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.