Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ming the Merciless <scs7891-AT-is2.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Silence


On Fri, 23 May 1997, Matthew Scott Archer wrote:

> However,
> silence in and of itself, has similar potential for supporting structures
> of domination as for thier transgression.

i think this is an important point.  it's also complicated b/c a reading
of silence can be at odds with its "writing".  taoism, for instance, can
be transgressive for the individual, but only register as political
quietism by an observer of that individual.  
ever see those annoying dewars ads?  they're all over the street in nyc - 
on phone booths, in bus shelters i think, in the subways.  so there's this
one that came out right b4 an election that had a picture of a donkey and
an elephant, standing at a formal party with drinks in their hands,
wearing confused expressions.  the caption reads, "after much thought,
we have decided to endorse the Cocktail Party."  the narrator is obviously
meant to be a dewars spokesperson.  
similarly, there's a more recent one with three frames: 
frame a: "how to enjoy a dewars while talking politics"
frame b: (picture of woman with blank expression) "nod your head a lot"
frame c: (picture of woman laughing) "change the topic to movies"
in each case, the strategy of silence or "no comment" is supposed to
"sound" transgressive, but in reality endorses the corporate, pro-status
quo line.  

sig	http://pages.nyu.edu/~scs7891