Social Movements, Cultural Studies, and Institutions
The first article is the essay by Kuan-Hsing Chen that was published as a chapter in the book titled “Social Movements, Cultural Studies, and Institutions.” Kuan-Hsing Chen is one of the editors of the book “Trajectories: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies,” whose contents are discussed in this article. The paper describes the ideas that led to the increased progressiveness of Asian countries and actions that were taken by neo-liberal activists throughout many Asian institutions that have started social and political movements among intellectuals.
The author highlights several vital points that are necessary to take into account when creating a progressive social movement. Cultural Studies have been institutionalized in the past two decades, which led to a closer examination of political and social structures in many regions, including Asia (Chen 2012). It is also crucial to understand that Cultural Studies is a locally driven academic field, despite being linked with other regions (Chen 2012). The author argues that the groups that were involved in Cultural Studies in Asia were critical in the transformation of Asian countries into democratic, progressive societies through social, political, and cultural movements (Chen 2012). Collaboration is the key to achieving the proposed effect on Asian communities, however, it requires people to see past their differences, which remains a difficult task. It is up to Cultural Studies researchers to analyze the situation and find a way to connect these groups together in order to prevent further division.
The author believes that the current widely accepted mode of knowledge acquisition creates a crisis that prevents most scholars from accumulating sufficient data on Cultural Studies. The people who worked on the Trajectories project were trying to “build alternative systems of reference” and abstain from old formulas that were meant to separate locals from the West and vice versa (Chen 2012, 48). Chen argues that intellectual movements should not be institutionalized due to the limitations that these institutions impose on activists, including formalities and collective responsibility (Chen 2012). The author proposes an alternative approach to social movements that must remain outside of institutions, as the ideas promoted by Cultural Studies researchers require levels of freedom unachievable within facilities that are controlled by “living fossils” (Chen 2012). The traditional and progressive views are mutually exclusive, which leads to such conflicts. It is necessary for people to promote freedom of expression without having to confine themselves within these limits of indirect censorship.
I agree with the author’s position regarding the necessity of the creation of alternative institutions that promote the collaboration of progressive activists. The primary issue that the author links with the traditional model of knowledge acquisition and transfer indeed seems to be one of the reasons behind the disparity among youth. The amount of pressure from traditional institutions on people who partake in social activities relates to the concerns of public image. Therefore, it is required for neo-liberals to set their own institutions that will allow them to participate freely in political and social movements.
Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism, and the Politics of Falsehood
The second article that I chose to summarize and analyze is “Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism, and the Politics of Falsehood” by Farkas and Shou. Its origins stem from the excessive usage of the term “fake news” by President Donald Trump, which was meant to discredit news sources that opposed his actions. The notion, however, is not exclusive to the claims made by the president and extends beyond one political group.
While misinformation via media was not an unknown phenomenon, these fake stories became significantly more widespread in recent times (Farkas & Shou 2018). The paper aims to highlight how “fake news” is being implemented in political conflicts and how they undermine social reality. I believe that political influence is the most vital part of this issue, although the authors also point out that misinformation does not always have this reason for existence.
The authors distinguish several types of misinformation that compose the majority of such content. “Fake news” can be intentional or unintentional, depending on the distance of the source from the media that posted the information (Farkas & Shou 2018). Deliberate misinformation, also called disinformation, is divided by the reasons behind it, which consist of changing public opinions or attracting more users (Farkas & Shou 2018). Unintentional misinformation is often the result of unassuming users or agencies sharing intentional disinformation while believing in the trustworthiness of these claims (Farkas & Shou 2018). The article focuses on the political and social effects of “fake news” and attempts to describe its position in modern politics, using Laclau’s theory of a floating signifier.
The authors have examined several American and British news sources to analyze how the same signifier was presented by different political sides. Farkas and Shou (2018, 303) state that “fake” news stories generated more engagement on social media during the American elections than “real” news stories did.” Due to this fact, it is profitable for media companies, such as Buzzfeed, to post controversial information due to the profits it brings (Farkas & Shou 2018). This notion leads to the conclusion that, despite having political connotations, many topics that contain misinformation are being posted solely for profit.
