The Curious Case Of The Medium

Media and Performance Theory Supervised by prof. Frank Kessler and dr. Imar de Vries Lina Zigelyte 3319717 WORD COUNT: 5059

The Curious Case of the Medium or The Trouble With Framing the Definition It is so difficult to find the beginning. Or better: it is difficult to begin at the beginning. And not try to go further back. - Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

There's a big difference between the still and the moving images. The moving image is very powerful, because you don't know where it's going to go. - Susan Sontag. Against Postmodernism, etcetera 1

How I Betrayed Media Studies Defining media studies in a nutshell is an intricate task, particularly when it comes to explaining the exact object of research in a more or less informal environment. Strangers mostly react with puzzled suspicion. Friends from academia tend to nod while staying in a safety zone of cautious reserve. My mother was taking notes first time I was describing the content of my study program – in case she has to explain it to acquaintances and neighbours. Nowadays, without going into too much detail and trying to escape confusion with mass media, I mostly end up saying that I do cultural studies. I have discovered that nobody seems to wonder what culture is, since there is 1

Chan, E. Against Postmodernism, etcetera. A Conversation with Susan Sontag. 2001. Postmodern Culture. Vol 12 (1). Available at http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.901/12.1chan.txt [accessed 20 April, 2009]

2 an unspoken unanimous agreement that culture is a complex matter or, as Raymond Williams observed, it is ‘one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language’ (Williams, 1983: 87). My infidelity to the phrasing of the field I study should be taken with a grain of salt. Yet this paper is a reflection driven precisely by a curiosity to understand why explaining the object of media studies is puzzling. I believe, the troubles stem from the fact that demarcating separate media and defining them is becoming increasingly complicated. We live in the era when media are gradually deviating from established norms – texts embrace ‘smileys’ instead of letters, iPhone screens are replacing cinema houses, and anchormen are substituted with holograms. Nonetheless, no medium has ever been homogenous. Yet the rate at which media are metamorphosing currently is begging to revisit the understanding of what constitutes a medium. In my reasoning I will draw on David Rodowick’s trajectory of thought. While the title of his book ‘Virtual Life of Cinema’ suggests that he mainly focuses on cinema, Rodowick provides argumentation on how it comes into being and why the changes film as a medium is undergoing are of foremost importance. I find Rodowick’s reasoning,

in

which

he

synthesises

the

work

of

scholars

emphasising

phenomenological experience of a medium (Stanley Cavell, André Bazin, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes, and Siegfried Kracauer among others), an attempt to go beyond usual borders framing media studies. Even though Rodowick focuses on cinema and photography, his argumentation is broad enough to help me assess the formation and the transformation of other media as well. I am particularly interested in what triggers the birth of a certain medium and how its evolution reflects on the changes taking shape in our culture. Rodowick successfully avoids the clash between culture and media and the temptation to prioritise either of the two – instead he probes into the dialogue emerging between them, because both coevolve and are dependent upon each other. This is where I find his thinking particularly relevant to contemporary culture, because the attempt to find out whether culture or media have more weight in shaping each other I consider to be the chase of a wild goose. Instead, Rodowick’s departure point is the term ‘medium’ and his assessment proves that what takes shape in the marriage of culture and media (with technology as the best man) is the rethinking of our relation to the world and an exploration of what moves our sensibility most.

3 This paper oscillates between three dimensions in the life of a medium – past, present and future, or as Paul Virilio would say, between three modes – rewind, play, fastforward (Evans, 2003). My reflections on Rodowick’s argumentation include examples from various media and are an endeavour to think creatively with theory. In my attempt I will first of all look into the reasons, which make defining a particular medium complicated. The second part of the paper explores the intersection of culture and media – in other words, how the two are inextricable from each other – both in their emergence and analysis. Finally, I will speculate on what might become of the ontology of media in the future. I believe, if this approach is taken and interdependence of our culture and our sensibility with various media is emphasised, some insightful and inspiring thoughts can be forged. In this respect, my betrayal of media in the first paragraph might not be that nefarious.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: bridging McLuhan and Williams

