Thank you, Josh Hamilton

My history as a Rangers fan is quite blotchy. As a kid, my exploits in baseball were a few times playing catch in the front yard with my dad. It was never something I was really passionate about. During the time of A-Rod I began for the first time to really watch the Rangers. For a year or so I knew everything about them. A-Rod was traded. Mark Teixeira was the next one to peek my interest. At this time I was more concerned with Jeff Gordon and Brock Lesnar. After Tex was traded I again began to not care. Hamilton slowly changed everything. With each season he was here I grew more and more interested in him, the team, the game. Yesterday when it still seemed like he would be a Ranger I began reading his book Beyond Belief. After the first three chapters it is undeniable that his talent is unlike anyone to ever play the game. Or at least he is on the very short list of truly great players. But the numbers don’t show it. This is because of the well documented ‘demons’ he faced and faces specifically in the form of drugs and alcohol. But his talent is undeniable. Former teammate Adrian Beltre comments, “He's not the type of guy who studies pitchers or sequences. He just sees the ball and hits it. The rest of us need to study and have a plan before we get out there, but he doesn't need that. He's got that much talent” (Beltre qtd. in Keown).

            A year ago during the first couple innings of game 6 of the World Series, before I went to a friend’s house for the end of the game, my dad asked me a question. He asked “Why are they called the Texas Rangers if no one on the team is from Arlington?” Beneath this question lies the very real arbitrariness of all sports. He added “No one has ever been able to answer that question.” Neither could I. But that night when Hamilton hit the most perfect home run I have ever seen, I choked up. White knuckled. As nervous as any moment in my life. And back from commercial. Darren Oliver…Darren Oliver… Darren Oliver… The next morning I felt like someone punched me in the gut. I felt like I did when I finally realized me and my high school girlfriend were finally and totally broken up. I felt awful. I was in a haze at school. And my dad’s question loomed. Why did I feel this way? Why does this matter at all?

            This past season I watched or listened to, sometimes to the chagrin of those around me,  all 163 games the Rangers played. And I saw and experienced why this matters. On May 11^th the Rangers played the Angels. The game was delayed by rain. During the break, amidst sliding on the tarp, Josh Hamilton was mopping the dugout. This was not his job. Nor was it his job to step up in the life of Cooper Stone. He did both. But it was not just him this season. The entire team was active in the community and put on a good, fun, clean show for 162 nights. Beltre overreacting to a ball thrown inside and dancing out of the batter’s box. Kinsler and Napoli doing whatever they did in the dugout when Beltre hit the go ahead shot on September 20^th. The list of times these players made me just feel good inside this season could go on and on.

            I went to 19 games this year. The best one though was June 17^th. Father’s Day. My dad had never been to the Ballpark in Arlington. Hadn’t been to a game in over 20 years. Colby Lewis was pitching and Kinsler hit a bases clearing triple on route to a victory. On that sun drenched Sunday I began to finally see the real meaning to this game. Baseball is about what is best in people. It is about competition, hot dogs, and conversations with your dad. It’s about believing that this will be the year. And in this it has meaning.

            But the question still remains why the Texas Rangers. Why not Houston or even the Angels? Why do I feel this affinity for these players? Is it because they play in my town? The arbitrariness of this relationship remains unanswered. Benedict Anderson argues in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism that the concept of ‘nation’ is constructed and that no real comradeship exists. Speaking of nations, “it is imagined as a community because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings” (Anderson 7). This same structuring is apparent in baseball. We are led to believe that this is a community, our community. Even though very few players on the team are even from this country. This is what gets us in the seats. We all sing the national anthem together and have very little interaction with anyone around us. We believe it is a community but at every level it collapses. Of 50,000 people in a ballpark we may know 5 and talk to 10 while there. The only answer I have for this disparity is that something about baseball does matter. It seems to allude definition but it does matter. Maybe it is just those moments with your dad or your friends. Or maybe it is the quality of the players, athletically and personally that makes this less arbitrary and gives us a reason to cheer.  

            But with Hamilton it all seemed different. He was the one mopping the dugout. He was the one catching the first pitch from Cooper Stone. He was the one that hit the two run shot which should have won the Rangers the World Series. He was the one who overcame addiction that for many would have resulted in death, he was the one who preached Christ. Countless conversations I have had which started about him turned into a discussion of the Gospel. Hamilton symbolizes the power of God to transform a life. No other explanation holds. He should be dead. And my sincerest hope is that in L.A. he can continue to preach the Gospel and display by how he plays and lives that baseball is not the answer. His personal glory is not the answer. But Christ is.

            I am sorry that I was mad after he dropped that ball against the A’s. I’m sorry I was mad when he only saw 8 pitches against the Orioles. I am sorry that I got mad today. Why? Because one day I believe that I will be in a state of eternal adoration with Hamilton and all other believers as we for all eternity ponder the unsearchable grace of God. But there is something about this that feels personnel. The fans booed Hamilton all season as he struggled at the plate. After the final game he quoted Luke 9:5 alluding to the idea that we did not accept him and that he needed to shake the dust from his sandals. I am sorry for the part I had in that.

