How Media Coverage of Reeva Steenkamp's Death - Essay Example

A Demonstration of how Media Coverage of Reeva Steenkamp’s Death has reflected and refracted the Public’s Understanding by Taking keen Interest on Intimate Partner Violence Student’s Name Date Introduction In this modern day and times, many issues involving violence occur in the society we live. These issues are extremely publicized by the media. In this respect, the media places its keen interests in how the issue should be represented as opposed to what should be represented. Logically, the media is tasked with every opportunity and choices possible to determine how issues of violence should be represented, or the outcomes that may result from a violent crime. It is also important to note the manner in which violence is represented could have a positive or negative effect to the person it is addressed to; thus, responsibility ought to be considered before reporting is done. Notably, violent crimes could be represented in a way that justifiable, easy, glamorous or cool. In this context, a victim of violence can be depicted in a way that propagates stereotyping. In the case of Reeva Stenkamp’s murder, it is evident that the media reflects Reeva as an object of intimate partner violence; hence, the case has been highly publicized in way that favours women. Additionally, it has been viewed that in the event of violence; if the whites murder or rape each other, the story is usually marred with unrealistic explanations towards their behavior.1 On the contrary, if a black commits such violence, they are thought to possess some intrinsic flaws in terms of nature. Hence, such violence is considered by the media as exceptional, and portrayed as being abberational as opposed to viewing it from a broader societal point.1 As a result of the highly publicized violent crime between Oscar Pistorius and her girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day, this paper focuses on demonstrating how media coverage has reflected and refracted the public’s understanding by sensitizing the issue of violence, in this case - intimate partner violence that is addressed through discourse and power/ knowledge. According to studies, once something that is unthinkable in nature happens, it is expressed to the public through the media. Afterwards, the public commences a process of canvassing with an aim to view other people’s visions, as well as overcome their resistance towards the idea.2 With reference to such studies, it is true to state that violence towards women has for a long time shown less concerns in society. Violence perpetrated by men has also been considered legitimate throughout society. The result of this is the creation of an institution called marriage, which assigned men the authority and power over women, thus according them the perquisite to use physical violence.3Looking through how the media portrays Oscar Pistorius’s case and Reeva Steenkamp’s provides an avenue of how the media uses discourse to provide an avenue through which other people in the society can identify with. Through her female gender, the media depicts her as an object that was answerable to Pistorius who is male. As a result, it is also viewed that since she was an activist, her death could have occurred due to her failure to recognize Pistorius’ authority. 4 Through such reflection by the media, individuals in the public domain are provided ways through which they can shape their personalities. This appears to be so, since these individuals get educated using social and sexual role models who perceive certain aspects to be valuable, while focusing on discouraging aspects in the society.5Therefore, the media uses the idealistic view of femininity to reflect a woman’s position in the society. Moreover, using panopticsm, we can evidently see that Reeva had used her ideal femininity to internalize to take up on the role of participating in activism. The media uses panopticm as a tool for conducting surveillance and control. Michel Foucault defines the panopticon as a highly efficient instrument of surveillance and control that is present in all modern institutions.6 Inside the panopticon the observer can see without being seen, while the observed is permanently exposed. This implies that with the tabloids pulling pranks on Reeva’s dead body, its representations on the society are negative. This only provides more of such incidences, since women are perceived as the weaker sex, hence, are subjected to control and required to obey all rules. From a setting of how the masculine and feminine genders are separated, the roles played by men and women in the society today are indicative of their private and public lives, which are in a way or another divided. In the murder case, both Pistorius and Reeva are role models in society, thus, they are expected to do only what is good. Nevertheless, this leaves the masculine gender as a central authority in the family, hence, is regarded as a breadwinner, and representative while in the public. This then showcases that through the murder, Reeva could have portrayed some sort of indiscipline, which might have angered Oscar leading to an unexpected tragedy. This issue then proceeds to create headlines in the media, since both are role models, but infringes their private life as well. In the same case, the family is seen as a central value in a traditional setting. This occurs hierarchically, placing the man on top of the woman, which depicts power and authority. Alternatively, the egalitarian setting provides that both genders hold private and public responsibilities on an equal basis.5 According to how the media tries to titillate readers on how Reeva is depicted, studies conducted show that the process through which intimate partner violence becomes constructed is through interactions that occur over time, hence, this creates the concept of representing each other’s actions in a relationship. Having been depicted as such, the concepts grow into a habit and are institutionalized into society.7In addition, through the development of knowledge and beliefs, the meaning of violence against women is only viewed as a reality, which is embedded into society. Discourses surrounding intimate