Each semester, REL 360 students write a blog post on one of the films that they watched throughout the semester. The first in this semester’s posts hit earlier today and the others will be posted throughout the winter break.
REL 360 is a one credit hour course offered each semester
which looks at religion and pop culture.
REL 360–our one-credit-hour course–will be showing the 1995 film 12 Monkeys. In the year 2035, only 1% of humanity’s population remains in the aftermath of a deadly virus. James Cole (played by Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to unearth the origin of the virus and thwart it before it can become the deadliest epidemic of his time. Continue reading
REL 360–our one credit hour course–will be showing the 1980s comedy The Gods Must Be Crazy. After a glass Coca-Cola bottle is thrown from a passing plane into Kalahari bushmen territory, the supposed gift from the gods soon turns the tribe against one another, (since there is only one glass bottle to go around). Xi, the film’s protagonist, takes it upon himself to travel to the ends of the earth to dispose of the ludicrous gift and finds himself in an assortment of absurd adventures along the way. Continue reading
REL 360, our one credit hour course, is kicking off the spring semester by showing O Brother, Where Art Thou? The film (which has been compared to Homer’s The Odyssey) is set in the deep South during the Depression-era and follows the antics of three escaped convicts on their quest to avoid the law and return home. Continue reading
In a time when technology is more integral to our communication than ever, it is interesting how often people overlook the fact that as we become more immersed in technology, our private life inherently becomes more embedded in it as well. Sure, we may use a pin number to unlock a cell phone or a password to access an email, but in reality many people take a great deal for granted when it comes to their private information that now resides in the electronic world. In just under two hours, Laura Poitras’ documentary Citizenfour not only forces Americans to evaluate their cyber security, but also confront the uncomfortable notion that the entity posing the greatest threat to it is not some band of hackers, but our own government.
To bring this to light, the film uses the information exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed a secret NSA system of mass-surveillance that has been spying on every American and millions of other people around the world since the September 11th terrorist attack in New York fifteen years ago. The fear and tensions that naturally followed this incident allowed the passage of the Patriot Act, which has since served as the legal justification for the construction of this system housed within the NSA. Despite this legislative foundation, much of the controversy in the film arises from the fact that the surveillance has evolved to include illegal and invasive measures against all citizens, and that the government has lied multiple times in attempts to cover it up, even in congressional hearings.
While the government has not denied conducting surveillance, they have consistently attempted to deceive the American public about the nature or extent of the data collection. The government initially claimed it was only collecting what is called metadata, which essentially amounts to who is communicating, where they are, what they’re purchasing electronically, etc., a process that is invasive in itself, as collection of this type without probable cause or court approval seems to be in violation of a basic right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. However, the documents released by Snowden with the help of Poitras and another journalist, Glenn Greenwald, revealed that the government, in addition to collecting metadata, also has access to the content of every communication as well. This means that not only does the government have access to virtually every type of electronic call, message, social media post, or any other electronic communication, but that service providers such as AT&T, Google, Yahoo, and countless others are betraying the trust of their customers by secretly providing (most likely selling) this information to the government.
A system of this magnitude has serious implications for our status as a democracy. This essential elimination of privacy is the first step in the process of the government being able to control belief. Freedom of thought is essential to democracy, but a surveillance system such as this allows the government to detect and potentially deter any idea that conflicts with its interests. In a democracy, the government’s interests are theoretically ours, those of the people it represents, but as individual voters in a massive political machine representing more than 300 million people, citizens are often left feeling completely disconnected from the government and its agenda. For these people to be fairly represented, they must be able to voice opinions of opposition and protest when they feel compelled to do so. While surveillance itself does not prevent this kind of action, it puts a mechanism in place that, were policy protecting dissent and/or protest changed, could be used to rapidly identify and control those with beliefs conflicting with government agenda. This change is not outside the realm of possibility, and even before it occurs, the mere existence of a system for controlling belief accomplishes a large part of the government’s goal. When people know they are being monitored, they begin to police themselves, effectively defending against anti-government ideas before they even become conversations, much less the type of mass movement it takes to truly effect change.
Even if you do not feel compelled to use it currently, every citizen should be extremely interested in the protection of the right to meaningfully protest or at the very least disagree with the government. If it becomes the case that they are no longer able to, the ability to accurately describe the United States as a democracy is critically threatened. While the internet has vastly expanded the scale and methods through which belief can be shared, it has also allowed these expressions to be monitored more easily than ever before. This oversight is just one of many arms of government power, and now that the mechanism is in place, it could easily be flexed to control any type of belief, whether political, religious, or otherwise. This scandal does not necessarily mean that the government is out to control citizens in this way, but the extent of the system, its questionable legality, and the government’s efforts to keep it secret can certainly be seen as cause for concern. This information is something Snowden felt was worth risking his life to expose, and Laura Poitras’ documentary Citizenfour made a dramatic impact in educating the public on an issue that could potentially have disastrous consequences for American democracy in the future.
Jeff Blanchard is a Senior at the University of Alabama and is set to graduate in May. He is a Blount Scholar majoring in History and minoring in Religious Studies. The following was written for REL 360: Popular Culture/Public Humanities.
The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952 for collecting, processing, and protecting information for the United State government. In 2013 Edward Snowden, an employee of an NSA contractor, flew to Hong Kong and meet with journalists to start the process of revealing information about the organization’s collection of metadata on US citizens. The metadata included phone calls, text messages, and words/phrases that people entered into search engines.
The documentary Citizen Four captures Snowden’s days in Hong Kong and his conversations with the journalists involved. It is actual footage that Snowden recorded that was edited and used to produce a quality presentation of the events as they unfolded.
The most popular thing to write about after watching Citizen Four would have to be the government’s infringement upon privacy. In choosing to write about this a person would enter an ongoing debate about privacy, and would have to paint Edward Snowden as either a friend or a foe. Ultimately the person’s writing would do nothing except contribute to the noise. I will quickly contribute my two cents to the noise and then move on to something from the movie that I believe creates more fruitful academic discussion.
Last year I was asked by a friend to be used as person that could verify his residence for a co-op interview with the NSA. I agreed, but was never contacted, however other individuals that my friend listed were contacted. It seems strange to me that the NSA would need to verify my friend’s residency if they have metadata collected on him that would verify all the information that they need. At the same time, it is strange that my name was given and I was never contacted. My friend has since started his co-op and claims that there are laws in place that prevents the NSA from spying on Americans. My personal belief is that metadata is being collected but not actively viewed by the NSA.
Now, on to a more academic topic. The subject matter that I find to be interesting from the movie is that Snowden did not want himself to get in the way of what he had to say. He wanted to eliminate his own bias from the presentation of the material. This would prevent people from not paying attention to the important stuff and instead keep their focus on the rogue NSA employee. Snowden knew that as soon as his identity went public he would become the central story in place of the matter he was exposing. This is an interesting case to look at in terms of authorship. In this case Snowden thought that authorship mattered. He believed journalists were free to deliver his message without their authorship getting in the way. He knew that if he expressed his ideas then people would focus more on where the voice was coming from than the words being said. The message would have stayed the same, but the delivery was what really mattered. This shows how much credibility and institution matter in the reception of news media. When it comes to our news, context matters more than substance in that who is talking makes the story and not the words they are saying. It has been ingrained in Americans to trust the media for accurate news over other people, just like it has been ingrained in Americans to believe that the NSA is working to protect them from terrorism. Both are true statements, but neither one considers ulterior motives. Context is more important than substance, because context molds and shapes the substance into what people receive. Citizen Four reminds us that nothing is inherited, and that we must remember that everything comes to us through a certain context.