The reason I find it necessary to go back to the basic element in the terrain of media studies (that is the question a medium itself) is not because I am interested in coining another definition. Essentially I am curious to find out which threads this question splices. I am unhappy with the way technology seems to preoccupy a number of discourses in media studies. It is not that I would like to contradict McLuhinites who underscore the influence of technology over culture. I believe, neglecting the impact of technology on my life – the way it modifies my habits of writing, the way I master flirting in comments following other people’s updates on Facebook and the way my experience of urban space is being transformed as I travel from the ruins of Rome to the melting pot of London City – these are profound changes I can observe emerging in my life. However, these developments reflect not only on the way my life is being influenced by them, but on something more, perhaps more complicated to pin down, yet oftentimes disregarded. Nonetheless, the other side of the barricade – the Williamsites, emphasising the fact that cultural developments shape technologies, ultimately would not be my choice of allies either. What I am mainly unhappy with is the lack of a dialogue bridging these two camps and I can trace it in the work of

4 Rodowick as he weaves his thought with a phenomenological approach towards media and traces how our aesthetic experience is evolving. Firstly, Rodowick makes a clear distinction between the physical matter and a medium. In his view, a medium cannot be equated to its physical qualities, because media are hybrid by definition and they continue to merge and overlap with other media. David Bolter and Richard Grusin trace hypermediacy as a fascination with the interplay of various media in European cathedral architecture, medieval illuminated manuscripts, Renaissance altarpieces, Baroque cabinets, modernist collage, and photomontage, among other examples (Bolter&Grusin, 1996), thus proving that hypermediacy is not a novel feature. In other words, assigning certain material features as quintessential attributes defining a particular medium curbs it to adhere to certain limitations. Thus, along with Noel Carroll Rodowick repudiates the doctrine of medium specificity, although the latter one is not sure who is observing it (Rodowick, 2007: 34). According to Rodowick, ‘[a]ll media evolve in time, then, but not toward a predetermined essence’ (Rodowick, 2007: 37). That said, addressing separate specificities of a given medium is inevitable – otherwise the variations, which come to manifest in film, performance art, theatre or any other medium, cannot be comprehended adequately. Thereby the material body of a medium is important, however it is not the core in attempting to understand what Rodowick calls ‘the selfidentity of a medium’ (Rodowick, 2007: 41). What he considers to be essential in unravelling the essence of a medium is a term automatism, which he borrows from Stanley Cavell – (Rodowick, 2007: 42). Rather than being a set of rules or techniques, which the term might imply, automatism has a twofold disposition. At first it manifests as means to challenge established boundaries of a given medium by exploring the limits it possesses, thus moving the medium beyond established conventions. In this respect an automatism is understood as an attempt to push the limits of a given medium. On the other hand, the act of contesting ideas shapes new practises, which ultimately become new limits to be challenged. Thus a medium is bound to be in a constant state of self-definition. This is where Rodowick’s trajectory of thought diverts form a conventional course. He is concerned with what happens in the encounter with a developing medium – ‘how a medium inspires or provokes sensual, that is to say, aesthetic experience’ (Rodowick, 2007: 42). For Rodowick this does not derive from merely mastering

5 certain techniques and technology. What he implies is that a medium has its cycle of life and next to undergoing alterations, ultimately it queries how life and my experience of it changes: ‘A medium is not simply a passive material or substance; it is equally form, concept, or idea. Or, more provocatively, a medium is a terrain where works of art establish their modes of existence, and pose questions of existence to us’ (Rodowick, 2007: 42). Building on Cavell’s reasoning, Rodowick argues that the proliferation of technologies and the way media have been changing (with the advent of film and photography in particular) reflect on ‘the situation of the modern subject’ (Rodowick, 2007: 65). This situation is defined as a displacement. According to Cavell, film embodies this condition wherein the screen serves as a demarcation line between two worlds – the one in front of the screen and the one on the screen. Our look at the screen is displaced – we view a world without being seen and this makes cinema more real than the world behind cinema doors. Thus cinema becomes a philosophy – a way of looking at, because ‘modernity may no longer characterize our modes of being or of looking’ (Rodowick, 2007: 69). The images and the screen along with whatever is projected on them disclose not only my desire to gaze, but also my being in the world as a state of displacement. However, what cinema accomplishes is different from the stance usually preached by philosophy, namely, my incapability to grasp the essence of the world and to long for some sublime realm, which would epitomise authenticity and could provide an escape from Baudrillardian simulacra. Contrary to that, the encounter with images and views does not lament this impossibility – instead my presence in front of them reflects that displacement is my natural condition. Hence photography and film not only fundamentally change the perception of images, but deconstruct the way of perceiving realism. Yet, according to Rodowick, this realism has nothing to do with similitude. Instead, ‘[i]t is a matter of metaphysical contact with the world from which we have become separated’ (Rodowick, 2007: 66). Consequently, the medium of film is not an escape to some phantasmagoria, but a way to touch this world we live in. While philosophy searches for the backdoor, cinema halts, focuses and zooms in onto the here and now. I do not see nostalgia in Rodowick’s reasoning on what is becoming with the medium of cinema as it shifts towards digitalisation. Quite the contrary – he accepts the arrival of new media at different times in parallel to the flux of human condition. In his view,