            For me this day started with reading Matthew 27. That horror was the extent to which God went to save me. And Hamilton. And you. If God was willing to do that for Josh, I can forgive him for upsetting me about baseball. As I told a friend earlier today, if the Rangers miss the playoffs next year and the Angels are in it, I will cheer for them. Josh Hamilton is the reason I have found a love for this game. I still care more about the Rangers even if it is arbitrary. But I love the philosophy of the front office, and the personality of the club house. And I love the feel of being at the game, especially when they are winning. But it is a game.

            I feel like I have rambled much more than I intended. All I am really trying to say is thank you Josh. It has been an unbelievable ride!  

 Cooper Stone:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19793183&c_id=mlb
Hamilton's Best Moments:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25519599&c_id=mlb
 

Billy Collins - Goodness: The Pursuit of Art

Goodness: The Pursuit of Art

            Any notion of good presupposes some structure by which goodness is measured. The legitimacy of these structures as just or true ways of measurement shall be left to the philosophers and critics of our time. What matters is that art is in pursuit of this notion. At bottom artists if they publish their work desire some sort of compensation. This only happens if people interact with their work, thereby validating it as worthy or “good”. Billy Collins has had much of his poetry honored in this way. His book Sailing Alone Around the Room is no different. Collins most significantly was the U.S. poet laureate from 2001-2003 which presented him with the unfortunate task of honoring those lost on September 11^th. Collins’ work urges us over and over again to examine the mundane and the sublime and he does so with great respect to the intellectual context of a layman. Collins’ poems in Sailing Alone Around the Room persuade one that “good” art is created in a rigorous way, yet experienced existentially, all the while aiming at catharsis and causing life to change while imitating art.

            First a brief note on the ordering of argument. Nietzsche discusses concepts which precede Aristotle. However by viewing the Aristotelian concept of catharsis before Nietzsche, we have a greater understanding of what Nietzsche means by the Dionysian experience.    

            Aristotle posits the idea in Poetics that tragedy has a beginning, a middle, and an end which results in catharsis. More to the point catharsis is what results when incidents of fear and pity arouse intense emotions (Aristotle 63). This usually would occur at the end of a play after whatever tragedies befalling the protagonist have occurred. Catharsis would occupy the position of final cause in Aristotle’s four-cause analysis. And its primary purpose is to cause some form of purification or purgation in the audience. So what does Aristotle mean by beginning, middle, and end? Beginning is “that which is itself not, by necessity, after anything else but after which something naturally develops” (Aristotle 64). Middle is “that which is itself after something else and which has something else after it” (Aristotle 64). And logically the end is “that which is naturally after something else, either necessarily or customarily, but after which there is nothing else” (Aristotle 64).

             In Collins’ poem “Aristotle” this notion is drawn out on the page. All three stanzas begin with one of the following sentences: “This is the beginning…This is the middle…This is the end” (Collins 132-133). The first stanza has with it this sense of preparation. “This is the beginning. / Almost anything can happen…This is the first part / where the wheels begin to turn, / where the elevator begins its ascent, / before the doors lurch apart” (Collins 132). All of this as Aristotle says necessitates something else happening afterward. The middle for Collins is a time of immense turmoil: “Things have had time to get complicated, / messy, really. Nothing is simple anymore” (Collins 132). Furthermore:

            This is the thick of things.

            So much is crowded into the middle-

            the guitars of Spain, piles of ripe avocados,

            Russian uniforms, noisy parties,

            lakeside kisses, arguments heard through a wall-

            too much to name, too much to think about. (Collins 133)

The middle looks back to the beginning to the expectancy of young love, but now experiences the fights and arguments. Most of life falls into the middle. But with the end comes finality: “And this is the end / the car running out of road, / the river losing its name in an ocean…It is me hitting the period / and you closing the book” (Collins 133-134). The fear of death is palatable in these lines. And with it the pity for time lost. The notion that we cannot go back, that we cannot fix what happened in the middle sets in. But the end is “the destination we cannot help imagining, / a streak of light in the sky” (Collins 134). It is something “we have been waiting for” (Collins 134). We wait for it, we imagine it, and we see it as light because it is catharsis. This moment of fear and pity brings about a purging of the middle. A hope for purity, for cleansing is in the end. Therefore catharsis must be a central goal, if not the primary goal, of art. It is for this simple reason that it offers a light at the end of the tunnel and by experiencing it, it changes the audience, it purifies them.

            The development of a poem is done with great rigor. We see this first in “Advice to Writers” in which Collins notes “before composing a syllable. / Clean the place as if the Pope were on his way” (Collins 8). He then mentions “The more you clean, the more brilliant / your writing will be” (Collins 8). This pursuit of cleanliness is akin to the purist of purity in the poem “Purity” which describes the ritualistic removal of clothing, skin, and organs in the late afternoons, often on Wednesdays, alongside a pot of tea (Collins 40). The most poignant image is when Collins says:

            Finally I remove each of my organs and arrange them

            on a small table near the window.

