ESCHEW IMAGE III: A World of Image+Other

Having established the underpinnings of image and other we arrive at the crux of the matter, that is the dynamic between the two. To explore this dynamic we are not limited to Christianity. Virtually any identifiable group within society has, to some extent, deal with the "image/other" dynamic—women, Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers… ad nauseum. To begin, whenever a perception of "other" exists a reciprocal perception of “other” exists. If we use feminism as an example, feminism would view media, dominated by representation of white, middle class males, as "other." Conversely, media would classify feminism as "other." This is important to note. Media, by its design, not by malicious intent, must appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Its raison d'etre is to be inoffensive. This may seem a misguided assertion until one realized media's offensiveness and rebelliousness happens within rather rigid and structured norms. It operates in accepted modes of offensiveness, accepted modes of rebellion. The word convention comes from the root meaning "to come together in agreement." In that sense media is quite conventional in that there is broad agreement in how it should and does operate, indeed, how it should and does offend. As evidence I proffer the billions generated every year by the entertainment industry despite on going and persistent protestations regarding its content.

The important thing is to realize media isn't a function of its content, it is a function of its structure. The medium is the message. It is more important to understand media as ubiquitous, fickle, decentalized, primarily visual, rather than understand or analyze it's content. Given a broader systemic approach to the media edifice it becomes evident that society's protestations are part of the accepted structure, a convention of the larger discourse between society and media. The protests are merely part of the show. It is expected that media will "push the envelop" and it is equally expected society will "protest." We would surely be alarmed if anything else occurred for it wold disrupt our broadly agreed upon expectations. That media is not intrinsically offensive, but rather intrinsically homogeneous, is critical. It is precisely through its hegemeny that it excludes everyone. By becoming the non-existent "every-man" it becomes no-one. Media is a recursive feedback loop of expectation. Media violates the social norms of the generalized values and expectations of the non-existent "every-man," and we expect that it will. Media violates artifical social norms it has itself constructed, it's "violation" of artificial social norms becomes part of the construction.

By proffering generalizations media marginalizes everyone because everyone lives in specifics. Specific social norms, specific values, specific expectations. Everyone protests the betrayal of their specific values and expectations. However, in protesting the violation of generalized social norms we affirm the existence of the generalized social norms. The generalized social norms are simply a media construct, the values of "every-man." By engaging them we give them credence.

Taking feminism as an example we see the dynamic at work. Media presumes and creates generalized norms and expectations. Media then violates those same social norms. It does this in prescribed culturally accepted ways which allow it to continue creating and violating norms, seen as "pushing the envelope." Feminism, not sharing the generalized norms, see's itself as "other," marginalized. A violation of the generalized norms, (say an overtly misogynist radio show meant to shock) is viewed by feminism as resulting from the violation of actual social norms. By protesting the violation feminism acknowledges the generalized values thereby giving the non-existent values credence and shape. Simultaneously it gives credence and shape to feminism's position as marginalized, which, within the media construct it is.

It is critical for the church to realize this dynamic and free itself form the powerless victim hood of "an antagonistic media." Replace "feminism" with "chruch" and the preceeding explaination yet rings true. Replace "feminism" with "Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers," and it yet rings true. Media is antagonistic to anyone that is not every-man. In other words it is antagonistic to everyone since no one is every-man. Media must generate visible labeled groups to give shape to its absent Every-man. The positive (visible labeled groups) shapes the negative (absent Every-man.) The visible labeled groups exist only to give shape and credence to the absent Every-man. It would be like filling up a whole page of paper with pencil marks, except for a 5cm circle in the middle. You didn't "draw" a circle. You made a bunch of marks where the circle wasn't and by doing so a circle appeared. Media can't draw Every-man, he doesn't exist. But by filling up the page with the marks of labeled groups, shaped around the imaginary Every-man, media can make Every-man appear.

The all embracing antagonism of media has little to do with content. It is the structure of the media construct that keeps us entertained and distracted. Life the movie. The greatest expressive artists of our age are sports celebrities, film and television celebrities, followed by a host of minor celebrities from every walk of life blessed with 15 minutes of fame. What celebrities do as professionals is, ostensibly, "the show." The real show is their lives. Perfectly crafted "lifestyles," the holy embodiment of consuming expressive individualism. The celebrity slips into the skin of the non-existent Every-man. It is no accident that the negative shape of Every-man, provided by labeling the the rest of humanity, is a perfect fit for the celebrity.

Ironically, margianlized groups comprise virtually the entire populace. We are all part of several labeled groups. Thus we are all in the precarious tension of feeling we should be, or are, the Every-man Celebrity. At the same time we identify with several non-Every-man labeled groups. In this tension we loathe and love the gods who have risen from among us, but are now so very far above us. In the labeled tension of non-Every-man, that is, all of us, we moan, I should be like Every-man Celebrity, but I am not.

One final spin closes the loop and perpetuates the cycle: this entire "dialogue," between constructed social norms and marginalized groups decrying the violation of constructed social norms, takes place in the arena of image. The medium is the message. The shape of the medium, decontextualized shallow image, is the grease that keeps the whole machine spinning. There is never an actual reasonable person engaging another actual reasonable person. If there where it would become quickly and abundantly clear, specific non-labeld people don't make for good television, and the whole thing would grind to a halt. Labeled groups conflicting with labeled groups make for good television. A labeled group is entirely a media construct, and it is therefore an image construct. A labeled group's response to media becomes part of its image, to be used by media to further define the labeled group. In a visual culture of image, media calls the shots. The squeaky wheel, becomes "The Squeaky Wheel," news at 11:00.

By decrying content and the erosion of values the church is complicit in the assumption that we are marginalized and powerless. The louder we yell the more crystallized our image becomes. An image that is, as we have seen, out of our control. The more calcified the image the more it enables the self propagating cycle of media constructed generalized values. As the cycle spins we lose more and more control of our image, calcifying the image which enables the cycle... ad infinitum.