6 the shift towards digital might indicate novel epistemological situations, because the matters of digital and analog film vary in their automatisms to reflect on spatiotemporal concepts. By being capable to mirror ‘confrontation with time and time’s passing’ (Rodowick, 2007: 73) thereby challenging their negation, traditional film reflected on our moral condition as oscillating between the authentic and the world of fantasy, where film was standing for the former. Thus a medium for Rodowick is our ontology. However, he notices a tendency to delay grasping what the automatisms as limits mean in a certain medium (Rodowick, 2007: 79). In other words, the changes, which various media bring in the comprehension of concepts such as, for example, time or space, mostly are only deciphered by the time the medium undergoes a substantial shift. Thereby as changes in various media are witnessed, we hardly comprehend what in fact is transmuting. Hence it seems to me that any definition of a medium, despite the chase with its developments, nowadays takes place in the past tense – as a remembrance and a recollection. Perhaps the reason behind this is the fact that the media that began to emerge from the middle of 19th century onwards forged ‘new forms of thought’ (Rodowick, 1990: 11) with new modes of expression. According to Rodowick, philosophy of nowadays is not prepared to describe them yet. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in his work Rodowick is preoccupied with film and photography as forms of media producing art – he oscillates between the terms the medium and the work of art quite often. Yet this is where I would like to expand his terrain, particularly if I follow his argument that a medium could be considered as our ontology. The labelling of a cultural artefact as art has to do with power relations and institutionalisation. When talking about photography and film as the first mechanical arts, it should be noted that it took decades for the two to be embraced by the cannon as comparable objects of research next to, for instance, poetry or painting. In 1935 Walter Benjamin exposed how the concept of art was being contested with the advent of mechanical reproduction. However, framing a discourse on a given medium solely within the context of artistic practises excludes many interesting threads that could be followed in coming to grips with the significance of media on our ordinary lives, which by and large topographically surpass artistic domains. While I do not propose disregarding artistic practises emerging from various uses of numerous media, I suggest a modulation in

7 Rodowick’s text in order to include other media besides film and photography, because I am curious to trace how other media, which arrived and evolved over the last century, reflect on the ways I perceive my ontology and what is there to be perceived. According to Norman Bryson, a work of art ‘is built to travel away both from its maker and from its original context, carried by the frame into different times and places’ (Bal&Bryson, 2001: 3). I believe, various media have the same destiny – to unfold gradually, disclosing their potential and their essence with time. Media reveal their potentialities in an encounter with my look, hearing, touch, and other ways of experiencing them. In this encounter I continue to build layers moulding separate media. Consequently, the rhythm of their development, the emergence of new media, and their replacement with other even more cutting-edge ones exhibit what is becoming of me in this particular spatiotemporal moment. I find this dimension overlooked in media studies, because as well as embracing the arrival of new media (whatever one might consider as the substance behind this label – be it computer games or locative media, even though all media were new at the moment of their conception) this discourse puts already existing media in a timeline. The critique that the devotees of McLuhan have to face is the fact that while they acknowledge the advent of new media, the evolution of a particular medium oftentimes is dismissed (Lister et al., 2008: 72) and along with them – the implications of these changes. By following the evolution of cinema through modes of its past, present and future, Rodowick in fact discloses that the questioning of what constitutes a medium will inevitably bring to a point where the state of my being in the world and the experience of it has to be constantly readdressed. This means that I must admit the intimacy of my encounter with media. Along with Bryson, who salutes Mieke Bal’s approach to art history as deriving from a personal standpoint, I believe that the first steps towards understanding what a given cultural artefact should start by encountering it with an I-you axis (Bal&Bryson, 2001). Not only media as cultural artefacts evolve as time goes by, but my encounter with, let’s say, early cinema is different to the one that nickelodeons witnessed during the first screenings of films. My vision has deviated following the flood of still and moving images. Consequently, these images are evolving likewise. And they will continue to do so.

