Xi, It's Good to Have You Back.

Jay Voss — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:33:43 +0000

(Image credit: The New York Times)

With last week’s tempestuous events in the middle east, the subsequent chaos on the U.S. presidential campaign trail, and news of a professional peeping Tom in the south of France, much was lost on the American public concerning the strange and unexplained absence of Xi Jinping, the man in line to be the next president of China. Mr. Xi disappeared completely from public view on September 1^st, leaving only wanting pundits to explain what they thought might be reality. Think about it. Imagine if we lived in an ascendant country and our leader-in-waiting suddenly vanished from the public eye for longer than two weeks. Furthermore, imagine if we lived under a government that lacked any sense of transparency, and under which a freethinking blog post such as this one might warrant imprisonment, all the while the ruling elite might not proffer any explanation concerning our presumptive leader’s whereabouts. We’d be anxious, and the Chinese were last week. Anyways, the reason I bring this event up isn’t to inform the average American about global events (that’s their own responsibility and their newspaper’s job), but rather, I think the whole circus surrounding Xi’s absence provides a unique insight into the ways that China’s ruling elite attempt to visualize their control.

To give some sense of what the Chinese political machine was up against, it might be fun to quickly round up some of last week’s speculative headlines concerning Mr. Xi. On Tuesday, Jeremy Page reported in The Wall Street Journal that Xi was most likely suffering from “a back injury or a bout of illness.” On Wednesday, Malcolm Moore of the British daily The Telegraph reported that Xi had had a stroke. And by Thursday, The New York Times was reporting with some certainty that Xi had had a myocardial infarction. Later on Thursday, Mr. Xi’s nearly reappeared in the Chinese press when he made public condolences for some party members who passed away. This was the first mention of Mr. Xi in over two weeks, even though there was still no evidence of his existence. What gives? Xi Jinping is 59-years old, and it must be said that heart issues are not untypical of folks near that age. What is Beijing afraid of compromising with news that their future leader might be sick?

The article above was released on Thursday when Mr. Xi made his condolences.

(Image credit: http://www.gx.chinanews.com)

Xi Jinping reappeared in public for the first time in two weeks on Saturday, and he did nothing more than attend activities at China Agricultural University to mark this year’s National Science Popularization Day, according to the state news agency Xinhua. Xi made no comments at the event, and no explanation for the absence has been given since. I suspect that China’s Communist Party is determined to appear stolid throughout this issue for a couple of reasons. First, many of the news organs cited above have also frequently mentioned the fact that China’s Communist Party is currently rife with strife. Various factions within the Communist Party are competing to shape the party according to their wants, and this is clearly not something they’d like discussed. So, perhaps China’s determined to remain strong despite the fact that their future leader might be feeling quite the opposite. Secondly, in the Party’s dealings with public intellectuals such as Ai Weiwei (which I’ve posted about previously), they’ve at times appeared insecure about the stability of a modern Chinese state. They must know that they’re a rich minority when compared their 1.3 billion countrymen, and so an appearance of stability is probably meant to maintain their balancing act. In any case, it’s certainly auspicious that Xi Jinping’s already dealing with public relations questions before his term has even started. I suspect China will change greatly over the course of his presidency, and it’ll be interesting to see how the Communist Party adapts its image to cover the aspirations of a growing middle class.

Documenting a Dog Fight

Andi — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:27:21 +0000

Screen shot of narrated slide show, Shelter for the Scarred

featured on Washington Post website

Photographer: Carol Guzy

This past week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments considering the constitutionality of U.S. v. Stevens, a case that makes it a federal crime to make and sell visual images of animal cruelty. Although originally created by Congress to curb the market for "crush videos"--images of people in high heel shoes stomping on small animals for the purposes of titillating the viewer--the statute contains language so vague that it led the justices to propose a slew of bizarre hypotheticals ranging from the artistic value of images of force-feeding fowl for foie gras to the possibility of a pay-per-view human sacrifice channel. Now I have to admit that I am slightly shaky on all of the legal issues at stake here, but this transcript of the oral arguments certainly made for some interesting reading. Moreover, and not surprisingly, many of the questions raised within the oral arguments align with issues we often consider with respect to documentary studies and visual culture.

At several points within the discussion the justices probed the question of whether the presence of the camera, or the act of taking the picture encouraged the violent action documented. Or conversely, they considered whether classifying images of animal cruelty as unprotected free speech might dry up the market for the images and thus reduce the instances of violent conduct. Justice Scalia pressed Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katal to distinguish between the attempt to limit the activity (dog-fighting or crushing small animals) from the attempt to prevent communication about those acts (images of dog-fighting or images of small animals being crushed). Katal linked his argument to an earlier decision in New York v. Ferber in which the Supreme Court ruled that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Justice Ginsburg suggested that Mr. Stevens was only filming the dog-fighting and that the fighting would occur whether or not he was present whereas the "simultaneous abuse of the child, it occurs only because the picture is being taken." She went on to urge Mr. Katal to confront that "the very taking of the picture is the offense. That is the abuse of the child" (Transcript, 25). This line of argument prompted several key questions about whether the images of animal cruelty were staged solely for the camera--a set of questions that is often posed about the ethical obligations of photo-journalists and documentary filmmakers.

For me, one of the most intriguing moments in the oral arguments, however, occurred when Justice Scalia chastised Lawyer Patricia Millet for engaging with the language of the statute that provides for exception in the case of educational, artistic, journalistic, or scientific depictions. Justice Scalia notes, "I really think you should focus not on the educational value for -- to make people hate bullfighting and things, but on quite the opposite, it seems to me. On the right under the First Amendment of people who like bullfighting , who like dog-fighting, who like cock-fighting, to present their side of -- of the debate" (Transcript, 45). One of the key components here is the multivalent nature of images of, say, dog-fighting. These images--as Ms. Millet pointed out--can be used by documentary filmmakers or by PETA activists as in the images above to argue against dog-fighting but--as Justice Scalia indicates--may also be used by advocates for the activity. In fact, because of the slippery nature of the caption, the very same images can be used to argue any number of interpretations. And they were in this instance--Mr. Stevens argued his images were historical and had value as documentary. The jury saw otherwise.

While the vague wording of the statute will probably lead to its being overturned, it also led to some fascinating moments in which the justices tested the legal limits of the language. In addition to the gripping discussion about whether the depiction of modern men and women dressed as gladiators fighting to the death would hold historical value, the court also considered the distinction between images of dog-fighting and staged images of dog-fighting. After mulling over these debates about the reality of the referent, the justices considered whether there was a difference, more generally, between images of violence and images of simulated acts of violence. This discussion continued until the question was raised whether images of violence lead to an increase in the number of incidents of violence within a community. And this point brought the court back to the consideration of whether regulating the image will restrict the act depicted and whether restricting the act depicted justifies restricting free speech.

There is more to be had within the transcript for scholars of visual studies and we'll hear more from the justices when their decision is released in a few weeks.

viz. - free speech

Xi, It's Good to Have You Back.

Documenting a Dog Fight