The second primary source of “fake news” that is discussed by the authors is right-wing media. They argue that there are more right-wing news channels that post misinformation than liberal sources that do so. The authors claim that the efforts of liberals to battle “fake news” were seen as an attack on the right, which only led to an increase of such claims toward left-wing media sources (Farkas & Shou 2018). This issue is still present nowadays, while additional attempts to prevent the spread of misinformation are being strongly opposed. While I partially agree with this point, I would like to add that it does not refer solely to right-wing sources, and misinformation can take place in any environment.
The third source of misinformation is the opposing views of various media sources, which leads to constant attempts to undermine them. Farkas and Shou (2018, 306) state that it stems from the president’s claims that “mainstream media companies are biased and deliberately attempting to promote liberal agendas instead of representing “The People.” The authors claim that this narrative is an attempt of right-wing to affect society by turning a signifier around (Farkas & Shou 2018). As the parties have binarily opposite views, this issue with different opinions on the same event will continue to divide society.
I believe that, as this notion continues to be a crucial unresolved point for many discussions regarding cultural studies, its actuality signifies the potential societal crisis. Farkas and Shou (2018, 308) state that, in modern times, “a floating signifier comes to represent a power struggle between the journalistic field and the political field.” The very attempt to describe the term “fake news” more often than not leads researchers into the same field of the “post-truth” era, as claiming any information as truthful will cause a backlash from its opponents. “Fake news” has a significant adverse impact on society, as it is here to divide people and alter the information.
Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years
The third article that I chose to review is “Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years” by Karen Fang. The paper argues that the attempts from governmental organizations to control cinema require society to view this form of censorship as an attack on civil liberties. This particular film is only a single example of an issue that plagues an entire nation. Fang (2018, 145) states that censorship “is well known and widely documented to impact Chinese media content and access through an expansive and ever-innovating surveillance assemblage.” In my opinion, the important message of this film, along with the effect of its criticism by the Chinese government, serves as a major warning to other countries on the danger of such harsh censorship.
For media that operate within high budgets, such as the film industry, this censorship can lead to disastrous financial results. Governmental efforts to prevent unfavorable movies from succeeding can go as far as preventing any media from showing anything related to the title that is being censored (Fang 2018). This strict control over media eventually began to work for Hong Kong film producers, who have experienced a relatively high level of creative liberty in contrast with mainland China, as a device for self-censorship ( Fang 2018). This dangerous tendency is a threat to the freedom of information across the globe.
In the film that Fang takes the current events in China for a setting and attempts to depict the life of an ordinary citizen in the nearest future if no meaningful actions are taken. The movie was condemned by the China government, despite winning several awards outside of the country (Fang 2018). Highlighted by its swift disappearance from theaters’ screens, the film shows the power of cinema to raise socially important questions.
Another point that the author tries to highlight is the significance of the power that China excerpts on the movie industry. Fang (2018, 154) states that “surveillance culture already manifests in global media through Hollywood’s catering to Chinese audiences.” This troublesome tendency that stems from the sheer size of Chinese economics allows the Chinese Communist Party to impose self-censorship rules upon people outside of the country. It implies that the political and social lives of people can be controlled by the cultural influences of other countries, which can place social liberty into question.
In conclusion, the topic raised by Fang is essential to examine in modern times, as many other sources of information aside from traditional news can provide an insight into ongoing social and political trends. The main claim that the author makes is that cinema works outside of Western society are unjustly ignored by cultural sciences researchers, despite being a reflection of many essential social movements (Fang 2018). The exercise of power by the Chinese government over media and its widespread effect shows how the promotion of media freedom is essential in the era of globalization.
References
Chen, Kuan-Hsing. “Social Movements, Cultural Studies, and Institutions.” In Creativity and Academic Activism: Instituting Cultural Studies, edited by Meaghan Morris and Mette Hjort, 41-53. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012.
Fang, Karen. “Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years.” Surveillance & Society 16, no. 2 (2018), 142-157. Web.
Farkas, Johan, and Jannick Schou. “Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism and the Politics of Falsehood.”Javnost – The Public 25, no. 3 (2018), 298-314. Web.