8 Rodowick is aiming to understand what is becoming of cinema with the proliferation of digitalisation and what ‘aesthetic or perceptual transformations’ (Rodowick, 2007: 39) are taking place in this transition. What concerns me is how next to cinema other media could be included in the discourse of the aforementioned ‘ontological condition for the human subject’. If I accept the idea of a medium as constantly redefining itself, I am curious what becomes of me as I face them and what unfolds in this encounter. Bryson calls this intimate rendezvous ‘the discourse of seduction’ (Bal&Bryson, 2001: 17).

How I caught myself in a schizophrenic moment and stopped worrying

In a way I am doomed in my pursuit to decipher the substance of a medium without focusing on a particular one. But media are surrounding me in such a dispersed way that I cannot find another manner to tackle the question. The other day I was going for a stroll along the canals of Utrecht and suddenly I caught myself in a mildly schizophrenic moment. Music was blasting through the headphones into my ears, while at the same time I was texting a friend of mine, and clutching a rangefinder camera with the other hand. This is how I live nowadays – in a cornucopia of images, gadgets, sounds, and other signals triggering my senses to the extent that Susan Sontag’s remark regarding the state of the Western man since the Industrial Revolution as a ‘sensory anaesthesia <…> with modern art functioning as a kind of shock therapy for both confounding and unclosing our senses’ (Sontag, 1969: 302) should be inverted to say that I live in a state of constant sensory shock therapy. On the other hand, my eyes remain particularly bombarded with information. As Nicholas Mirzoeff aptly observes, this consists not only of the proliferation of images, but of visualisation of meanings and the fact that I have to make sense of the visual overload (Mirzoeff, 1999: 5). Because of the accumulation of visual elements in my media ecology it comes of little surprise that I draw on the work of cinema theory – Rodowick singles it out as a relevant departure point in assessing the developments which were accelerated by digital technologies (Rodowick, 2001). However, I feel the itch to situate myself in relation to this accumulating media matter and I see that discourses other than

9 spectatorship, participatory culture or power relations should be brought about. It seems to me that much scholarship so far has been approaching media from a distance – seemingly drawing lines of demarcation between us and literature or cinema, or television, or… What is more important, we seemed to be able to keep this distance through screens, pages or remotes and we stayed at a distance with these forms and their content. Thus media were approached from a celestial point of view. However, nowadays it is becoming increasingly impossible to keep this perspective, as media are becoming increasingly omnipresent – gaze has been replaced by glance (Bal&Bryson, 2001: 19) while on/off button has been converted to ‘mute’ mode. Building on Rodowicks thought, I would like to contend that the whirlpool of mediated life highlights our current situation as displacement. The chaos of dispersing the crumbles of oneself on the Web (be it on blogs, Facebook, Flickr or Gmail) emphasises our nomadic state. Perhaps the exponential growth of technologies capable of indicating our location round the clock in fact has nothing to do with our desire to connect, but rather to reflect on our state as a relentless motion. As media emerge and diverge from their previous norms they become tools to think with rather than about. Following the lifetime of a particular medium as imbued with the cultural climate allows grasping life itself as it happens instead of chasing it. Hence media research should focus less on separate constituents and more on the ideas that emerge and are contested with them. In this respect I consider my misdemeanour of denouncing media studies in the beginning of this essay excusable. It is possible to be sentimental and to lament the innocence of the times when people used to look into the eyes instead of webcams and when movies meant the ambience of dilapidated cinema houses with views emerging through the silhouettes of timid couples rather than lonesome nights in front of a luminous screen. Latour refers to this longing as a quest for museums of the social (Latour, 2006: 3). Nostalgia is an obvious response to the cacophony emerging through this sensory shock therapy. However, the ongoing dissemination of the digital and its virus-like quality to infect and distort various media, according to Rodowick, ‘represents a fundamental transformation of categories of expression and reading in the current era’ (Rodowick, 1990: 14). The result, in his view, is the replacement of decipherable signs with the figural. For Rodowick the figural is less a clear-cut substance than a concept: ‘It characterizes the forms of spatiotemporal organization that are increasingly

