to limit the medium’s potential challenges through a combination of content filtering, monitoring, deterrence, and the promotion of self–censorship” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). Another major difference between the two regimes, is that China is much more open in formulating its own version of a market-oriented information economy, than Cuba due to ideological differences. “Although China and Cuba both seek — in differing degrees — to modernize their economies through the use of information technology, this strategy brings with it inherent challenges” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). This is because the emergence of such an economy, brings the rise of entrepreneurship which in turn leads to the creation of an economical elite that inevitably has political influence and demands. Nonetheless, both regimes have proven to be very strong in dealing with opposition and more specifically civil society organizations. Another aspect of this discourse worth discussing is that both authoritarian regimes did not lose control after the diffusion of the internet in their countries. “Although conventional wisdom often suggests that the Internet is an inherently democratizing technology, many authoritarian regimes have translated a long and successful history of control over previous ICTs into effective control of the Internet” (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). Therefore it is clear that, through the use of reactive strategies such as the restriction of access, removal of undesired information and promotion of self–censorship, authoritarian regimes can neutralise any problem regarding internet use. Finally, Voeux declares that there was a possible cooperation of Cuba with China in surveillance of electronic communication. Claire explains that, “China and Cuba have stepped up economic cooperation since President Hu Jintao’s visit in November 2004, following which a Chinese official said China would participate in developing the Cuban telecommunications sector” (Claire, 2006). On top of that she reports that according to an American site, it is known that in 2005 Santa Clara in cuba had electronic spying equipment. Such equipment clearly illustrates the fact that governments like Cuba are organising their defences carefully as a means to control the internet.
In accordance to the research question of the essay, regarding whether blogging dissidents have created social transformation in Cuba and to what extent, the answer is complicated. From analysing both sides it becomes apparent that the blogger dissidents have managed to make their voices heard in the global scene, but not as successfully in the interior. What this insinuates is that the Cuban government is in firm control of the internet usage and capacity, and is not intending on making it completely free. Although the government has shown signs of openness and adaptation towards the processes of globalization and technological advancement, it maintains many of its repressive features. Also its application of surveillance of the internet which is similar to the Chinese, brings doubts to what extent Cuba will open up. The only positive sign has been the lenience the state has given to certain key blogging dissidents that have made a sensation worldwide. Conversely, it beckons the question whether such leniency is tactical or a form of compromise from the government. Elaine Diaz and Yoani Sanchez are the pioneers of a liberating front on the internet that has culminated to a physical presence in society. Their actions offer voice to many people in the country and had been an onset of some social transformation in the demand of civil liberties.
In Conclusion it is blatant that the Blogging in Cuba is a start for the freedom of internet use in Cuba. There is an ongoing struggle between the government repression and the civilians push for more rights. “Blogging has made it possible for individuals to reconsider their identity and their relationship to the world culture and Cuban politics” (Venegas, 2010). “Even though it is clear that the Cuban government has not adopted a friendly position towards these bloggers, the activity in blogging persists because the writers are driven by the need to express their dissatisfaction with the Cuban government, and call for reforms of policies” (Venegas, 2010). However it is highly unlikely that we see any radical changes in the freedom of use of the internet anytime soon. But from viewing the changes occurring in the past years, optimism of change is present since the people’s culture and rights are not going to be restrained forever.





