In his essay, "Security and Terror", Giorgio Agamben discusses the problems associated with focus too much on security. Throughout this essay he talks about how security though seemingly it's a beneficial focus for governments can in some ways lead to forms of terrorism and even opposes discipline and law as instruments of governance. At one point he describes the difference between security and strong preventative measures and discipline, by saying "In a word, discipline wants to produce order, while security wants to guide disorder." And in my opinion, though I never even gave it a second thought until reading this essay, is that he's exactly right., mostly.

In his opening paragraph, Agamben eludes to the idea that fear may not be an all bad thing, as it can unite societies together. As far as discipline and law making bodies go, I'm sure he would not be opposed to striking a little fear into the hearts of citizens in order to prevent disorder or chaos that could widely expand with an attitude that is lax and ready to use security after the problems have already started. As I said earlier, I am in agreement except for something he briefly mentions about freedom. He says security can only function within a context of freedom of traffic, trade, and individual initiative, which too me seem like good things, and this is the only aspect of his piece that I feel strongly in opposition with. Because to me, and I don't think I'm alone here, freedom in any form it comes, is the herald of human experience, and what I desire most out of my own personal experience in life. But for the most part, I would have to say I can see where he's going with this and I understand and concur with it very much so.

Another issue Agamben addresses that places security in an awkward moral space is the fact that while perhaps negatively, the law closes off territories and isolates, whereas security perhaps positively can lead to more a more open approach and globalization even though discipline and law produce order where security only seeks to guide the disorder.

The dangerousness with security takes shape more and more as security comes to the forefront of traditional political state tasks by way of importance. Agamben states that "A state which has security as it's only task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to turn itself terroristic." Which makes us question how strongly we want to focus on security vs. prevention all together through stricter disciplinary measures and laws. It could even cause security and terrorism to become one system in societies that mutually justify and balance each other. The ever growing 'hunt' for security causes people in a way to turn on themselves causing civil wars and destroying the hope of civil coexistence. It also in the end causes a depoliticization and a permanent detachment from democracy, one of the very cherished aspects of our governmental system. To fix this impending disaster Agamben suggests we redefine our policies on security and become more critical in our law making and disciplinary measures with the focus on prevention of disasters be they medical, military, ecological or otherwise, and not merely having the focus be on security of these disasters and controlling them after the fact.

The ways in which I see this essay connecting with and elaborating on my understanding of Feldman's and Sekula's essays I have yet to mention. Though I don't know who Turgot and Quesnay are, Agamben says of them at the beginning of his essay, "Neither Turgot and Quesnay nor the Physiocratic officials were primarily concerned with the prevention of famine or the regulation of production, but rather wanted to allow for the development in order to 'secure' their consequences." Then at the end he further states, "On the contrary, we can say that politics works towards the production of emergencies." In these two quotes Agamben, though I could be completely wrong, sounds like he is saying that governments are so for security because they like to use them to control certain public situations and emergencies or even cause them for their own needs agenda's kept secret from the public. Not saying that this is fact but in my opinion I could see the attacks on 9/11 being exploited by the bush administration to get us into a war to raise funds for the government that supposedly would go solely for military purposes. Again I'm not saying this is fact or even that I necessarily think that that's what happened but I could see it as being an example of what Agamben describes here in politics secretly working toward the production of these emergencies to guide and secure the consequences in their own favor. All in all I was fascinated by the new viewpoints I was able to engage after further researching this essay by Giorgio Agamben, I will most likely refer back to this source in later assignments and perhaps for my final paper.

1. Should we sacrifice a complete freedom in favor of stronger laws and disciplinary measures? Why or why not? How might Globalization be bad or good for societies?

2. What are the current security policies of America and other modern nations, and how might this be seen as good or bad for societies long term? And how might a more free policy on traffic, trade, and individual initiative play into security and he negative light Agamben shows it in?

Although I'm still uncertain what exactly it is I'm going to write about, and what my thesis is going to be like, and the exact direction I'd like to go in, there was one topic I think I overheard in class that really caught my attention. The topic was that of 'Identity Politics.' And along with that, stereotypes in the media and maybe more about just stereotypes in general. Also perhaps how stereotypes in the media directly effect people in schools, in the work place, in religious institutions, and other places as well.  

