The Other. The two words alone sound like some sort of 1980s cult classic horror-thriller film. However, let us not get too caught up with it, or go off on a wild tangent for that matter. The Other is a somewhat vague/under-explained theory laced throughout the last chapter of John Durham Peters' Speaking Into Air. In what follows, I sketch some of the extremities of communication theory in the mid- to late twentieth century: machines, animals, and extraterrestrials (Peters, 230). I wanted to originally write this final paper analyzing cartoon characters that resembled machines, animals and extraterrestrials and relate them to Peters' theory defining The Other. However, after trying to analyze these characters, I found them hard to relate to relate to this theory of The Other because these characters are fictional and do not exist in our world.
The reality of these cartoon characters, I felt, would be more confusing to try to relate to the theory presented in Speaking Into Air because the reality of cartoons have a different makeup than that of real life. I then decided to tweak the focus of my paper: I would still focus on the theory of The Other as well as its representation. However, I would be now studying The Other as seen in the media as well as in relation to stereotypingtying each and making connections to Peters' theory of The Other.
[...] It is the process of differentiating the self from other people by relying on a dualism that defines the self as superior and others as inferior. That means marginalization or ‘Othering' is a way of defining and securing one's own positive identity through the stigmatization of an ‘other'” (Bin Asad). “Othering” is socially constructed and is a continued practice because it is so often found in media. The human race is built upon constant stereotyping and ostracizing and the media teaches us to seek out these stereotypes, focus on these differences and continue to those who do not fit in. [...]
[...] "Machines, Animals, and Aliens: Horizons of Incommunicability." Speaking Into The Air: A History of The Idea of Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago 227-61. Print. [...]
[...] From the above quote, issues are forgotten (these issues could include the needs of a specific minority, injustice that have been done against the minority, etc.), and stereotypes are pumped up. The dominant group will utilize any stereotype from the to re-assure themselves of their (the dominant group's) normalcy. Stereotyping The Other in the media can also be seen as a form of oppression towards the representation of The Other. Media has the capability to “educate” their viewers and create a teacher-student environment with their audience. [...]
[...] In terms of this banking education model, the media is all knowing and the audience does not know anything at all. If the media continues to feed its audience stereotypes regarding The Other, the audience does not have the ability to make its own decisions. This method of education allows for the audience to easily categorize The Other and slip back into the ideology of the dominant group. exploring our strangest partners, I intend to illuminate the strangeness that occurs in the most familiar settings” (Peters, 231). [...]
[...] contents, whether values or empirical dimensions of reality, tend in the process of being narrated to become lifeless and petrified” (Freire, 71). task is to ‘fill' the students with the contents of his narration—contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance” (Freire, 71). The media tends to brainwash us with stereotypes, which leads to a misconception regarding The Other and perpetuates the audience to perform “otherness” when encountering The Other. is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards men as adaptable, manageable beings. [...]
using our reader.