Bibliography

-        -  Boje, David M. "Grotesque Method." Diss. New Mexico State U, 2004. Abstract. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
-         -  Brenner, Philip, Marguerite R. Jiménez, John M. Kirk, and William M. LeoGrande. A Contemporary Cuba Reader: The Revolution Under Raúl Castro. , 2015. Print.
-          -  Cyberspace and the Defense of the Revolution: Cuban Bloggers, Civic Participation, and State Discourse. Loyola    eCommons, 2010. Internet resource.
-          - Freedom House. “Cuba Country Report.” Freedom on the Net 2013. Web.
-          - Kalathil, Shanthi, and Taylor C. Boas. The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001. Print.
-         -  Hentoff, Nat. “Freedom to read!” The Village Voice Vol.50, Iss.7 (16-22 Feb 2005): 26
-        -   Ritter, Arch, “Cuban Blogger Who Reveres Castro Pushes for Reform." The Lede Cuban Blogger Who Reveres Castro Pushes for Reform Comments. N.p., 11 June 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
-        -   Sánchez, Yoani. Freedom and Exchange in Communist Cuba. Washington, D.C: Cato Institute, 2010. Print.
-          - Trimmer, Nanne. "Digital Technologies and Public Sphere in Cuba." Culture of Latin America - Lecture. Campus Den Haag, Den Haag. 10 Nov. 2014. Lecture.
-         -  Venegas, Cristina. “Liberating the self: The biopolitics of Cuban blogging.” Journal of International Communication 16.2 (2010): 43-54. Web.
-         - Vidaillet, Kelsey. Literacy, Censorship and Intellectual Freedom: The Independent Library Movement in Contemporary Cuba. Diss. Florida International U, 2007. Florida: n.p., n.d. Print.
-         -  Voeux, Claire. “Going online in Cuba: Internet under surveillance.” Reporters Without Borders (2006): 1-6. Web.


Thursday, 2 April 2015

Space Propaganda in Good Bye, Lenin !





Censorship in Good Bye Lenin !
The German tragicomedy Good Bye Lenin, released in 2003, is a movie about censorship. The storyline is based around a family in the GDR part of Berlin around the fall of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Censorship can be defined as the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Not only is censorship restrictive but Butler argues that censorship is a productive form of power: it is not merely privative, but formative as well. I want to distinguish this position from the one that would claim that speech is incidental to the aims of censorship. Censorship seeks to produce subjects according explicit and implicit norms, and this production of the subject had everything to do with the regulation of speech. By the latter, I do not mean to imply that the subject is narrowly liked to the regulation of that subject's speech, but rather to the regulation of the social domain of speakable discourse.

The first notion of censorship in the movie starts with the prologue, where the oldest son Alex follows how the first German, Sigmund Jähn enters into space. Especially in the context of Cold War and competition between the West and the East, or the USA and the USSR, technology to enter space was an important aspect of censorship by both parties. More than the weapon or economic race, both powers used space missions and the race to be the first on the moon as an important part of their propaganda of who was best. The race to be the first on the moon and the adjusted discourse and information towards the people produced a feeling of unity and superiority. At the beginning and the end of the movie, this identification with Socialism and therefore USSR for the main character, Alex, was mainly based on the discourse around entering space.



But after the prologue a different side of the Communist regime is showed in a scene where the father of Max has fled to the West, leaving the mother depressed. When she recovers and comes home she devote herself to the ideology of Socialism. Here comes another notion of censorship as a productive form of power, as the mother called Christiane becomes part of the formative form of censorship in her role as teacher and member of the Socialist club, therefore becoming an intermediary between the Censors (socialist regime) and the Censored (children).

In the scene where the actual story starts, groups of people protesting people walk among the streets for free press, which is an repressive and direct form of censorship. Alex is among them and meets his future girlfriend Lara. This call to stop the direct censorship is violently stopped by the police, the political instrument to enforce law and order by the institution in power. While Alex is being arrested, his mother sees this and gets a heart attack. When Alex is released she is in coma and the doctor doesn’t know if she will come back.

While the mother is in coma the USSR implodes, the wall falls and Germany is reunited. The main discourse is that the free liberal west now comes into the conservative and suppressed east to modernize Berlin. After all these event, around eight months, the mother wake up from her coma. After initial happiness, the doctors tells Alex and his sister Ariane that the mother is still very weak and the situation dangerous. She could suffer another fatal heart attack after another shock. Alex realized that the discovery of current events of unification of Germany would lead to her death, and therefore comes up with a plan to censor his mother to protect her.

He creates a scene where all the flows of information misled the mother that she still live in the GDR, the conservative socialist regime without capitalist take over from the West. While successful for a long time through various scenes, the deception is becoming more difficult after the mother recovers and slowly starts to explore more than her room. The interesting part of the main part of the movie is the inception of Max his ideas and connection with Socialism, resulting into the censoring of the GDR as Max would see it. In this case Max self-censored his information about the GDR towards his mother. The initial notion of censorship used by the Socialist regime, that off space flights and the race about the moon is reflected through the censored GDR of Max. He meets Sigmund Jähn who is now a taxi driver and in his last reflection of the GDR before his mother dies is how Sigmund Jähn becomes the new leader of the USSR, based on his perspective of somebody who went to space. In the last scene, where the mother had died happy and deceived, they send her ashes into space with a self-made rocket.  

