anders deutsch

The topic of our summit are the Arab revolutions and the social media. This is a sensitive issues, since not all revolutions have been finally victorious yet and the revolutionaries could be persecuted by the old (or new?) regimes. Thus I raised the question, whether one could restrict social media (twitter, youtube, etc.) coverage of the summit. To this there was the clear answer (as far as I understood it): We are at a social media conference and thus cannot restrict social media! I do not get the point. Social media coverage does not have to be unlimited. One should be able to discuss, which coverage is suitable for a topic or not. One definitely needs to consider security issues. And even if it is impossible to restrict all coverage, one can tell everybody present that one asks not do certain things. Then at least unintended leakages can be controlled.

I want to be able to say things (also at public events), which will not be published. It is something different if somebody publishes an audio or video recording or a direct transcript of what I said and if people say that I said. In the latter case I can always claim that I was misquoted, in the first cases there is proof I said something. But if there is a danger of everything being quoted and published, then there is a restriction to what can be said in (semi) public and I would consider that a loss to debate culture.

I would like to have a discussion about the ethical limits of social media coverage.

The other day we were talking about how difficult it is to get a Schengen visa. And I told some Arab participants how in Germany there is the image, that everyone wants to live in Germany. This met quiet some disbelieve from my colleagues. One said wonderingly "I have never thought about going to Germany". The other was very vocal and gave a list of things why she would never move to Germany (where she has already been on visits):

Never move to a place where there are no elevators.
Never move to a place where there is no air conditioning.
Never move to a place where you have to use public transport.
Never move to a place where you get only sandwiches for lunch.

The Young Media Summit is a meeting of journalists, organised by journalists and reported on by journalists. So there is much opportunity to think about journalism, how it works, what representations are made, etc.

Yesterday I overheard a conversation between two journalists. The first told the second that s/he wanted to interview him/her, but that actually s/he did not need to really interview him/her, because s/he had already written the interview from things s/he had heard him/her saying in different conversations during the summit. So the second journalist only needed to read the interview and see what corrections were needed. And thus the interview was concluded.

But if it is an authorised text, not a transcript of an interview, why frame it as an interview? As a reader I have certain images, what an interview should be. And this production process does not fit with it. I would feel cheated, if I was presented by such an interview. It very much reminded me of the discussions around this years Kisch-Preis in Germany.

When we were working together on our blog post one German representative of the organisators of the summit came to us and asked us, where we are from. So we answered: Palestine, Lebanon, Berlin. Hearing my reply she seemed to be a bit confused and then said that this was not visible, since we three worked together so well (which we did). Up till then I had thought it was an innocent question. We are all from different places and it is interesting to know where we are from. But her reaction made me rethink. Why did she have to tell us, that it was not visible that I am from Berlin? Is it so unusual that Germans and Arabs work together? If it is, then what is the point of the summit? Or was it rather the case that she did not think I do not look German and she somehow tried to hide that she had not recognised me as German?

Yesterday at our panel discussion asked me where I am from. As far as I remember we were talking German. And I was wearing my Salwar Kamiz from Agra. So I told him first Germany and then "One can see that I am from Germany, can't one?" And he took it quiet well.

PS 28.05.11:The woman at the reception (in the new hotel) asked me where I am from, my name sounded interesting to her. She did not expect me answering Germany, but then without ado shifted to talk German with me, since she is German as well.

The cafe we went to yesterday was Cilantro. It could have been anywhere in the world (maybe except for Germany - there these cafe shops are not yet that common). Some years back at a conference in Seoul we went to a similar place. Last weekend in Frankfurt we had breakfast in a similar place. The places where the globalised elites go to. Here with a menu only in English (in Germany I do not think it was solely in English, in Korea I do not remember).

I am still sitting in my posh hotel room, taking advantage of the internet, the air conditioning and the safety. Today major protest are planed at Tahrir Square. Everybody is going there. I do not, because I am too illiterate. I know to little about the protest, Cairo and the language. I would hardly understand the things happening. And if it becomes dangerous, I would understand even less and be a burden on anybody taking care of me.

At the moment sitting in my hotel room, I hear a male voice outside. Most probably it is a praying voice, because at the moment it seems to be a religious chant. But it could also be something revolutionary (or something else). I just know too little. And that is why I will stay in a safe place, catering for illiterate people like me.

