Hi everybody--
A few words of analysis afterwards when I begin thinking again.
We are truly in information and communication age. The purpose of attack
was not financial or military power but symbols and common people. It is
about communication at its high power. Last week I taught my students,
preservice teachers, how to attract attention in the classroom:
clapping, blinking lights, using eye contact... There is nothing more
powerful to attract attention as violence. Indiscriminate murder and
suicide are probably the acme of forced communication. It is
communicational terrorism. We have to pay and we are paying attention
now. People want to share their pain (and probably death of their loved
ones) by inducing pain in others (and death of loved) in the fragmented
and non-communicative world. You can call terrorists who choose to die
to engage us in the dialogue fanatics but I'm sure that their fanaticism
(if there were fanaticism) was based on real despair and pain and death
of loved ones.
Media and politicians are mumbling using old metaphors of war (e.g.,
Pearl Harbor) but they forced to use communication terms like "respond",
"sending them message", and so on. Violence as communication is not
new, of course (remember protester of WTO in Seattle) but attacks on WTC
and Pentagon yesterday is a qualitatively new level of such
communication because of its emotional power, clarity, and
comprehensiveness.
The question that I have is can we establish ways to communicate and
relate to each other that does not require violence to attract attention
and share your pain?
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eva Ekeblad [mailto:eva.ekeblad@goteborg.utfors.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:48 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: tragedy in New York
>
> Shaken.
> Horrified.
> Dumbstruck.
> What will come of this destruction?
>
> Eva
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:13 PDT