Reading Response 9

I enjoyed reading Julie Peteet's The Writing on the Walls. While somewhat familiar with graffiti, I had not previously fully considered its implications. I was particularly intrigued by graffiti's use as a disruption tool within power dynamics/hierarchy. As Peteet noted, graffiti is synonymous with the stone; they are both ubiquitous and accessible means of overcoming power disparity. Furthermore, graffiti's use, in itself, is expressive of the intifada's motivations. Specifically, the presence of graffiti is indicative of an extremely marginalized population. Its use represents desperation for expression. "Legitimate" means of discourse have been suppressed or made unavailable; thus, the population's opportunities for expression are relegated to vandalism. This expression of marginalization, both direct and implicit, can be considered as a representation of the broader conflict.

I also agreed with Peteet's presentation of a "war for the last word". The use of censorship is directly representative of this marginalization. However, censorship is also counterproductive; I do not understand how Israeli forces or civilians do not recognize this. As noted, censorship further exacerbates the root problem, by continuing the suppression of discourse. Furthermore, any censorship inherently legitimizes the censored material. Censorship states that something should not be viewed, thus giving value to the censored material regardless of its original content. Such an action only serves as further motivation; censorship creates a cyclical state.

Question: Palestinian narratives are expressed in an extremely diverse manner. Often, these presentations are generalized, contradictory or demeaning. Are there any particular popular representations you disagree with? Similarly, are there "positive" representations that are not fully expressive?