In the movie Good Bye Lenin, several forms of censorship were used. The most common use of censorship, restrictive censorship was seen at the police arrests and the restricted flow of information Max allowed his mother to be seen. The productive form of censorship was seen in how the USSR used space technology as a discourse as a regulation of speakable discourse, and how this influenced the perspective of the main character Max. The film starts with how Max is inspired by this entering of space, and it also ends with the ashes of the mother being send to space. Throughout the movie an evolution of this self-censoring around space missions and Sigmund Jähn as the new supreme leader of Socialism.

Müller, Beate. „Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.“  Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.

Bernays, Edward. Propaganda ig publishing Brooklyn New York 1928 p.159

Eisman, Gene. and Hardesty, Von Epic Rivalry The Inside Story of the Soviet and American Space Race National Geographic Washington DC 2007 p.xxv

Image : http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/space_prop016.jpg

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Goodbye Lenin, Hello new horizons

Goodbye Lenin is a German movie who was recommended to me by several of my friends. All were unanimous: it is a chef d'oeuvre, grandiose movie I should be ashamed of not having seen yet. Therefore I watched it. And if I personally did not find it as mind blowing as it was depicted to me, I do agree it is a classic, an indispensable landmark in the cinematographic and social studies' history.
In Goodbye Lenin (2003), director Wolfgang Becker follow Alex Kerner (Daniel Brühl) in his attempts to recreate Soviet German Democratic Republic. Alex young idealist adult from Eastern Berlin assists to the transformation of Eastern Germany and the transition from his childhood communist Berlin to a modern, consumerist and capitalist Berlin. Originally pro-transition, Alex does not accept this new Berlin, far different from his illusions. The awakening from a coma of his socialist party-partisan mother who missed the fall of the Berlin Wall gives him the perfect prefect to return time. For his mother, Alex will censor his family, neighbors, and even himself; Thus bringing down the silent censorship on the reunification of the two Germany. Thanks to Alex, Wolfgang Becker addresses here two aspects often ignored of censorship : socio-cultural censorship and media's censorship.

Often ignored, socio-cultural censorship is just as, if not more, powerful than the State's. Often passed under silence, it is more and more studied as the public sphere “open up”. Paradoxically, as more and more discussions arise on women rights, racism and other post-modern subjects, the social pressure against anyone who's opinion differs from the “politically correct” increases (Mueller 3). As capitalism became the main socio-politico-economical system around the world, its competitors are academically and politically criticized. However for a certain regime to resist for years, its citizens must be able to survive and thrive to a certain point. In this sense, the reunification of Germany is often depicted as the end of a “dark” period. Yet, only qualifying it as so is denying the memories and childhoods of thousands of East Germans. Through Alex's resistance, the movie reminds its spectators that humans lived and loved during 50 years under socialism.
Confirming that this refreshing approach was a valuable addition to the study of the end of the Cold War, Becker's movie was overwhelmingly acclaimed world wide. Subtle critic of both communism and capitalism, Goodbye Lenin is the voice of the citizens who have to live through any specific regime. It opens a new dimension of discussions in the German public sphere, openly criticizing the end of socialism. Moreover, by opening such a discussion, this movie also questions how the transition is nowadays presented and thus the limits of reality.