Before I over heard this term in class, I was already exploring ideas I had about flaws in the way the media works today, and these opinions got stronger after reading and studying closely Feldman's and Sekula's essays. I think if I could tie together those opinions of the media and such I've so far gathered from these two essays, and use them as sources, and then further my exploration and focus on 'Identity Politics' and Stereotypes in depth, I would have maybe a good start on a topic I could research and research well, with a genuine interest in the research as well. I could explore reasons why, the history of, how I feel on the matter, good or bad, give reasons for both, what could be done to change it, should it be changed, etc. 

Another topic I was interested in was Globalization. I'm not sure if there is a good way or even a way at all to tie in Identity Politics and Stereotypes in the media with globalization but if there is I think that would be another unique and interesting direction for me. Also if Genocide could be a result somehow or a topic that would fit that would include all the topics I kind of was thinking about. But if they all can't tie in I for sure would like to look at Identity Politics and Stereotypes in the media closer, and if those don't work I think I would pick either globalization or genocide on their own.

For stereotyping and media I could include examples like that of Ernest Cole who I read about in Sekula's essay, and even examples of myself because often times I get stereotyped in my work place because of my gauges and tattoos even though gauges and tattoos and other things of that nature don't have anything to do with how smart or how competent you are. Also in the work place, if the issue is that you can't have gauges and tattoos because you choose them verses something like your race which you can't choose, why is it that we don't discriminate based on religion which is also something we choose. It is my belief that we hold in our hands the only power that can stop this intense stereotyping that stems from the media, should we choose to do so, if it is right to do so, which I think it is and I hope we are strong enough to do. Some of the things I'll have to think about are am I going to be able to find plenty of good sources, am I going to be able to make a research paper out to be ten pages on this topic, and do it without rambling, and am I going to be able to draw pertinent examples and concrete evidence and details for this topic. 

1. Adorno " Negative Dialects" (p. 216 middle bottom)

By using this source, Feldman shows an example of what kinds of terrible things can be achieved through the shaping and specific planned usage of media and media techniques. He explains that the nazis in Germany were socially changed by the propaganda in the media into believing and doing certain things that were part of Hitler's political agenda. The source is important to Feldman I think because it's a good illustration of his overall point in his essay. An illustration that is hard to argue with. This source drew me in because I have tried reading Adorno before and was very interested in his work, for one, but also because of how it's used here as a tool to help prove Feldman's point, and it works quite well. 

Adorno was a German-born international philosopher, sociologist, musicologist, and composer. He attended the Frankfurt school where he studied musicology, philosophy, psychology,  and sociology. Adorno says his publication, "Negative Dialects" is intended to "use the strength of the [epistemic] subject to break through the description [Trug] of constitutive subjectivity." The first publication date of this work was 1973. The translation is sometimes tricky to understand because the german idiom. This information doesn't really change much how I see Feldman using this source. I still think he used Adorno's comments about the holocaust as a way to show how propaganda in the media can spread ideas that grab hold of society very quickly and efficiently. 

2. Junger "Photography and the Second Consciousness" (p. 222 middle bottom)

Junger I believe is used in Feldman's essay to also contribute to the idea that media can vastly change the way societies and even individual people within those societies think and if you can effect how someone thinks you can effect how they act as well. So he uses Junger to show the way that our consciousness, or way of thinking about ourself and our morals is being changed. He explains that we are moving from people of one consciousness to people of a double consciousness. The second of the two allowing us to stand kind of outside of ourselves and see ourselves more as 'things' and also to exist outside the 'sphere of pain' allowing us to be less afraid and maybe in some ways less human. This draws my interest because it is something I definitely see happening everyday and it worries me about where we are going in our society and what things are going to change for the worse in the future because of it. 

Ernst Junger was a German writer who went to school in Germany between the years of 1901 and 1903. He then joined the military and began also writing articles and beginning his writing career in the 1920's. Much of his life was dedicated to the military and also much to his writing. He makes strong connections between the two in some of his works."Photography and the second consciousness" and excerpt from 'On Pain', was first published in 1934 a year after Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. This book deals with a new metaphysics of the experience of pain in a totalitarian age. This information about Junger and his book 'On Pain' from which the source in Feldman's essay was taken, just enhances what I felt the importance of the quote was all the more. Knowing now that it was published a year after Hitler's rise to power and knowing his military background helps to see even clearer where he would get the idea of the new and changing consciousness of society was coming about. 