During research trip we took refuge from the heat in one of the upmarket coffee shops. It provides internet access and one of my colleagues stubornly tried to connect to it, fully absorbed in the process.



So drinking a cold drink, not having a smart phone and nothing to read with me, I had much time thinking about the new social media. Why is it that is so important to be always online? Why do you seem to forget the people around you? Don't you talk with each other anymore? Do I need a smart phone to be able to communicate with people?

Once the internet connection was established, my colleague got new information about what happens around us, told us about a blocked road close by. So yes, it makes sense to check the internet, especially in revolutionary times.

And he said he had needed a quiet time. I very much understand that.

Thus (non-)communication is much more complex than it seemed to me on the first glance.

Deutsche Welle TV produced a talk show including participants from the summit. The moderator told the participants should come early, because there are five "girls" on the show and they will take much time doing the make up. When I asked why the "girls", one of the participants said "because he is a sexist" and he jokingly confirmed this, explaining further how for "girls" with their hair make up takes longer than for men like him. (One of the participants was Helga, whose hair is definitely shorter than his, but I have to admit she got much more make up than him.) See the making of video for another of his casual, supposedly innocent sexist remarks (the short haired "girl", the "girl" with the scarf and the male participant are not featured during the make up session).

PS: On the last day we have to fill in evaluation sheets. We comment on them not really being anonymous and my neighbour says, one can distinguish male and female handwritting. Looking at my evaluation sheet, he, however, has to admit that mine is not clearly female. Joining in the biologistic argument I argue that my handwritting is not so female because I have a small beard and my hormones are not ok. He seems confused.

My post on Young Media Summit

There is more to blog about the last day, but it is already far too late in the night. I will do that later.

PS: 01.06.11: Michael's experiences are similar to mine.

Almost all of the participants have twitter accounts. And many of them twitter during the whole day. I have to admit twitter for me is still a new technology, I neither write nor read. And I can think of scenarios were synchronous twittering is important. So, for example, there will be protests on the Tahrir Place on Friday. I understand that twittering is a good way of mobilising and spreading news during the protests. But why is anybody interested in live comments from our summit? Nobody can join, the information could also be spread later. Why twittering from the conference? I have read some of the tweets during the sessions and did not find an answer to my questions. I also do not get the point of just quoting one phrase from a talk. In this form decontextualised they do not make much sense for me. Writing and reading the tweets would take my concentration away from what is being said. And I also have the feeling that information can be spread too quickly with the web community, before one is really thinking about whether this is secure for all those involved.

I know that this post can be read as a conservative rejection of a new technology. And there might be some truth in this, because it is a technology I do not use. But at the same time I claim that we have to think about when synchronity of reporting makes sense and when maybe it is not so important or even a bad idea. Only because we have a technology we do not have to use it for all purposes and all the time.

And I am still wondering what the tweet of one of the participants that she is hiding her anti-feminism as so many participants are talking about feminism is meant to do. Is it making a statement against feminism for the other participants, who can follow the tweets, and is thus the opposite of hiding? If so, why is there the claim of hiding? I obviously do not get it.

PS 29.11.11: Currently the next Young Media Summit is staged in Tunis. Since I was a participant at the last one and I know some of the participants of the current one, I am interested in what is happening there. Thus I once in a while check their tweets and the Facebook site. Unfortunately, my impression from above, however, gets confirmed. The tweets provide me with totally unsatisfying information. Lots of it is totally uninteresting to me (in particular the advertisment posts in between for yms) and what is interesting is far too brief to get an impression of what is happening. Thus I have still not progressed in understanding why one should tweet from such a conference and why one should read the tweets.

There is a video journalist following out conference. He is there most of the time, standing just in front of the speaker in order to get a good footage, holding his camera next to my head, disturbing a discussion. For me this filming seems very invasive. I am fine that I am filmed, but I do not want the camera and the video journalist to be so dominant. I want to listen and discuss in this group -that is my first priority. For me the filming should be of lower priority. Does film coverage have to be so invasive? Is media coverage more important than the event itself?