As the idealist image Alex had of capitalism only leaves him frustrated, confronted to the reality; Alex develops nostalgia towards the old regime, symbol of his past and happy childhood.
Helped by his sister, girlfriend and neighbors, Alex thus recreate this nostalgic past. To do so, he goes as far as filming fake news to convince his mother, taking over the role of the media. Which brings us to another dilemma Becker touches upon : media are the support and defenders of the “Truth”. Yet, as they present facts a certain way, they create a discourse and distort the truth they are delivering to their trusting watchers. To support his claims, Alex uses images from the real situation, such as Eastern Berliners escaping to West-Berlin but present them as depicting the exact contrary. Yet, as time goes on, Alex himself admits that it becomes increasingly difficult to return to reality. His fiction takes a life of his own, where the discourse Alex created becomes the norm, even for himself. And despite the unbelievability news reports Alex's mother watches, she can do nothing but passively accepts this “truth”. Such scenes brings us back to the actual world. Goodbye Lenin reminds us that media, on whom we count to gather the informations necessary to our existence, are not innocent nor a symbol of objectivity. Depending which facts are presented to us, by whom but also how and through which support, only a certain side of our fluid reality comes to light. Of course, it is impossible to depict all aspects and points of view on a situation. However, the danger is when a media's representation of reality becomes the only truth, as Alex's representation of East-Berlin becomes his mother's truth. Media then become censors, silencing others' opinions:
Despite being the representation of the liberty of speech against any type of censorships, media are both subjects of socio-cultural censorship and censors of informations and reality.

To summarize, Wolfgang Becker shows us that just as Capitalism is no heaven, Socialism is no hell. It was a human system. It was indeed strict and full of hardships but nonetheless, as human lives went on, people adapted to it and integrated the system into their culture and their roots. Forgetting about this fact and thinking of Socialist Germany only from a political perspective is to deny the past of all its inhabitants. Becker also teaches us we ought not to forget that the reality we perceive is based on words and discourses. And many if not most of these discourses are carried and reproduced through media's proactive choices.
To conclude, Goodbye Lenin is a story. A story of frustration, of growing up. A story where reality and fiction get mix to the point where the hero is not sure which is which. And where we starts questioning as well, if the reality we are taught is the one we want to follow. A story worth watching.


Works referenced :
Müller, Beate. “Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory”.
Good Bye Lenin! Dir. Wolfgang Becker. Perf. Daniel Brühl, Katrin Saß, Maria Simon, and Chulpan Khamatova. X Verleih AG, 2003.

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

Georgi Daneliya’s adventure with self-censorship and symbolism


 
Rudolf Prozserin
s1076590
Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation
 

Georgi Daneliya’s adventure with self-censorship and symbolism


Georgian film director Georgi Daneliya (გიორგი დანელია) directed the movie 33 in 1965, a “speculative fiction comedy” (Georgieva 1) starring Evgeniy P. Leonov (Евгений Павлович Леонов). The film presented a socio-critical perspective of the soviet society through an absurd story of a man with 33 teeth, his adventures in becoming famous for having an abnormal amount of teeth, leading him to a science-fictious adventure due to his Martian origin, only to wake up and see it was partially a dream. The film was banned for being anti-soviet. Daneliya directed another highly socio-critical film 21 years later. Either because of the introduction of Glasnost' or due to Kin-Dza-Dza!'s symbolist method, the movie was not banned, instead celebrated and has become well-known.

Kin-Dza-Dza! (Кин-дза-дза!) is a science-fiction cyberpunk dystopian fantasy film (4) about two soviet men [Gedevan Alexandrovich (Georgian) and Vladimir Nikolaevich (Muscovite)] finding themselves in the galaxy called Kin-Dza-Dza!, on planet Pl'uk. Once there, they get acquainted with two indigenous extra-terrestrial traveling artists. The two artists (Mr Wef and Bi) help the soviet “tourists” understand the local societal norms, which includes coloured-pants-differentiated social hierarchy, where the currency is matches and the language consists of a handful of words due to the telepathic nature of the locals. The first thing our heroes note to themselves is that it is a capitalist society. The planet Pl'uk is a desert planet as the oceans were transformed to fuel long ago. The ethnically and economically divided population is ruled by an authoritarian regime with ruthless laws and law enforcement agents. All ethical standards are replaced by strict – and absurd – rules, where one group of the population rules another. The technologically significantly more advanced people of Pl'uk demonstrate the worst human qualities with no remorse, however not being entirely alien to a soviet man of the mid-1980s. The socio-criticism and by extension the system-criticism of the far “other” inevitably forces the viewer to re-evaluate their own standards and makes one realise the utter grotesqueness of not only the capitalist world but also the very system that sanctioned this multi-layered cult film, that reached almost every household in the Soviet Union, generating expressions in the Russian language to be used and understood widely, thus bleeding into everyday conversations of the society bypassing the Goskino, the State Committee for Cinematography, the agency responsible for censoring motion picture in the USSR. The movie is divided into two parts, totaling a 135 minutes of detached and satirical entertainment for all ages, bringing about differing experiences among the varied viewers. The ever-relevant Kin-Dza-Dza! Still, even today generates fan-based material and the cult-phrase “Koo!” (Ку!) is widely known even among the youngest generation of the post-soviet population.