3. Gertrude Himmelfarb "The Haunted House of Jeremy Bentham" (p. 9 footnotes)

Sekula uses Himmelfarb as a source and more importantly the idea of the 'Panopticon' created by Jeremy Bentham to highlight and help achieve his goal of showing how photography and media play a role in policing and the lives of criminals but not only them but also us today as well. The Panopticon being at first a structure for a prison where the inmates would be under the assumption they are always being watched so better to not do anything you wouldn't want to get in trouble for. We do the same thing today with video cameras and surveillancing  public areas. I was interested in this source because it seemed like a unique source, perhaps showing a different view of the panopticon that what was already explained in the footnotes of Sekula's essay.

Gertrude Himmelfarb was an American Historian known for her studies of the victorian era particularly of social darwinism. She studied at Brooklyn College as well as the university of chicago. She is now a professor at the graduate school at the university of New York. Her work "The Haunted house of Jeremy Bentham" was part of a larger work 'Victorian Minds' and was published in 1968. The full title of the larger work is 'Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and Ideologies in Transition' This fuller title from which the section sourced by Sekula is taken shows us that she was probably looking at Bentham's idea of the 'Panopticon' as an ideology in transition as well as Bentham himself as an 'intellectual in crisis'. She also states in this excerpt that the panopticon was "nothing less than the existential realization of Philosophical Radicalism." In addition she noted the concentration camp-like aspects of Bentham's 'panopticon' plan. I still think this source was a good choice and a useful one after reading the background information because it explains Bentham's panopticon for what it is not just what it was intended to be by Bentham, and reveals some of the major negative aspects of it and this relates to Sekula's essay because it shows a history of where some of these ideas that are still around today came from. Like that of surveillancing and certain media techniques to instill fear and promote stereotypes to achieve their own goals and agendas.

4. Alphonse Bertillon "The Bertillon System of Identification" (p. 26 footnotes)

Sekula makes use of this source because together Bertillon and Galton shaped our policing archival systems today. Both systems were monumental to the creation of that policing system we now use however both had there serious flaws. Bertillon's for example was huge, and there was so much information it could take weeks to make any sort of connections between identifying criminals even when they were fairly easy to identify. also the measurements made could be different depending on who did the measurements and how accurately they measured. He definitely uses this source because it is one of the two major people his essay is centered on. I felt that This was an interesting source because I don't know much about Bertillon and wanted to know more. 

Alphonse Bertillon was a French law enforcement officer and biometrics researcher who created anthropometry, a system of identification based on physical measurements. Hid works were largely published in the 1880's. The usefulness of the source I thought did not change for me after readin the background information. It did make me respect Bertillon a little more, understanding his work as more of a masterpiece from the angle of the time period he lived and worked in. 

5. Francis Galton "Analytical Photography" (p. 48 footnotes)

Similarily to Bertillon, I felt that this source was important to Sekula's essay because it is one of the two major parts of his writings. Like I said earlier both systems were monumental but both were also flawed. Galton's ideas dealt with the belief that regions of the person's face and skull could tell you certain things about a person, and through this he tried to achieve a certain 'criminal type' that would aid in police work. This was an interesting source for me because I'm considering doing my research paper on identity politics and stereotypes achieved through the mass media.

Sir Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and was an English Victorian polymath, anthropologist, eugenist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, pyschometrician, and statistician. He was called a child prodigy because he was reading by two, by five he knew some greek, latin, and long division, and by six he was reading adult level books like Shakespeare. After first attempting medical school at the urging of his parents, he went to Cambridge where he studied mathematics. This again doesn't change my idea of the usefulness of the source in Sekula's essay, I still feel it was an equally important source for him. But after reading the background information I can see and respect his ideas a lot more like when I read more about Bertillon. Instead of his ideas sounding merely silly and backwards, I think about all that he had accomplished and how intelligent he was and I am able to see hwere he got his ideas and see them as advanced for his time period. Especially being a cousin of Charles Darwin it's easier to see why  he believed as he did about the areas of the skull, the criminal type, and natural selection and so on. 

After completing assignment number six I see how Feldman and Sekula have formed their essays around pertinent and extremely useful and successful sources. As the reader after delving into the backgrounds and histories of these sources, I feel like I can grasp better the whole idea behind Feldman and Sekula's essays. It gives me a more well rounded view and in all cases the sources only added to my understanding and my appreciation of what Feldman and Sekula were trying to say. I now think it is much more important and necessary to investigate the sources of books, essays, articles and the like whereas before I may have skimmed over those sources and not really noticed them. 

