Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The Gift of Freedom and Responsibility

The Gift of Freedom and Responsibility

Working Title: Structure and Play in the Discourse of the MIW

"Do not get me wrong. I do not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore. But press freedom must be practised with a larger sense of responsibility and the ability to understand what is in or not in our national interests.

"Editors need to understand what their larger responsibilities entail and to demand them of their journalists. Editors and journalists must have high personal integrity and sound judgment -- people who understand Singapore's uniqueness as a country, our multi-racial and multi-religious make-up, vulnerabilities and national goals.

"By this, I mean that our editors and journalists must be men and women who know what works for Singapore and how to advance our society's collective interests."

"Capturing readership is an important goal but to do so through sensational coverage is not the right way. The media is free to put across a range of worthy different viewpoints to encourage constructive social and political discourse. It should not parrot the government's position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government's propagandist. A discredited media would not serve our national interests."


Senior Minister, Mr. Goh as quoted by Channel Newsasia in “Singapore media must practise responsible press freedom: SM Goh”

CNA Article


Indeed, it is heartening to have these words coming from a prominent politician. Perhaps this is because of truth-producing powers of any constructed political center. What other effect does the speech really need in any case? Or, more specifically, what effect does such a speech from the center need at this point in time?

Looking at the speech synchronically, the center is structuring a relief, a consolation or an assurance. Of course, speeches are not really meant to be looked at. But let as cast this doubt aside first. The relief relies, even if somewhat ironically, on difference. It is relief only because it alleviates the anxiety of incompletion by defining the system as a complete whole instead of being a deficient other. The assurance is one of a completion based on an illusory difference. Since the assuring or reassuring performative, in fact, imposes on the relieved an inevitable misrecognition, the relieved must not be given a chance to see the misrecognition or neurosis would once again come into play. Hence, the relieved has to be blind(ed). But the relieved, despite being blind, also has to refuse to be looked at lest it turns from a constructed subject to an object of study (though, in fact, the difference itself is only imaginary in this case). Hence, the speech and its effects are not to be looked at. The suggestion to look (or attempt to look) at the speech and its function is thus necessary.

In looking at the speech, it is possible to see that the effect of the speech is not necessarily the function of the speech. In fact, the effect of the speech serves the function of the speech which now remains to be surfaced. To put things simply, the mechanism at work (we can speak of a mechanism because it has already been constructed) is that of the center reaffirming itself as the center by showcasing its significationary capacity. This might then suggest (again ironically) that the center bears the initial anxiety, but diffuses it through or projects it to the rest of the system and then proceed to repress the anxiety. By doing so, the center consolidates its centrality by constructing itself as the ultimate referent.

The synchronic perspective makes things seem somewhat too benign to be true for it is not always unwelcome to have relief in place of anxiety. If we look at the speech diachronically, however, we would see the play of signification by the center. At one point, the center confers relief; at another point, it could very well inflict fear and discipline instead. The play is not in the center, but nevertheless is by the center. Playing is, in an ironical and paradoxical sense, the prerogative of the center. The center stabilizes the structure by playing with what it structures. What it says is responsible, is responsible. What it says is worthy, is worthy and can only be worthy. Change the words “responsible” and “worthy” to “national interest,” “societal interests,” “sound judgement” or whatever else and the same rule applies. The center is thus both the transcendental signifier and the transcendental signified—if such a distinction is sensible at all. In short, the effect of the speech is inconstant. (It might be necessary to clarify that by the phrase “the speech,” I refer not to a particular speech but the speech in general—in all its possible repetitions and variants.) The effect could be relief, fear or discipline (or a combination of any of these) even at any one point in time, but the function of the speech remains the same—that is, to establish and reestablish the centrality of the center. This is a secret so transparent that we might not even realize its presence.

What the structure entails for the press, the ostensible subject of the speech, is that its responsibility is a responsibility qua a prosthetic (or perhaps remote controlled) and mechanical arm of the center. It is attached to yet detached from the center; it has no agency over signification (which remains the prejorative of the center proper). In the same Channel Newsasia article, it is mentioned as an instance of press responsibility that “when the JI members were arrested in Singapore in 2002, editors here realised they must not inadvertently portray the arrests as being targetted against a particular community.” Perhaps one could also say that the press must also not portray certain defamation suits as being targeted against opposition politicians (as some human rights watchdogs might allege). The media portrayal—the simulacrum—has to serve the center. The simulacrum, which is famously real, need not and sometimes must not strive towards mimesis. The object of portrayal does not matter. What matters is that the portrayal itself serves what the center defines to be a “collective interest.” The center is the collective as far as it is concerned and it cannot be wrong because there is no collective other than that brought into being by the center.

The media qua the attached-detached prosthetic of the center cannot be subservient. Subservience makes it too detached for one could only be subservient to someone else. One could never be subservient to oneself for this would suggest that one also has the agency to go against oneself or to will oneself against one’s will—an impossibility. The gift of freedom is the gift of freedom and responsibility. It is a gift that places the media in a masquerade of relative free play while it is actually actively enhancing the center. This is perhaps also its responsibility.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wows remarkable piece of writing. Is this an academic paper or a 'for self' kind of relief writing? i think i will like sin galore and knowing mr xeno he will appreciate this very much too.

the center as the ultimate referent is very 'zhoon'. when we factor in this self referring center and its recent desire to also be global, than fissures start to apear.

still waiting to hug you! *ouch* gf juz punched me hahaha

5:38 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Thanks, dj pbk. If any academic journal wants to publish the article, Molly doesn't mind. Molly only wrote it for fun.

But this blog probably won't consist purely of articles like this. (Takes extra effort.) Will have a mix of fiction and other less (relatively less at least) bimbotic stuff that do not fit into my livejournal.

"this self referring center and its recent desire to also be global"--> I think it's called the death principle. ;)

ah, your gf doesn't have to be jealous. She can hug too.

7:13 AM  
Blogger xenoboysg said...

Brilliant paper. Dissecting the rhetorical program to its core.

Centre retains signification monopoly. But centre diffuses this monopoly through a quasi-rhetorical prosthetic, the press. Resultant anxieties are mani-fold, rippling across this quasi prosthetic. The syndrome of the missing limb that the amputee can still feel.

We see only the Form of the Program. It is a terrifyingly beautiful Form of cold clinical politics.

Centre = Nomos Empsuchon

Its signification monopoly is backed by other Forms of power especially the Right of the Sovereign to Make Law. ultimately the legal power to kill with legal sanction, to create a "camp" in modernity.

If you have not already read it : Agamben "Homo Sacer", dense but along the lines of this particular working paper.

Enjoyable reading and yes, can imagine that this requires effort.

Like both your blogs. haha

8:28 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Thanks, XenoBoy. Maybe you should post up your reading list one of these days.

But given the amount that you read, you might need to start a new website...

No, Molly didn't read Homo Sacer (but Molly is not homo-phobic lah!). Only read about Blogo Sacer. :)

9:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home