10 transforming urban space, audiovisual media, telecommunications, leisure, in fact all of the activities of everyday life’ (Rodowick, 1990: 14). Various media manage to become harbingers of this paradigm shift, while much of theory finds itself in an impotent state – failing to cope with the range of researchable matter. As Rodowick argues, we cannot grasp yet what is taking place as technology increasingly penetrates our lives at a phenomenal rate. Given this background, the idea of a medium becomes ambiguous, because we are not equipped to describe what is taking shape. The doubt regarding our own state of being is transposed onto the state of various media. The fact that the idea of the matter constituting painting, building or cinema is questioned reflects on this era as a hangover from the culture of excess – an exercise in remembering, forgetting and referencing. Gilles Deleuze describes it as schizophrenia and this probably is the most accurate definition I have encountered in labelling this era. In 1960s Susan Sontag named cinema ‘the most alive, the most exciting, the most important of all art forms’ (Sontag, 1969: 11) of the moment. Her affinity for cinema rose from the fact that good films were particularly resistant to ‘the itch to interpret’ (Sontag, 1969: 11). Ultimately films became an experience placing one at a distance and closeness at the same time with the world ‘produced [not] by us but for us by a cultural mechanism or instrumentality’ (Rodowick, 2007: 69). What emerged on the screen was not an attempt to escape reality or to transpose onto a different realm, but a chance to face life as it happens. I wonder if nowadays a particular medium could be identified as the one embodying the soul of this epoch best. Yet instead of identifying a particular one I would be inclined to state that it is precisely this cornucopia of media and their messages penetrating our senses that reflect on what is happening with us. ‘Machines for perceiving the whole of the world’ (Rodowick, 2007: 67), as Rodowick refers to various media, form a reciprocal exchange with us. Each paradigm shift taking place within media ecology reminds that they shape a picture similar to the one Basil Hallward painted of Dorian Gray. While cinema screen was the quintessential litmus test reflecting on our displacement, the Internet as the troublesome bastard of the 20th century with its inexhaustible terrains discloses our uneasiness and unsettling state as a platform to traverse immaterial yet actual places. More experienced scholars could

11 map out the ontological paradigm shifts which the invention of other media, such as theatre or print, revealed. In an attempt to forecast what might become of film in the 21st century Rodowick guesses that nowadays Méliès’ imagination would win over Lumiere’s documental vision (Rodowick, 2007: 86) suggesting that digital images are ‘are more responsive to our imaginative intentions, and less and less anchored to the prior existence of things and people’ (86). Magazine covers, billboards, television programmes, films, and game consoles project an image of a world, where demarcating reality becomes pointless. There are plenty of indicators that the state of our existence increasingly resembles science fiction. In 1993 Time published the infamous picture of ‘The New Face of America’ on the cover – a computer-generated image of a descendant of seven men and seven women of various ethnic and racial backgrounds. The introduction to the issue warned: ‘The woman on the cover of this special issue of Time does not exist – except metaphysically’ (Hammonds, 2000: 312). During the last presidential campaign in the USA CNN became the first television network to include a hologram of a reporter in a live broadcast. Last year alternate reality game designer Jane McGonigal stated that in the near future life might become constructed according to one of the games we play online2. ‘Persepolis’ (2007) and ‘Waltz With Bashir’ (2008) query our relation to animated documentary as a way to present historical facts. How should I react in the light of these deviations? If, as Rodowick argues, the creation of automatisms reveal media capability to reflect on our ontology, I wonder what the phantasmagoria of moving images, texts, ceaseless sounds and other basic elements employed by media reveal about the shift in categories, which shape my experience of the world. What do they say about what becomes with time as the evanescence of the digital fragments it into pausable/fastforwardable/rewindable/photoshopable matter? Experimental filmmaker Bette Mangolte wonders why communicating duration becomes particularly complicated for the digital image (Rodowick, 2007: 53). Perhaps in attempting to answer the question it would be worthwhile to consider digital image not as a 2