For a research direction I'm still not positive on what I'm going to do, but I think the concept of stereotypes in the media really intrigues me. I heard someone say or maybe read the term 'Identity Politics' and that mabe a possible direction I'd like to research further. Also, after reading more about Galton, Bertillon and the 'panopticon' I got inspired and felt myself thinking of a few directions to go in. Overall I think the scholarly conversation both Sekula and Feldman make between themselves and their sources was very effective and their essays altogether were more interesting after reading about the sources as well. I would like to achieve in my researching a similar kind of scholarly conversation, that makes good use of sources and choosing sources that round out my ideas for my readers.

 

In Allan Sekula's essay, "The Body and the Archive" he tries to show the connections between the archival paradigm and the operations of power that control and regulate the people, or 'the body'. To do this he places the emergence of photography in the context of the development of police acts and technologies of surveillance. He goes back to the 19th century to show the earliest stages of photography and show how tat the time photography was a paradox between an honorable usage: portraiture made available to lower classes, but also: a tool capable of identifying them to the police.

Also at this time in history there were two major sciences taking form. Physiognomy, studying someone's facial features to give insight into their personality, and phrenology, the study of different regions of the head (brain) to reveal things about their criminality. These sciences were to help police identify criminals. Towards the end of the essay Sekula puts modern photographers within this context to distinguish between those who accept the archival paradigm and those who oppose it.

At the very end of Sekula's essay he presents us with a modern example, that of Black South African photographer Ernest Cole, who's controversial images landed him on rough waters with the police. he was going to get into trouble with the law but he posed with a proposition instead. When the police offered him a position among their ranks he refused and fled his country, and published his book of images anyway in America. Sekula says, "Our problem, as artists and intellectuals living near but not at the center of a global system of power, will be to help prevent the cancellation of that testimony by more authoritative and official texts." Meaning, it will be our position to try our best to not let the police shape our own reality through the media. And this is where I think Sekula's essay compliments Feldman's. We see another angle of the way our media is managed for us and used to shape us how they want us to be. Placing photography in the context of when it first was getting established helps us see it in a different way, that helps us see why and how the government began tailoring visual images to change our perceptions of reality. It will be our responsibility in the future to actively seek out truth and not just go on believing so easily everything that is 'spoon fed' to us by the government and the media.

The paradigm comes about through the work of Bertillon and Galton who were early pioneers of scientific policing, who began practices that shaped the bureaucratic handling and 'archiving' of visual documents. They represent two attempts to regulate social deviance by means of photography. Bertillon through an immense cataloguing of a person photographic profile, certain measurements, and other information placed on index cards, tried to make a system of identification of criminals, to keep records, look for repeat offenders, etc. Galton's approach in my opinion was a little more strange. He tried through limited exposure and photographic negatives to achieve the definition of a 'criminal type' by placing images that were similar of different people next to each other and looking for common features. Artistically I think this technique was much more beneficial to him. It helped advance the more symbolic approach to photography, capturing more of an essence of a person, what connects and separates us as people, and showing that through a photograph.

Sovereignty:

"Here we can appreciate to what degree the actuarial gaze replicates the chasm between transcendental sovereignty  and the instability of everyday life structures. The actuarial gaze promotes a political technology that unifies culturally dispersed bodies under the symbolic order of a vulnerable yet sovereign national body. In this process habeas corpus and the body as a private property are subjected to an over determined fusion: the right to claim bodily integrity, to present before the state and citizenry, a body that is safe, that abjures risk, and is thus combinable with the sovereign body of mass political subjects. To be risk-free or risk-insulated becomes a claim on sovereignty and the elevation or reduction of risk exposure defines citizenship and it's alters." (p. 207, bottom) 

This quote helps me see that sovereignty is some kind of either unification or the opposite for a mass of people, relating to how they are ruled or governed. Also I think he uses two different meanings for the word, one relating to what I just described, and the other relating to royalness or people held in high regard, holy, something like that. And I believe he uses that definition more so in the second sentence. I'm Still a little unsure of what he's trying to say about it, I have some loose ideas but I feel as though I can't be sure about them, that in saying what I think I'm probably completely missing his point.