            I do not want to hear their ancient rhythms

            When I am trying to tap out my own drumbeat. (Collins 40)

This contrast between ancient rhythms and his own drumbeat gets right at the center of what “Purity” is about. It is a near denial of the self in order to create something new. Much more there can be no interferences. What is most important is that no other sounds may enter in and in some way corrupt the art; it must follow its own drumbeat. What astounds me about this poem is its attention to detail. Most poets, one would imagine, would stop at removing the skin, and possibly even at that point imagine only a skeleton. But Collins makes us tangibly feel our way into the organs betwixt the bones.

            It is this rigor this attention to detail which is essential in what Nietzsche identifies as the Apollonian. Nietzsche describes Apollo as “the god of all plastic powers and the soothsaying god” (Nietzsche 440). He further restricts him by saying “the image of Apollo must incorporate that thin line which the dream image may not cross…even at those moments when he is angry and ill-tempered there lies upon him the consecration of fair illusion” (Nietzsche 440). He concludes that “Apollo himself may be regarded as the marvelous divine image of the principium individuationis (the principle of individuation)” (Nietzsche 440). The principle of individuation is simply that which differentiates the Self from the Other, the ego from the outside world (440). The Apollonian then is a dream-like illusion which is what separates the ego. In art and rhetoric it is akin to logic. Nietzsche views the pitfall of Greek tragedy as an intense focus on the Apollonian started by Socrates: “The Apollonian tendency now appears disguised as logical schematism” (Nietzsche 448). Socrates is “compelled to justify his actions by proof and counterproof, and for that reason is often in danger of forfeiting our tragic compassion. For who among us can close his eyes to the optimistic element in the nature of dialectics, which sees a triumph in every syllogism” (Nietzsche 448). Socrates is therefore pure Apollonian. And the optimism caused by the ‘truth’ his syllogisms results in the death of tragedy. “The virtuous hero must henceforth be a dialectician; virtue and knowledge, belief and ethics, be necessarily and demonstrably connected; Aeschylus; transcendental concept of justice reduced to the brash and shallow principle of poetic justice with its regular deus ex machina (Nietzsche 448). The Apollonian, without the Dionysian, therefore seeks a logical purity similar to the type of syllogisms used by Socrates. This purity is much like the rigor which the speaker takes in “Purity” to create a pure poem.

            However art is not experienced in this way. Art for the audience is an existential endeavor. Nietzsche urges that the Apollonian alone does not result in the best art and if we are truly to escape our fate of insignificance we must become intoxicated in art. This is what Nietzsche calls the Dionysian. So what is our fate? Nietzsche quotes Silenus, “What would be best for you is quite beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best is to die soon” (Nietzsche 442). It is from this pessimism that tragedy develops. It is a way through catharsis, or as Nietzsche calls it the Dionysian, to cope with this pessimistic reality. Nietzsche defines the Dionysiac rapture as the moment when man “begins to doubt the cognitive modes of experience, in other words, when in a given instance the law of causation seems to suspend itself” (Nietzsche 440). It is also the “shattering of the principium individuationis” (Nietzsche 440). Where the Apollonian is a dream-like illusion, the Dionysian is intoxication. The Dionysiac ritual is one of dancing in an intoxicated state. In it “the slave emerges as a freeman; all the rigid, hostile walls which either necessity or despotism has erected between men are shattered” (Nietzsche 441). It is by this moving towards equality that the principium individuationis is shattered. What is significant here is that the world is seen in a new way a way it was not comprehended previously. It is this artistic experience which is causing this shift of paradigm. And ultimately Nietzsche concludes “No longer the artist, he has himself become a work of art” (Nietzsche 441). The synthesis of these two concepts: the Apollonian and the Dionysian results in tragedy.

            Billy Collins shows a sense of this in “Marginalia” and “Another Reason I Don’t Keep a Gun in the House”. “Marginalia” describes the writing people do in margins of books. At one point Collins writes “And you have not read Joshua Reynolds, / they say, until you have read him / enwreathed with Blake’s furious scribbling” (Collins 95). There is a real change caused in the text by what has been added by some other reader. It causes you to see the text, or at least Reynolds work, in a new light. He concludes the poem describing his reading of The Catcher in the Rye as a teenager:

            and I cannot tell you

            how vastly my loneliness was deepened,

            how poignant and amplified the world before me seemed,

            when I found on one page

            a few greasy looking smears

            and next to them, written in soft pencil-       

            by a beautiful girl, I could tell,

            whom I would never meet-

            “Pardon the egg salad stains, but I’m in love.” (Collins 96)

This girls stains and margin writing has caused a very serious reaction in the reader, a concept we will return too, but now we must look at the role this ‘beautiful girl’ plays. She has re-worked the text, much like Blake previously. It can never be the same text again. It can never be the text that Salinger slaved over. Collins work even though he takes off his clothes, skin, and organs is too subject to this re-working. All texts can be redefined by some offhand pencil mark you or I make.