The adventures of Uncle Vova and Gedevan presents not only criticism of the state and the soviet society but through lovable main characters, about the viewer itself. The parallel between the two Pl'uk classes and the Russian and Georgian characters is undeniable. The bizarre social structure, burial ritual, economic system and ethical standards could not have passed the censor had the movie not used far-detached symbolism, science-fictious storyline and other means of self-censorship. Naturally, film making, as any other process of creating art, cannot in its entirety be a conscious effort. (Müller 25) As stated above, it is not sure whether Kin-Dza-Dza! escaped a ban due to a financial, societal, and ideological restructuring called Glasnost' or Daneliya's conscious and unconscious effort in self-censoring while still conveying a rebellious code to the public, after all the director was not unfamiliar with censorship of movies that are pushing the boundaries of the regime's grasp.

The indigenous Mr Wef and Bi demonstrated human character flaws such as greed, lack of empathy, and appeared as deceivers, but when in need, asked for the opposites of these negative attributes, requested mercy of the earthlings of the Soviet Union, perhaps pointing out obvious requirements, the need to be a decent, reasonable man. Daneliya not only rebelliously criticised the system, but educated the simple soviet man, reminding one of the universalities of humanity through humour, irony and other satirical tools, through a cyber-punk science-fiction movie, almost ridiculing the very need of grotesque symbolism to convey ideas critical of the status quo.

Bibliography


Georgieva, Margarita. Kin Dza Dza! (1986). 2010.

Müller, Beata. Censorship and cultural regulation: Mapping the territory. Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.


Censorship as a form of conditioning: Huxley’s Brave New World

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”