The venue of our conference is very posh. It is the Mariott Zamalek in Cairo. And the reason for choosing this place is also acceptable: there are both conference rooms and internet access for all. But it also represents the privileges we all have. We sit here in this posh place, all costs covered, our travel expenses covered as well and all (but one, whose passport was not valid for six months more) got visas. We sit in this room and almost all of us have a notebook/ netbook / Macbook in front of us. Many have smart phones. The habitus of most indicates being situated in the upper middle class or upper class.



I engage with one in a discussion about migrant (domestic) workers (because I am interested in migrants from South Asia to this region) and talk about our privileges and their marginalisations. She gets into a very defensive mode, arguing that the domestic workers are treated well (since they are trusted the kids) and they give wrong accusations about being mistreated by their employers. She adds that she is working hard for her income as well and is not rich. That she can afford a driver, her sister has a domestic servant for her kids, who comes along to London, were they have a flat, etc. just seems normal to them.

Also another claims not to be rich, just comfortable. She drives a good car, has a blackberry, a very upper class habitus and the impression that the poor are less educated and thus more religious/ conservative.

These people are active in supporting the Arab revolutions, women's rights, etc., they are nice people and do good things. But I have a feeling that they do not question their class privileges much (I do that also much too little), that they reproduce classist exclusions and I ask myself, what consequences it has when it is these people who not only raise their voices but are also heard. And what it means that we privileged meet and network. What exclusions are we reproducing together?

In Germany a rather simple image of the Arab world dominates. All are the same, Muslim, etc. That this is a wrong image is nothing very surprising. But I am really glad to have the opportunity to spend three days with 11 bloggers/ journalists from eight different Arab countries. Already the first day showed the different perspectives they have, their different involvement in political struggles and different approaches. As a gender studies scholar I am in particular fascinated by the different feminist approaches, which encompass both those who firmly believe in the dichotomy of women and men as well as heterosexuality to those who question heteronormativity and fight for the rights of the non-heteronormative. It was also interesting to see how two bloggers engaged in the struggle for women's rights in two different countries got into a rather fierce argument about what the right way is. To be precise one of them had the feeling (and I think she was right there) that her home country was taken as the place, which treats women particularly badly, and reacted by defending it (although I later got the experience that she is rather critical of her country). This debate could also have been initiated by a mainstream German, who is anti-muslim, and a woman from the Arab world - but it was among two Arab women.

I am learning lots and ask lots of questions.

I will shift now to blog about the Young media summit (yms) in English, as this gives the other participants a chance that they can read my posts (our working language is English). My plan at the moment is to write some short blog on impressions from the first day. Since our programme is pretty full, there is little time to plan the blogging, so I will just write down without much composing.

Heute abend bin ich in Kairo zum Young Media Summit angekommen.

Mal sehen, was ich alles zu erzählen haben werde. Gerade habe ich das Gefühl, dass ich erstmal vorallem hinschauen und hinhören sollte - und erstmal gar nicht so viel sagen. Ich lerne dazu.

Frankfurt/Main. Nach einem Vortrag von Judith Bulter und Gayatri Spivak gehe ich mit anderen zusammen auf dem Fußweg entlang. Uns entgegen kommt eine kleine Gruppe. Der Mann schon älter. Der gibt mir ein ordentliches Tackling gegen die Schulter. Ich drehe mich um und schreie ihn an. Er teilt mir mit, dass ich zu viel Platz eingenommen habe und nicht normal sei. Der verbale Schlagabtausch geht etwas weiter. Ich beschwere mich, dass er als älterer Mann eine junge Frau anrempelt. Seine Gruppe entfernt sich. Eine Kollegin aus unserer Gruppe geht hinterher und streitet weiter mit ihnen. Später erzählt sie mir, dass er mich für einen 16jährigen männlichen Teenager gehalten hat. Und dass die Kollegin (sie ist groß und beeindruckend) das Gefühl hatte, dass er auf sie körperlich losgehen wollte.

Soviel zum Thema Gender, Pädagogik und Gewalt. Vorträge alleine reichen nicht, ab und zu braucht es auch praktische Erfahrung.