            In “Another Reason Why I Don’t Keep a Gun in the House” Collins expands this idea. The speaker hears a neighbor’s dog barking. So he puts on a Beethoven symphony as loud as he can. But he still hears the barking:

            and now I can see him sitting in the orchestra,

            his head raised confidently as if Beethoven

            had included a part for barking dog.

            When the record finally ends he is still barking,

            sitting there in the oboe section barking,

            his eyes fixed on the conductor who is

            entreating him with his baton

            while the other musicians listen in respectful

            silence to the famous barking dog solo,

            that endless coda that first established

            Beethoven as an innovative genius. (Collins 3)

Magnificently, the dog has become a part of Beethoven’s symphony. Beethoven, centuries after his death, is reinvented; in fact we now know why he was labeled a genius even though the cause only happened moments ago. This paradox is intriguing but even more so is the title of the poem. No gun is mentioned, but it looms throughout the text. The title implies that if he did have a gun, the dog would be dead. So in not having a gun is he restraining himself? And since he has restrained himself he has now experienced a classic piece of art anew. And with it comes the realization that no music happens completely in a vacuum. Outside influences will always exist. Even if the sound is pure, and all other noises blocked, there are still four other senses to tamper with our perception of it. There is no such thing as a pure experience of music, and therefore no such thing as a pure experience of any art. The Dionysian is all about seeing the slave as a freeman. Seeing things a different way, after being caught up in intoxication. This is clearly happening in both of these poems. Also, both poems present outside forces affecting the art and causing the viewer to become immersed or intoxicated in the art. And most importantly both poems highlight how the viewer, i.e., the audience re-works the art and thereby becomes a part of it. “He has himself become a work of art” (Nietzsche 441).

            This all leads towards the real change in the life of anyone experiencing art. Oscar Wilde argues that “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life” (Wilde 495). He argues that this “results not merely from Life’s imitative instinct, but from the fact that the self-conscious aim of Life is to find expression, and that Art offers it certain beautiful forms through which it may realize that energy” (Wilde 495-496). Another way he puts it is that “Life is Art’s best, Art’s only pupil” (Wilde 489). What does this mean? To some degree it must mean that all of our perceptions and notions about ourselves find their start in art. What I mean is that if reduced to ‘first things’ as Descartes would do, we would be left with art according to Wilde. Like I said at the outset these larger philosophical issues must be left to more ripe minds. What is important is how Collins’ poem “The Three Wishes” vividly displays this notion. The poem begins by telling the story of a woodsman who has three wishes. His first wish is wasted on a skillet of hot sausages, his second wish his wife wastes by wishing for the skillet to be stuck to her husband’s nose, and the third is therefore wasted as well in removing the skillet from the poor woodsman’s nose (Collins 154). He of course could have wished for gold or even golden skillets “and that is the cinder of truth / the story wishes to place in one of our shoes” (Collins 154). This story has delighted and instructed the audience of which the narrator is one of, “Three wishes is three wishes too many, / I mutter piously as I look up from the story” (Collins 155). But what happens next is quite interesting the narrator comments:

            But every time I think of it,

            all I ever really feel besides a quiver

            of sympathy for the poor woodsman

            is a gnawing hunger for sausages- (Collins 155)

The speaker’s life is imitating art. But even more profoundly, the first time I read this poem, and even now as I type I have this unbelievable urge to eat sausage! The poem is effectively working on two levels. It is describing life imitating art and it is causing it. This makes clear the notion that art is most effective after it moves beyond delighting and instructing and begins to dictate a reaction in the audience who is experiencing the art.

            The Apollonian art attempts to make something great, something on the level of the logic of Socrates. “Purity” shows how this rigor is in pursuit of perfection. Collins, however, seems to urge that maybe we need to write in the margins, maybe we need a dog to bark during Beethoven so that we can see it again, maybe even for the first time. It is through experiencing art in a Dionysian way that we experience something akin to catharsis. Understanding fear and pity and the finitude of man allows one to come out on the other side of these truths newly alive. Art affords us this possibility. Life therefore must imitate art. Art allows life to have meaning.

 

Russia in Flux: The Role of Media in Politics

In the United States political power sways between two poles of ideology. These camps are commonly referred to as conservatives or liberals. One’s political ideology is entrenched in them often during their childhood. Yet still in any given year the ruling party can change. If people in America are basically already divided into their separate camps what accounts for this pendulum like swing of power? The most significant answer is the role freedom of the press plays in broadcasting information about candidates. In layman’s terms: the media is what accounts for this pendulum swing. In Russia there is no such pendulum. For the last decade, Russian power has rested in the hands of President Vladimir Putin and those who he chooses to stand beside him in his inner circle. This political domination by Putin has been referred to by Brian Whitmore as “The Power Vertical”. Of upmost significance is the fact that this power vertical largely controls and funds news organizations. However in recent months the people have been rising up in opposition. With mass protests and a rising prominence on the world stage the people are beginning to lay hold of their own power. This desire of the opposition to uphold the Russian constitution, alongside the developing culture of the youth, has created what Whitmore calls the “Power Horizontal”. The lacking of true freedom of the press prevents Russia from developing the Power Pendulum which exists in the United States and other truly democratic nations.