This quote, an excerpt from Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, reflects one of the key themes from the same well-known novel; psychological conditioning as a means of control. Huxley’s novel has arguably been as influencing as George Orwell’s ‘1984’, sharing the theme of picturing a future totalitarian civilization where censoring and conditioning seep through all layers of public and personal life. Despite focusing mainly on scientific progress as a crucial factor for a future utopia (or dystopia, if you will), there are plenty of reasons to consider the content of this novel as a perspective of understanding censorship, which will be discussed in this blog.
            Firstly, for those unfamiliar with this novel, I will list the key features of the book that have a connection with the process of understanding censorship. But I can certainly recommend the reader to read this classic if this has not been done before. Regarding the book itself: published in 1932, Aldous Huxley wove a future world where all civilization is united in one great utopia, with a managed population in which natural reproduction is absent. Instead, people are bred in so-called Reproduction & Reconditioning Centers, in which they are unconsciously indoctrinated to naturally fit into one out of five castes. Indoctrination works mainly by constant citing of maxims, which are all meant to promote an ideology focused on Fordism and consumerism. Citizens of this world have sex only for fun, solitude is forbidden, and any doubting of the system is erased by close observation, elimination and mostly by applying a hallucinogen called soma. The story focuses on a young man whose conditioning failed to restrict his freedom of thought, who is to meet a Savage boy from a small part of the world that is excluded from the utopia and whose people live in rough, deserted nature. The most important element of the novel for this blog lies in the idea of (re)conditioning, ideology and the struggle for pursuing a nigh impossible counter hegemonic view of the world.
            In the context of censorship, this work is fascinating, because it tends to assume that ideology and the censoring (or even erasure) of some of our most basic human elements (e.g. the need for solitude, parenthood, individual thought, the nature of our human relations) find their origin from ‘above’, meaning the State. Conditioning finds its origin here, but its success in the plot lies in the idea that the discourse in case is enforced and checked continuously by all the citizens. This is the source of agony for the main character Bernard, who has retained a sense of autonomous thought. In this we see reflected a key notion in the study of censorship: an example of New Censorship (as coined by Muller), which argues that censorship and ideology are imposed both by authorities and everyday social communication. Huxley’s vision describes the end of freedom of thought; substituted instead by ideology imprinted in our very genes.
            Huxley’s end-of-the-line vision creates food for thought, regarding conditioning. Now firstly we ought to understand ideology in this case in a Marxist way: as a belief system that is implemented within a society in a top-down fashion, causing subordinate clauses to subject themselves willingly to beliefs and interests that benefit the ruling classes (Lewis 26). This is altogether a notion political, philosophical and personal: in Huxley’s novel ideology dictates birth, happiness, thought and death in every possible detail. And censorship is compliant with this: ban or erase one way of thinking and living often entails promoting another manner of thought and believing. In other words, according to Billiani’s research, censorship is to be understood as a (usually dominant) discourse itself, produced in a given society and time, and expressed in repressive cultural, aesthetic, political or economic ways. Yet Huxley reminds us that we should not only view censorship as part of the public sphere and as something repressive only; rather it is something that can be considered a form of conditioning too. Brave New World erases our basic human values and substitutes this by a completely new discourse. Huxley meant this as a warning for future generations, but it can also be interpreted as part of our personal lives too: discursive ideology teaches us how to live as part of a society or civilization, dictates what one ought to achieve or pursue, and minimizes anything that does not conform to the dominant ideology.
            This definition and function of censorship serves a purpose of finding its roots in cultural studies; which draws extensively from philosophy. I am assuming censorship is a philosophical concept too, a complicated tool used for dictating not only what is ethical, but also as a means of diverting the individual’s attention away from matters that may pose a challenge to a society’s ideology. Huxley plays with this idea in Brave New World, by writing the following: “You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.”, with ‘reading books’ as an example of something that does not fit with the guidelines. By assuming that censorship may be a philosophical problem, I feel that it is worth the shot of continuously questioning the origins of one’s belief system, as well as one’s external ambitions and practices.
            In conclusion, I repeat that Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World touches upon the notion of a future utopia (or dystopia) that features indoctrination and conditioning as means to consolidate a totalitarian ideology. In more plain words: Huxley describes a world, in which the things you think and feel are just a result of genetic modification, put in and enforced by other people. This idea can be linked to cultural studies and censorship, reminding us that censoring one thing and promoting another dictate not only large external events, but also our personal beliefs and philosophical notions. Censorship is an intimate phenomenon, telling what to believe; but even with the best intentions, it is still a philosophical as well as a sociological issue in this sense. This, after all, is the message that lies perpetuated in Huxley’s novel, a reminder that censorship is neither a thing of the past nor something used solely against counter hegemonic individuals.

Bibliography:
- Müller, Beate. “Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.”  Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
- Calder, Jenni. “Huxley and Orwell: Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four”. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1976, 7-59.
- Billiani, Francesca, ed. Modes of Censorship: National Contexts and Diverse Media. Routledge, 2014, 1-27.
- Lewis, Jeff. Cultural Studies - The Basics. Sage, 2002, 23-27.

