Clarifying Purpose and Discerning Importance: The Greedy Storyteller and the Fooled Listener
(Syrian refugees in Jordan)
Every single story starts with a message. Within this
message, there are two entities which exist: the picturesque gift of the
storyteller and the enlightened
listener, waiting to be simply mired by a captivating plot. Without these two
distinct individuals, a story has neither purpose nor power. It is only from
this duality (from this sender-and-recipient relationship) which stems an
understanding of circumstance, suffering, dislocation, and acculturation. The story of civil war and conflict in the
Middle East has been one which continually perpetuates this duality—without the
listener, the story ceases to hold power. However, the undeniable ineffability
of the refugee story often distorts this original relationship to one between a
lazy, greedy storyteller and a fooled listener. The story may be told under the
guise of truth and transparency; however, the underlying misrepresentation of
refugees debunks the ethos of the piece and alters the outsider perspective of
the refugee crisis as a whole.
Recently, the eruption of civil wars within Syria, as a
result of political and economic tensions, has caused an unparalleled influx of
Syrian refugees in Jordan. A recent telecast entitled “Syrian refugees flood
Jordanian town” details the nature of this conflict. In this televised report, Ivan
Watson (a CNN news reporter) stresses the effect the “refugee story” maintains
on the Jordanian community, who must burden the task of settling these
refugees. One political analyst in Jordan states that “the citizens of Jordan
have a right to be concerned… It becomes very difficult to judge the amount of
widespread discontent at this particular point in time” (Watson). With the
influx of over 450,000 refugees, Jordanians must compete with Syrians for jobs,
real estate, and clean water. The gravity of the situation places an even
greater strain on the government of Jordan to be responsive in the wake of this
intercultural and international tension. Additionally, the telecast elicits an
immediate political response from individuals as it alludes to the relationship
between the United States and Jordan. Political sanctions between the United
States and Jordan come into consideration when speaking of the refugees from
Syria: “Political theorists contend that Jordan, as one of the United States’
closest allies in the Middle East, remains a beacon of prospective peace settlement
and foreign policy in the Middle East” (Watson).
Unfortunately, the CNN report never attempts to divulge
the ineffable discourse of suffering from an authentic refugee perspective.
This ineffability is then replaced with something tangible and lucrative, not
with something necessarily accurate. According to Dr. Madelaine Hron, “any
expression of pain is considered ‘under erasure’ or deficient and incomplete,
in that it defers meaning” (Hron 35). Because the Jordanian agenda is much
easier to fully-encompass in a newscast, the report fails to accurately
represent Syrian refugees. Sans forethought, a lexical battle ensues within the
article and poses the question as to whose suffering truly matters: the threat
of Syrians on the Jordanian homeland or the Syrian struggle for foreign
occupation and settlement (Hron 33). The two nations are unequivocally juxtaposed:
as Jordan is looked upon as a paragon of political leverage, Syrians are looked
upon with disgust by adding competition to the already famished and
economically unstable nation of Jordan.
With the meat of the deplorable depictions of Jordan and
the potatoes of the concentrated politics of the story, the “reality of the
refugee” becomes lost amid the entrée and is instead given the role of a side
dish. The critical diction of the reporter shines a barbaric light on the
refugees of Syria, only leaving a trace of uncivilized mannerisms, savage-like
behavior, and immoral influence on the Jordanian community. Even the diction,
specifically the word “flood,” used in the title of the report objectifies the
Syrian refugees and sheds a negative connotation on their seeping presence in
foreign countries. Tactlessly, the telecast fails to accurately represent the
story of a refugee, and thus the listener is left cleaning a stain of barbarism
by the Syrian refugees rather than assisting in their peaceful struggle for
survival and self-preservation in the wake of the prevalent diaspora. In this
case, the lazy storyteller has fooled the listener, and listener’s attention to
the struggling refugee crisis of Syria has been overshadowed by the plot of
threatened Jordanians and foreign policy.
While the story of Syrian refugees is never told, the
Jordanian suffering is placed on a pedestal. And in this portrayal, there is a
natural, provocative call for international recognition: “In the absence of
accountable local and global institutions [,as in the case of the Middle East,]
that transform such claim into realities of socio-economic justices, appeals to
universal morality and shared humanity dampen the effects of global disparities
and ‘slow move toward an accountable public sphere’” (Fadlallah 81). As
Fadlallah would attest, the shared interest of the Jordanian plight, fueled by
the article, stifles the need for local and global institutions. The article is
completely swayed in favor of broadcasting and assisting the Jordanian
struggle. Since the reporter only presents one
distinct side of the debacle, the “accountable public sphere” is only given
the chance to address one side of the
multifaceted situation in the Middle East. Thus, by garnering listener
attention via the dramatized situation in Jordan, the listener can only attempt to understand the Jordanian
struggle.
Every story starts with a message. This message—and the
sender-receiver relationship it creates—can often be distorted when the purpose
of the message becomes undefined, one-sided, biased, or simply unethical. Sender:
the suffering may be indescribable and hard to capture in words; but to put an
issue on a pedestal for the whole world to see while casting a savage,
barbaric, uncivilized light on another is simply a sign of ignorance and
insensitivity. While it is okay to write or report for a purpose, the suffering
of one community should never be sacrificed for the sake of another. Receiver: it
is never without grievance or strife that one must eventually decide whose
message, whose suffering, whose plight matters the most. Before doing so, one
must take a holistic approach by being mired in all suffering—not just one type or one discourse. One must traverse a ravine of total transparency and
authenticity in order to gain ultimate understanding of a multifaceted story.
Accurate refugee representation and clarity are all products of a well-informed
sender. However, it is up to the mired listener, the attentive receiver, the
porous disciple, to discern what is truly
important to enact change by providing “refuge” for those who truly need it.
No comments:
Post a Comment