"However in late-modernity, panoramic visualization of disaster is no longer simply an after effect and a recollection or violence, but rather the vehicle for the delivery and legitimation of a violence that now advances geo-political visual sovereignty." (p. 212, top)

In this quote I think he's saying the widespread visual representations of violence throughout the world are a way of making light of a violence and using that to unify people globally, in some way, whether seen as helpful or harmful. It seems to me to be saying that across the world we are becoming more and more connected under an assumption we may not even be aware we're making that violence in the media is okay and not going to effect us negatively in anyway, wrong as that may be.

Sovereignty is the right of people to have control over an area to be governed, another people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme governing person or persons above all others. I also could me excellence or a supreme example of excellence, or a controlling influence. Jean Jacques Rousseau helped developed the idea, "there is no law without a sovereign." Some related words to look up might include: colonization, self determination, self ownership, Suzerainty, divine right of kings, or dictatorship. I think for the most part yes, Feldman uses this term consistently. 

Forensic Violence:

"Appadurai proposes the concept of forensic violence as that which took place in Rwanda and the Balkans, which he associates with the 'vivisectionist' tendencies of ethnocidal atrocity and mutilation." (p. 208, top)

From this quote after reading and looking up 'vivisectionist' I gather that Feldman is relating forensic violence, which took place in Rwanda and the Balkans as similar to vivisection, or the mutilation or injuring of living animals for scientific research, except done on people.  And from my opinion, and I hope I'm not the only one who sees it this way, I think it can't really be considered 'scientific research' or any sort at least that should be allowed or legal, if it is done to human beings especially. It's pretty morbid and cruel.

"Forensic violence disfigures and opens the victim's body to a screening gaze, and symbolically affixes and repairs biopolitical identity." (p. 208, top)

In this selection he describes what it is forensic violence does to people, or is supposed to do to people. It's suppose to fix your political identity. I looked up biopolitical and I was given several different definitions and I'm not sure which he means here, but I know either way he speaks of forensic violence as supposedly, to those applying it, it is to be a way to fix someone's political identity symbolically. 

To find the definition for forensic violence I first had to look up forensic on it's own. It means relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law and public discussion or argumentation. So forensic violence is kind of an appropriated violence. Maybe a violence thats okay under some governments but under ours is not, but still used or talked about in a court of law. Perhaps a violence used as a law giving technique. Violence in relation to law is a good simple definition. Other terms, places, or events to look up relating to this might be Rwanda, the Balkans, or genocide. Again I think Feldman uses a pretty direct and clear definition of forensic violence. 

Globalization:

"Appadurai sees such forensic mutilation as an iconic and stabilizing operation reacting to the transitive structure of social identity and the post-colonial nation-state under globalization." (p. 208, top middle)

Here it seems to be saying that globalization is relatively something new thats coming about. He calls our social identity under this new globalization transitive meaning it is in transition, it's changing. We are also under globalization coming into a post-colonialism. Colonialism, or the grouping and separation of people into colonies is fading out. He explains that Appadurai sees forensic violence or mutilation as an iconic or standing out and important factor in the stabilizing of this newly coming about society.

"With globalization, and the constant destabilization of the cartographic nation-state, the medicalized-forensic nation-state reconstructs hegemony through foundational spatial metaphors of 'homeland security' , and total information awareness systems." (p. 211, top middle)

Again, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this completely backwards, but I believe he says here that under this new globalization and the fading out of of our map and colony like societies and states and cities today, hegemony or the ruling or governing power or one state or region over others is being changed as well, into something much harder to see happening, through things like homeland security and 'total information awareness systems'. Through these in a much more subtle way hegemony still will exist, but will it become something very dangerous because of it's new hidden and secretive nature? I think so. 

Globalization is a word used to describe how more and more countries are becoming more interconnected both economically and culturally. Charles russell was the earliest to begin exploring globalization when he coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897. Other terms to explore might include: multiculturalism, immigration, sweatshops, Noam Chomsky, consumerism, free trade, capitalism, democracy, overpopulation, and the global economy. I think Feldman uses this term clearly and directly, but I think he focuses on the negatives mostly, but n his case it pertains well to his topic so it works.