            A quick examination of the U.S. model of politics will provide an ample context for the direction in which Russian society is beginning to move. If we look at a common model of ideology and politics it will become apparent the role media plays in a true democracy. To get elected in the United States candidates in primary elections must appeal to baseline voters and in general elections must appeal towards the center, or the independents (Ward). And as the candidates attempt to shape the issues and pull them in their respective directions the media observes. The media along with organizations like the ACLU or the NRA have a bias. And as they funnel out information it is changed to fit into their agendas. The media therefore directly influences the general elections as the candidates try to move back too center (Ward). The candidates try to shape the issues but really the predisposed beliefs of the media shape what the public sees. Some news organizations are less biased but what is significant is that they do have freedom of the press. Also anyone, not just big news organizations, can say whatever they want in whatever medium they can find. And us as voters have the ability to decipher through all the various opinions. The freedom of the press therefore opens up the ability for the people to have the final say in what happens in the government and in society.

            Therefore the fact that the state owns the media is all the more essential when discussing Russia’s progress. Let’s look briefly at a few examples of newspapers which are controlled by oligarchs and the government. Komsomolskaya Pravada is controlled by tycoon Vladimir Potanin; Kommersant was controlled by now exiled tycoon Boris Berezovsky; Izvestia is controlled by Gazprom; Rossiyskayay Gazeta is the official government newspaper; Krasnaya Zvezda is the defense ministry newspaper (Smith). Concerning broadcast media Russia TV Channel and Radio Russia are the national networks (Smith). Ekho Moskvy which is outspoken against many of the power vertical’s policies is the one huge exception in that it too is owned by Gazprom bank (Smith). Recent news has says that a new television station which is supposed to model America’s PBS or England’s BBC is about to begin. It is being billed as “Russia’s first public television channel” (The Power of Television). Brian Whitmore however argues that it “will be far from independent and far from free of state influence” (The Power of Television). Newspapers are still the primary source of information, recent trends show, but that television and internet sources are being used more and more in Russia, interestingly 44 percent of Russians trust national stations (Smith). Yet it is clear that “the state relies on national television channels as an invaluable political resource. National TV effectively shapes public opinion by boosting, playing down or ignoring any figure or event” (Lipman 2). It is clear that the masses are taken in by such tactics. That is why Putin was able to win the election this past March, regardless of the actual percentages most analysts agree Putin had close to a majority. But if he is really limiting peoples civil liberties how do so many support him? The same answer that is given for any number of states around the world: apathy and ignorance. If 44 percent believe the national news 44 percent will likely vote for the one that those news stations support. What is upsetting about all this is that after the fall of the Soviet Union real change in the media happened. The time under Yeltsin is described as having “assertive coverage” (Gehlbach 78). Yet Gehlbach describes:

            Under Putin, the once-lively national television media became mouthpieces for the            Kremlin. Top officials from the three national television networks meet at the Kremlin     every Friday to discuss the previous week’s and next week’s news coverage. Not every   story is directed from above, of course: journalists and editors who understand their station’s editorial policy can act with some autonomy. (Gehlbach 79)

The editorial policy is of course support of all things pro-Kremlin, i.e., pro-Putin. This clearly limits any actual autonomy.

            This leads to Russia being “one of five countries on the International Press Institute’s Watch List of countries ‘endangered with becoming repressive’”(Becker 139). One event that really shows the methodology of Putin’s encroachments on private media is his attack on Vladimir Gusinsky’s Media-Most empire. “Through the selective application of tax and criminal law, including the invasion of Media-Most premises by hooded and heavily armed tax police, the direct pressure of the Ministry of Press, Radio and Television boardroom intrigue, Media-Most collapsed” (Becker 151). This is a clear demonstration of how methodical and successful Putin is in limiting civil liberties. But before you can make people fear you, you must first label a group as evil and that is exactly what Putin did in his state of the nation address in June 2000. “He divided the media into state (gossudarstveniye) and anti-state (anti-gossudarstveniye) and attacked private owners for turning media into ‘mass misinformation outlets’ and ‘into a means of struggle against the state’”(Becker 148). So to own a private media outlet is no longer just freedom of the press, it is now in opposition to the state. Or more aptly in opposition to Putin and therefore must be eliminated and must be silenced. As will be examined forthcoming, all of this makes perfect strategic sense through the lenses of Michel Foucault’s theories of power/knowledge.