Jane McGonigal’s talk ‘Saving the World Through Game Design’ in the 2008 New Yorker Conference is available at http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2008/mcgonigal [accessed 20 April, 2009]

12 competitor to the analogue one, but as a matter responding to the paradigm shift currently taking place in our culture. Digital image is not stuck in its incapability to communicate duration other than fragmented – it reflects the scale to which time has become fragmented. Thus digital image emphasizes the evanescence of duration. It is as if we tried to keep he last material vestiges of time conserved in a filmstrip, movie screening, or prints we store in photo albums. If previously we were encouraged to treasure this moment and to keep oneself in it as a trace, the deconstruction of duration taking place reflects that we are becoming de(con)structed. This might be a disturbing sensation, yet by increasingly going digital film does not make duration more difficult to represent – it questions the ontology of time and accordingly what is becoming with us. This is why Méliès’ ferries seemingly are more 21st century than Lumière documentaries – the views of the world at which we are looking and experiencing with various senses deliver an image of phantasmagoria. Yet again this is not an escape, but a reflection on how we are changing. Such a point of view liberates from paranoia and lamentation. Instead of writing philosophies of escape it necessitates a face-off. Contemplating that which emerges in front of us today might be ‘the visibility of a yet unnamed thing’ (Rodowick, 1990: 36), which will continue to evolve and contest our attempts to possess them. Such a stance will make way for creative approaches in theory and perhaps we might learn anticipate the emergence of more new media. So what becomes of a medium in the light of these reflections I provide? I will go back to two points stated by Rodowick. Firstly, ‘[a] medium is always plural, not singular’ (Rodowick, 2007: 84). With this kind of attitude, instead of narrowing down, I face myself in front of numerous terrains unfolding ahead of me and I can roam through various temporal, historiographic and disciplinary dimensions. Despite being grateful to McLuhan for his provocative pioneering position, when I think of media as always already plural, I do not have to falter over his much used and abused binary trope ‘the medium is the message’ time and again. Secondly, according to Rodowick, ‘[a] medium <…> is nothing more nor less than a set of potentialities from which creative acts may unfold’ (Rodowick, 2007: 85). These potentialities are entangled with cultural climate and its seasons. They are triggered as our desires and needs evolve and the changes they bring about challenge our way of thinking and living. Hence a medium is never complete – it evolves like life, which probably is

13 another one of those most complicated words in the English language, which Williams did not disclose. A medium has a life of its own and as it lives it breathes our ontology. In this respect, perhaps the heresy that I do not study media, but culture, is not a sin after all.

References: Bal, M. & Bryson, N. 2001. Looking In: The Art of Viewing. New York: Routhledge Bolter, J.D. & Grusin, R. 1996. Remediation, in Configurations 4(3), pp. 311-358 Evans, C. 2003. War and Images: 9/11/01, Susan Sontag, Jean Baudrillard, and Paul Virilio. Film International. Issue: 5 (September 2003). Available online at http://web.archive.org/web/20050210061940/http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/wara ndimages.htm [accessed 20 April, 2009] Evelyn M. Hammonds. 2000. New Technologies of Race , in Gill Kirkup, Linda Janes, Kath Woodward & Fiona Hovenden, eds., The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 305- 318. Latour, B. 1998. Paris: Invisible City. Available online at http://www.brunolatour.fr/virtual/index.html [accessed 20, 2009] Lister M., et al, eds, 2008. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London, New York: Routledge. Mirzoeff, N. 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London, New York: Routledge. Rodowick, D. 2001. Dr. Strange Media; Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Film Theory. PML: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Volume: 116, Issue: 5 (October 2001), pp: 1396-1404 Rodowick, D. N. 1990. Reading the Figural. Camera Obscura 24: 10-45. Rodowick, D. N. 2007. The Virtual Life of Film. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Sontag, S. 1969. Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: A Delta Book. Williams, R. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. NewYork: Oxford

UP,

pp.

87-93.

Available

online

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~dml3/880williams.htm [accessed 20 April, 2009].

at