After completing these research steps I find myself perhaps not hugely understanding Feldman's essay better, but at least understanding a part of it a lot more than when I started. I can see that with time research can be broken down and understood even when the source seems ridiculously intense and mind boggling. At least for the section my terms mostly focus on, and the part of the article they are all kind of located in, I definitely agree with Feldman on where he stands as far as sovereignty and forensic violence. I think as far s globalization goes I'm not quite as negative as Feldman seems to be about it. I think there are good and bad things about globalization but either way I think globalization and its growing rate are inevitably going to change things and keep changing things, drastically. But in all fairness Feldman was only focusing on a small part of globalization and I think as a scholar he probably has some good things to say about it as well, it was just not the focus of this particular essay, where he uses that term to further explain what is happening negatively in the media and our social structure. 

These terms are all related to each other in some ways pretty closely. Forensic violence through genocide and other means is part of globalization in other countries and perhaps, though no examples come to mind, even our own. Our sovereignty, or ruling bodies and structures or government groups and states is being threatened by globalization and being changed into something much more sinister and secretive, something that might end up hurting us more than the sovereignty and government systems we have now do. 

Inspiration is now beginning to take shape for me as I delve into our subject matter more closely. I'm not certain yet what I want to research but I think I would be interested in researching globalization itself in some way, or perhaps globalization with a fair trade focus or a genocide and or forensic violence focus. Im not sure yet which direction I'm going to go in for my research paper but these topics intrigue me more and more as I research them. I look forward to doing more research in these areas, and honing down on one topic.

In Allen Feldman's essay, "On the Actuarial Gaze, From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" Feldman exemplifies superb research writing and clearly lays out his position on the ever changing social culture and globalization through the media, and has shown technical and in depth insights into too prime examples of this, 9/11, and Abu Ghraib.

Feldman begins explaining how today the media has made our culture accustomed to seeing threatening images or terror, suffering, and violence as part of our every day lives. He claims this could all easily be part of a very carefully constructed plan to serve various political agendas, that change how the public views global risk. This could be useful to our government, for example, to rally people together to back certain wars, for example, the war on terror we find ourselves in today. The surfacing of these kind of images into our daily news is both an 'enchainment' and an 'enchantment'. We are enchanted by this in a morbid sort of fascinated way, and it captures us and moves us to support whatever it is our government wants to do to handle it unquestioningly, and this part of it, the blindly following, is our enchainment. We lose our own sovereign rights to our right not to be subconsciously influenced by the media who intern are influenced by ill intentioned governments to get us to think a certain way in order to support their own twisted agenda's.

One of Feldman's sources, Junger, is quoted on page 204 of the essay saying, "As during the inflation, we continue for a time to spend the usual coins without sensing that the rate of exchange has changed." This quote is incredibly fitting. We continue today going about our business as usual without even realizing things are rapidly changing as far as or visual influences and where they are coming from and who's ideas and desires are behind them. Whether used by terrorists or non-terrorists methods of image making and imposition don't simply record an event but become the event by forcing onto our consciousnesses the political 'code' of people above us in the hierarchy of government officials. One might even say we are in evolving into people of double-consciousnesses. The new harsh conscious having the possibility to see oneself as merely an object, and above and beyond the realm of mental or bodily pain. In this day and age we are more succumbed than ever to things that can harm us, even irreversibly, that we aren't even aware of. We continue to remain blissfully unaware of our greatest dangers as a society as they continue to elude us.

One of the dangers we face as a society post 9/11 and the War on Terror is our growing unreasonable judgement since then of people or race, especially that of middle eastern decent. In this way the media and thorough press coverage of the war, of 9/11, of Abu Ghraib, have changed us for the worse. How many times since 9/11 have we seen people judge the person wearing the turban the second they see them walking through the airport or getting on the bus. On page 206 Feldman states, "We cannot ignore the violence generated by interventions to reduce harm." And this is a perfect example of this. It is because of this that the motives and reasons behind what is flushed into our media, however true must be analyzed for the greater good. While ideologies and agendas can be resisted, the power of the publics 'actuarial gaze' onto the intense, obscene, and threatening images in the media today cannot be denied.

Throughout Feldman's essay, there is a strong feeling of professionalism and strong personal attention to the intricate care to detail of the research he chose. He works around many angles and uses direct, specific, and easily relatable examples to drive his points home to his audience. His sources come from wide spectrum of people, offering possible new angles, and keeping the piece very open and very fair. His thoughts are well organized, thought out, and written effectively to achieve the exact purpose he had in mind when he set out to begin his research writing.