            Specifically the repression of Novaya Gazeta is reminiscent of Michel Foucault’s theories. Interestingly, 51 percent of Novaya Gazeta is owned by the paper’s staff and the other 49 percent is owned by Mikhail Gorbachev and State Duma Deputy Lebedev. In the last decade four Novaya Gazeta journalists have died mysteriously. The murder of Anna Politkovskaya on October 7, 2006 was the 211^th death of a journalist since the end of the Soviet Union.  October 7^th also is Vladimir Putin’s birthday, which has raised some questions regarding Kremlin involvement. This allegation however is one that will probably never be known if it is valid. Yet there is no question that Politkovskaya put herself in controversial situations. She spoke out against Moscow’s brutal handling of the Second Chechen War. And what should be noted is that regardless of one’s political opinions on this War what is at stake here are basic civil liberties. Whether or not Politkovskaya, or as will be examined later the band Pussy Riot, are right in their political opinions what matters is that in a democratic state freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential. The irony of course being that Putin rallies behind the banner of ‘sovereign democracy’.

             In an article Politkovskaya wrote, two months before her murder, but was published posthumously titled “Her Own Death, Foretold” Politkovskaya makes some startling statements about her voice in Russian politics. She observes “I am not invited to press conferences or gatherings that Kremlin officials might attend…despite this, all the top officials talk to me, at my request…but only in secret…like spies” (Politkovskaya). She later goes into detail of Russian security agents desecrating a dead Chechen body, “which is a criminal act…in full view of the adults and children” (Politkovskaya). This story seems to serve as an example of the type of things she reported and was persecuted for. It is reporting like this that makes internet sites claim she is “the madwoman of Moscow” (Politkovskaya). But what is significant is that she did go to these places and write about these atrocities. Regardless if the laws were followed someone with a pen observed and wrote. And this is what those in power could not tolerate. Because they knew as she states in the final paragraph “the main thing, however, is to get on with my job, to describe the life I see, to receive visitors...who have nowhere else to bring their troubles…so that the only place they can be aired is in our newspaper, Novaya Gazeta” (Politkovskaya). This is why Novaya Gazeta journalists are persecuted and this is why Anna died, it gave those without a voice a voice. And in a repressive state this is the ultimate sin.

            French philosopher Michel Foucault has described at great length these relations between institutions and society in his discourse on power/knowledge. I will examine his theory briefly to provide the context within which it bears fruit in Russia. Foucault argued that knowledge necessarily has someone who has a stake in it. And that through discourse power is developed by exploiting this stake. Thereby the one with knowledge marginalizes the one without knowledge. And through hegemony power is kept by the dominant group. They then form ideological and repressive state apparatus’. Ideological state apparatus’ are church, school, family, media etc. Repressive state apparatus’ are the police, the army, the law, the government etc. (Ingram). Ultimately it is through these institutions that power is wielded, constantly serving the needs and desires of the dominant group. Foucault even argues that truth is subservient to power. He states “the important thing here is that truth isn’t outside power, or lacking in power…truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint… Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth, i.e., the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault 131). It is by this process of funneling truth to serve the needs of those in power that allows governments to control a populace. All of Russia’s restrictions of civil liberties work towards this end of marginalizing the commoner and edifying the dominant group. This is why Anna and so many other journalists have died. If one spreads knowledge to the people which would lead to them having power they must be silenced.

            Equally important as the freedom of the press is the freedom of expression through art. The changing mass media in the arts may be an even more effective means of toppling the power vertical. The growing youth culture is something that the oligarchs and Putin simply cannot understand (“The Two Russias”). It is this fear of the unknown that keeps Putin away from online networking such as Twitter or Facebook. It is also this fear that leads to repression of art (“The Two Russias”). However some art seems to be intentionally controversial. For example the song “Mercedes S666” by ‘socially conscious’ rapper Noize MC is openly antagonistic, albeit for good reason. Another example is the recent arrest of members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot for their demonstrations.

               Noize MC’s song “Mercedes S666” deals with the deaths of Olga Aleksandrina and Vera Sidelnikova who died in a car accident also involving LUKoil Vice President Anatoly Barkov. Barkov’s Mercedes was driving in the wrong lane of traffic to avoid a traffic jam and crashed head on with Aleksandrina and Sidelnikova.  Both women lost their lives, while Barkov only had minor injuries. Yet the women were charged with causing the wreck. Barkov faced no repercussion. Noize’s song is spoken through the perspective of Barkov. He states “I do not know people whose lives are more important than my interests” (Noize MC). The chorus echoes “Mercedes S666/Прочь с пути, плебей, под колёса не лезь, Get out of the way, plebeian, the wheels do not go/ Жалкая чернь трепещи - на трассе патрPathetic rabble tremble - on the road patricians/ Мы опаздываем в ад, дорогу колесни   We're late to hell, the way a chariot” (Noize MC). Noize is clearly making the point that those in power do not care about the common person. The second verse grows even more controversial; “In hell, I’ll cook in a nearby pot of Yevsyukov/Но сейчас я жив, здоров и по полной упакован, But now I'm alive, healthy and full-packed/Застрахован на все сто от происшествия любого, Insured for one hundred percent of any accident” (Noize MC). Denis Yevsyukov is a former Moscow police officer who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing two people in a supermarket shooting spree. We must remember that Barkov was not convicted or charged with any crime. So statements like this are clearly very controversial and Noize knows the controversy that this song will cause. He is however a close friend of Aleksandrina’s sister. This song is a perfect example of one voice making some difference. The music video alone has over four hundred thousand views on YouTube. It is this type of voice from the youth that can be constructive even if it is controversial. And as has been discussed this slowly takes power away from the oligarchs and puts it firmly into the voice of the people.