Good bye, Lenin! : A Review

Ecesu Erol
s1361538
Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation
Dr. Ksenia Robbe
Word Count: 1099
Good bye, Lenin! : A Review
1989. East Berlin. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Drastic changes in Germany and the reunification process. There is a tendency when talking about the consequences of the event to focus on political players rather than the people. The movie Good bye, Lenin! however chooses to focus on a single family from East Berlin and observe their lives while using the events simply as background. The social change is reflected through this one family; the transition of their clothes, furniture, jobs and relations... Through this director Wolfgang Becker achieves a more personal angle, making it more relatable for the viewer. We see the nostalgia for East Berlin, the communist pickles, the abandoned houses as a representation of what people left behind…
The main character of the movie is a young man with the name Alex Kerner who joins an anti-Berlin Wall march one night. The same night Christiane, his mother a devoted communist, sees her son getting beaten and arrested by the police. At the sight of this Christiane has a heart attack and goes into coma not to wake up for eight months. During these months a lot changes regarding East Berlin and the Kerner family. First free elections are held, Christiane’s daughter Ariane quits college and starts working at Burger King, Ariane’s boyfriend moves into the Kerner’s apartment, Alex meets Lara who enters their lives. When Christiane wakes up, the doctor warns her family that if she experiences a shock it could lead to another hearth attack which could be deadly.
Alex seeing the recent news regarding the fall of the Berlin Wall as a threat decides not to tell his mom about it. He convinces the doctors that it would be better for her to be home, where he could control what she is exposed to.
The reality becomes danger as Alex becomes the creator and protector of an illusion.
It was in October, in the supermarket. There was this enormous queue and it was really hot and you just passed out.” The first brick of the newly constructed reality of Alex begins while still in the hospital, after his mom wakes up. It is the first lie that she is being told, for her own good.
From this point onwards Alex’s reality will face many obstacles.
Ariane doesn’t agree with Alex’s idea but she helps him nevertheless. Firstly they have to get rid of the Western furniture they had bought while bringing back the old Eastern furniture they had thrown to the streets like many others. They redecorate Christiane’s bedroom and make sure to not leave behind any signs of change. Alex breaks the antenna of the radio so that his mom won’t have access to any news. The family changes back into their Eastern clothing. This is the first steps of the illusion on which the rest will be built.
We often fall into the mistake of thinking of censorship in the very literal sense of for example the government banning a book or an album while overlooking more subtle ways of censorship. In this specific case of Good bye, Lenin!, Alex becomes the censor as Christiane becomes the one that is exposed to this censorship, the receiver.
One of the main challenges for Alex occurs when his mom asks for Spreewald Pickles. This is also one part of the movie that shows the drastic differences between East and West Berlin and how they merge from two completely different worlds into one. The contrast is very visible to the audience especially when Alex goes into the corner store that used to have empty shelves towards the fall of the Berlin Wall only to see that all the shelves are full of new products of all kinds imported from around the world. Alex, unable to buy Spreewald Pickles, will have to find different ways to keep the illusion going. He digs through garbage cans and abandoned houses to find old jars of Spreewald Pickles and similar East German products; he disinfects the ones he finds while also relabeling empty jars to make them look like the old ones. This process shows how things that appear to be true might not be so and aimed to be misleading and deceiving, a tool also used often by the ones in power to manipulate the masses.
Another major challenge that Alex faces is when his mom asks for a TV. He first starts showing her tapes of old programs pretending they are new but later on as other challenges arise, such as the big Coca-Cola ad that covers one side of a building that happens to be in Christiane view, he has to come up with more structured plans to keep the illusion strong. These fake news that he produces with his friend also show how the media is able to manipulate people and how the viewer soaks up the information given.
The main breaking point of the movie is the scene in which Christiane gets up and decides to go outside and see how far she can get. In the elevator she recognizes a Nazi symbol, while getting off the building she sees Western people moving in, she sees the old furniture on the streets and ads of IKEA and many cars. This wave of strangeness is followed by the vision of a helicopter carrying a statue of Lenin. This part of the movie represents the shattering down of the structured, unreal world of Alex. Later on Alex will produce more fake news with his friend Denis to explain everything that she has seen outside. By this point Alex realizes that he is creating the GDR that he wishes for, finding himself not only as the creator but also a part of the deception.
Overall, when we look at the ways of deception that Alex uses they are very similar to ways of censorship that states use. However in this specific case the audience, like Alex, justifies the deception, the censorship. Like in many socities that are faced with censorship, there is resistance in the movie as well, like Ariane, like Lara who don’t approve the reasons behind this deception. Towards the end of the movie we see Lara telling Christiane about the reality and the truth not having the effect they feared, Alex’s worries although relatable turn out to not be justifiable. Whether to save a moms life or remain in power censorship will always be justified by the censor and will continue to exist. In an ideal world censorship would not exist, but I suppose that is a utopia, just like the one Alex creates.

Good Bye Lenin! Dir. Wolfgang Becker. Warner Home Video, 2003.
"Good Bye Lenin." FallOfTheBerlinWall -. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.

"Good Bye Lenin!" IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.