Und vielen Dank an die Kollegin für die Unterstützung!

illustrieren gerade die Kommentare zu dem Beitrag Warum es manchmal okay ist heteros doof zu finden auf der Mädchenmannschaft sowie der Text über den Text auf Medienelite.

In dem Beitrag geht es um Privilegien in der Heteronormativität, ähnliche Kommentare wären auch bei einem Beitrag zu Rassismus, Klassismus, Ableism, etc. wahrscheinlich. Wenn Privilegien thematisiert werden und Menschen merken, dass sie vielleicht (auch) privilegiert sind, dann kommt es regelmäßig zu solch platten und wütenden Reaktionen.

Die Print-taz titelt heute IWF-Chef wegen Sex-Vorwürfen in haft. Es geht aber nicht um Sex-Vorwürfe (was immer das sein soll - macht den Eindruck von schmuddelig, aber nicht kriminell), es geht um einen Vorwurf einer (versuchten) Vergewaltigung (als einer kriminellen Handlung). Das muss auch so benannt werden.

Nachtrag 18.05.11: Die taz hat gestern weiter zur Verharmlosung der Vorwürfe beigetragen und ausführlichst über die Spekulationen über Sex-Falle berichtet. Ich finde es richtig, dass die Unschuldsvermutung auch für Strauss-Kahn gelten muss. Ich verstehe aber nicht, warum für die Frau, die ihn wegen versuchter Vergewaltigung angezeigt hat, keine Unschuldsvermutung gilt. Warum erscheint es legitim, sie zu beschuldigen?

Nachtrag 19.05.11: Nach tagelanger Verharmlosung hat die taz heute einen Text von Gabriele Dietze über mächtige Männer und deren Anspruch auf sexuelle Verfügbarkeit von Frauen veröffentlicht. Mein Lieblingssatz:

"Warum benehmen sich dermaßen bedeutende Männer wie Oberaffen, die sich greifen (oder kaufen), was bei "drei" nicht auf den Bäumen ist?"

Nachtrag 20.05.11: Ines Pohl kritisiert in der taz die sprachliche Verniedlichung von sexueller Gewalt und dabei auch explizit deutsche Medien. Eine Selbstreflexion der taz-Berichterstattung fehlt aber und das macht ihre Kritik etwas scheinheilig.

Nachtrag 22.05.11: Die taz hat noch einen verharmlosenden Kommentar veröffentlicht. Ich stimme mit der Autorin Monika Frommel überein, dass für Angeklagte die Unschuldsvermutung gelten muss. Ansonsten stimme ich mit ihr nicht überein, denn sie verharmlost die Gewalt, die eine sexuelle Belästigung (auch ohne vollendeter Vergewaltigung) bedeutet. Sie behauptet, es wäre in irgendeinerweise um Sex gegangen und ignoriert damit völlig die Darstellung der Hotelangestellten. Denn die spricht (soweit ich die Medien verstehe) nicht von Sex sondern von Gewalt (sexualisierter). Aber meine Kritik wird Frommel wohl nur bestätigen, sie schreibt:

"Eine beschämende öffentliche Demütigung ändert kein patriarchales Strukturproblem. Sie fügt einem bis zu diesem Ritual mächtigen und nun äußerst verletzbaren Menschen Schaden zu. Feminismus ist eine breite soziale Bewegung und kann auf eine differenzierte Theorie zurückblicken. Diese Theorie analysiert Machtstrukturen und entwickelt Gegenstrategien. Sie sollte besonders vorsichtig sein, wenn Macht unfair ausgespielt wird. Ignoriert sie diesen Unterschied, wird sie zum feministisch getarnten Faschismus (oder Bolschewismus). "

Genau auf Basis der gesellschaftlichen Machtverhältnisse argumentiertend, würde ich anders argumentieren: Sexualisierte Gewalt gegen Frauen ist gesellschaftlich legitimiert (siehe Kommentar von Dietze). Männer werden dafür selten bestraft und häufig belohnt. Bei öffentlichen Personen braucht es deshalb auch eine öffentliche Debatte über sexualisierte Gewalt. Und zwar in der Form wie Dietze und Pohl es machen. Denn sie urteilen nicht darüber, ob Strauss-Kahn dieses Verbrechen begangen hat, sondern sprechen über das gesellschaftliche Phänomen.