            In what is an even more controversial issue the current arrests of members of the band Pussy Riot were stimulated by even more aggressive protesting. After performing unsanctioned concerts in Red Square and Orthodox churches several members of the band have been arrested some face several years in jail. They are crass, yet they should have freedom of speech regardless of their message. In their now famous “Punk Prayer” they begin with what sounds like a Orthodox hymn singing “St. Maria, Drive away Putin” (Pussy Riot). Then the sonic dissonance begins, a minute and a half of shrill screaming, which masks their protest. One verse is particularly telling of their anger “Gay pride sent to Siberia in chains/ The head of the KGB is their chief saint/ Leads protesters to prison under escort/ In order not to offend the Holy/ Women have to give birth and to love/ Holy shit, shit, Lord's shit!” (Pussy Riot). One can easily see why an Orthodox church would not want this impromptu concert to take place at their church. And one can also see how this could be viewed as illegal. It most certainly is in America as well. But what is unnerving is the fact that the women who were arrested may face up to seven years in prison, a Siberian one no doubt. It seems that it is not the invasion of private property but the content of their lyrics which they are being punished for. In a very visible and very aggressive way they denounce the morality, validity, and even Godliness of Putin. They ask St. Maria to drive him away and accuse him of sexism, communism, illegal imprisonments, and hatred of minorities. They ultimately conclude that he is excrement, (reminiscent of the term dermocracy). All elites would likely be offended by this type of characterization. But would they all react the same way. Would president Obama sentence a vehement protestor to seven years of freezing torture? Likely not. In fact the very fact that these girls have been charged with a crime and threatened with such a punishment shows that Putin is scared of what they have to say. Again, if their voice is heard, he must ask himself will people agree with them? Would some of his power be taken away by allowing these girls their freedom of speech? It is clear that to keep his prominence he must react in these ways. Pussy Riot has to be imprisoned and Politkovskaya had to die. But there is an upshot. The landscape of Russian society is slowly changing. Through the youths use of the internet and mass media the way things operate are changing. People are more observant of fraud in elections and it seems evident that this awareness will continue to grow. As the Noize MC song points out people are more observant of injustices around them. Likewise many have protested and made documentaries regarding the deaths of journalists. All these apparent steps backwards are really movement in the right direction. But as with all things Russian “everything is changing and nothing is changing”(The Politics of Television).

            Putin is therefore at the helm of a system which is changing but which he still largely controls. Putin’s developed authoritarianism has been necessary for his continued grasp on power. But how did he get into this position and has it been beneficial for Russia? After the economic collapse in Russia on August 17, 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin as Prime Minister (Goldman 4). He then took on the oligarchs, even more so during his first presidential term, and began to have the state take control of Russia’s major companies. Significantly he purchased Gazprom and the ordeal with Yukos and Khordorkovsky is well known. Under Putin Russia now owns over fifty percent of Gazprom’s shares (Goldman 6). But would Russia be the different if Putin was not in the picture?  Goldman argues “yes, Russia would be different, but not because of Putin. Russia would be as rich as it is, but that’s besides Putin” (Goldman 3). He goes on to substantiate this by arguing that Putin has nothing to do with the rising oil prices which have

attributed to Russia’s increased wealth. But what of Putin’s authoritarian policies? Are they beneficial or would a more democratic system be more beneficial for the Russian economy. Putin can stand up and attribute the recent economic success of Russia to his dealings with the oligarchs and his national and foreign policies, but could those successes have been more if he would not have suppressed the oligarchs? Current U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has argued that yes, a democratic Russia would stimulate larger economic successes. McFaul argues in 2008 thusly:

            As Putin and his team devise schemes to avoid a real handover of power later this year,     their contortions to maintain themselves at the head of the Russian state seem much more         successful than their efforts at improving governance or growing the economy at a faster         pace. World energy and raw-material prices make sustained economic growth in Russia     likely for the foreseeable future. But sustained autocratic rule will not contribute to this      growth and, because of continued poor governance, is likely to serve as a drag on economic development in the long term. Russians are indeed getting richer, but they    could be getting even richer much faster. (McFaul)

But some dissent, they argue that having a strong leader in what opponents call a managed democracy is indeed a good thing. “The myth of Putinism is that Russians are safer, more secure, and generally living better than in the 1990s -- and that Putin himself deserves the credit. In the 2007 parliamentary elections, the first goal of "Putin's Plan" (the main campaign document of United Russia) was to "provide order."”(McFaul). Yet, under Putin terrorist attacks have increased, health care ratings have decreased, property rights have been redistributed (McFaul), and of course civil liberties have been restricted. And since as we have examined he has control of media outlets, therefore he can filter the statistics which reach the public, but international observers may have a unique perspective in seeing what really is going on in Russia.

            One such example is Franz Selelmayer. Sedelmayer has for years attempted to settle debts he believes the Russian government owes him. He has been largely unsuccessful but through his dealings with the Kremlin he has learned a great deal about their inner workings. When asked if he was a Russian protester, what approach would he take? He answered thusly:

            Well, my advice, welcome or unwelcome, coming from a foreigner with some experience dealing with Putin, is that his biggest weak spot is that he hates comedy. If anybody     wanted to destabilize Putin, comedy is the best weapon they have. You cannot insult the       man, you cannot pressure the man, but you can ridicule the man.

            Have you ever heard Putin tell a joke? The very first thing he did as Prime Minister was    to cancel the most popular political satire show. I would describe these as delusions of            grandeur, but he cannot live with the idea that people out there are not taking him         seriously. Putin does not break out into rage unless it is issues like that – it’s his Achilles            heel. (Sedelmayer)

The macho image Putin has made for himself, the man who goes to mixed martial arts fights and rides horses without a shirt on cannot stand to see himself made fun of. One could draw a very interesting parallel to former president Bush and how the American people constantly ridiculed him and his current image here in the states which has been largely shaped by that ridicule. It is not easy to picture Putin in the same light. It may however be good advice for the opposition to listen too. Ridicule Putin, through humor. The South Parkesque scene is almost palpable. Putin’s fall from prominence amongst the jokes of those typing away on Twitter and Facebook. But it is still somewhat hard to fathom that the Russian people would treat Putin in the same manner that Americans treated Bush. Nevertheless, Sedelmayer does seem to make a valid and worthwhile point.

            We can look at all this and see how the Russian people, and specifically the youth, are beginning to grab power from Putin and the oligarchs and are developing into the power horizontal by means of political protest and usage of mass media. This will begin to develop over time into a multi party system with more and more democratic freedom. The opposition must be persistent though. At this moment in time there is a chance of “a rise of societal activity and political pluralism. This would enable the media to regain political relevance and reassume the role of serving the public interest” (Lipman 16). But this democratic ideal is not solidified yet. The repression could get worse “in seeking to pre-empt or suppress public protests and political turmoil, the government may opt for a further crackdown and isolationist, anti-Western policies” (Lipman 16). If this were to happen it would seem the only possible recourse would be violence. It seems unlikely with the recent number of protests that the opposition would die out peacefully. But as Brian Whitmore has said with Russia everything is changing and nothing is changing. It seems most likely that what will happen is that over time the culture of the youth will influence mass media so much that the policies and therefore the ideologies of the oligarchs and current political elites will simply become too dated. And when that fully happens the policies of the youth culture which will likely include democratic ideals will become the ruling system. It is this long change over time which will prove most effective with brief insertions of protest and uprising as we have seen over the last several months.

Works Cited

Becker, Jonathan. "Lessons from Russia: A Neo-Authoritarian Media System." European             Journal of Communication 19.2 (2004): 139-63. Print.

Foucault, Michel. "Truth and Power." Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings.    New Yok: Pantheon, 1980. 109-33. Print.

Gehlback, Scott. "Reflections on Putin and the Media." Post-Soviet Affairs 26.1 (2012): 77-87.     Print.

Goldman, Marshall. "Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia." Carnegie Council. Merrill     House, New York. 4 June 2008. Speech.

Ingram, Penelope. "Foucault - History of Sexuality." University of Texas at Arlington,      Arlington. 24 Feb. 2011. Lecture.

Lipman, Maria. "Media Manipulation and Political Control in Russia." Chatman House (2009):     1-16. Print.

McFaul, Michael, and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss. "The Myth of the Authoritarian Model. How           Putin's Crackdown Holds Russia Back." Foreign Policy Research Institute (2008): 1-10.           Print.

"Noize MC Mercedes S666." Mp3ex. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.

Politkovskaya, Anna. "Her Own Death, Foretold." Editorial. Washingtonpost.com. 15 Oct. 2006.             Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

"Pussy Riot-Punk Prayer." YouTube. YouTube, 10 Mar. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.

Sedelmayer, Franz. "How to Make Russia Pay Its Debts: An Interview with Franz Sedelmayer." Interview by James Kimer. Web log post. Robertamsterdam.com. Ed. Robert Amsterdam.        Robert Amsterdam, 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.

Smith, Pete. "News and New Media in Russia." University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington. 2     Mar. 2012. Lecture.

Ward, Bill. "The Model." University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington. 8 Apr. 2010. Lecture.

Whitmore, Brian. "The Politics Of Television." Audio blog post. Radio Free Europe/ Radio           Liberty. 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

---. “The Two Russias.” Audio blog post. Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. 2 March 2012.          Web. 3 March 2012.