partner violence have led to the construction of different types of people namely, female/male victims of abuse and perpetrators of abuse. In turn these constructions have led to the need for further knowledge and discourses, which construct experts whose aims, are to reinforce these constructions through increased knowledge and more powerful discourses. An example of this can be seen through the construction of the perpetrator of intimate partner violence. The perpetrator is a constructed ideology made up from legal discourses and certainly the concepts of punishment and justice for the domestic violence victim have reinforced the need for this construction. The perpetrator role has led to discourses around the prevention of violence, the need to rehabilitate and reduce offending and has given credence to fields of psychological discourse and consequently to “new” types of experts. According to other studies, such form of knowledge is ultimately used to control people whilst making it appear to be in their best interests and is considered to be a form of “disciplinary power.”8 The role of knowledge emanating from an expert’s point of view and the expert in the legal framework provides authority to discourse. An example is the psychological theories that try to provide emphasis on why men are violent; a concept that gives this particular discourse a scientific authority. In the long run, these discourses become extremely powerful and pervasive that to question them seems unnecessary; hence, through such constructions, they become part of a common sense view that is willingly accepted as a reality. In the modern society, prevailing discourses of intimate partner violence depict a reality of the nature of who constitutes a victim and who does not. An example is given in, “The battered Woman and Shelters: The social construction of wife abuse”, which closely discusses how the constructions of wife abuse and of the battered woman have been categorised by frontline workers in a shelter for battered women.9 It is argued that “claims makers”, that is those who should be held responsible for bringing social problems to the attention of the public (in the case of Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp can be legitimately attributed to Reeva as a woman activist) and social service providers who have been instrumental in the construction of wife abuse and the battered woman. However these constructions are only inclusive of certain types of violence and certain types of women. However, such arguments do not deny the reality of violence against women. “This is a social fact, and an objective empirical reality that women are regarded as victims of violence. However, why is it that only some of this violence and some of these women victims have become topics of public concern? Why and how does it matter that intimate partner violence have been socially constructed out of the raw confusion of lived realities?’ It is worth noting that very serious and real implications on the use of specific constructions within the provision of services exist. Such are that women need to act in compliance and conform to whatever constructs that have been created for them to be able to receive the support they are entitled to. But, do women need to act in pretence like in the case of the battered woman who is a helpless and defenseless creature? Discourses therefore are intimately interconnected to institutions, including other social practices that could affect how we choose to live, what we do and what can be done to people. Thus, from a practical point of view, it is in the interest of those who hold power to ensure that certain discourses portray the truth as opposed to other competing discourses and to present these discourses in a positive way.8 However, scholars such as Foucault do not believe that the emergence of dominant discourses resulted from purposeful actions instigated by powerful people in society. Notably, powerful people create discourses that they then instigate for their own ends. Rather it is the practical and social conditions of life that are considered as providing a suitable culture for some representations rather than others. However once a discourse becomes available from a cultural setting, it is then possible for it to be appropriated in the interests of the relatively powerful10 An example of this can be given within domestic violence in relation to the discourse of criminalization. The construction of domestic violence has increasingly become that of a criminal activity. This construction has been reinforced through the feminist movement and through victims themselves who have been increasingly urged through various support services to seek recognition and protection from the law. However the resulting criminal discourse around domestic violence now ultimately holds the most power and dominates domestic violence services, a situation that arguably is not always in the best interests of domestic violence victims. Conclusion To this end, the journey of intimate partner violence has progressed in a way that increasingly criminalizes the act, thereby making it uncomfortable. The result has been a construction of discourses connected to intimate partner violence, whch have since been transformed, thus, impacting on the construction of the violence victim. As represented from a traditional perspective, intimate partner violence is currently viewed as part of a wider spectrum of violence that may be perpetrated against women and girls. From the feminist perspective this is a major diversion from their original aim; which was the acceptance by society and consequently by government initiatives, that intimate partner violence is the ultimate oppression of women by men. In addition, the nature of domestic violence is rooted within the patriarchal structures of society. The feminist objective has always been to change society, as opposed to change the way in which intimate partner violence is constructed. However, the erosion of domestic violence as a feminist issue now appears to be an unavoidable circumstance, and an element of irony in this exists, in that the very structures that feminists have historically blamed for supporting domestic violence, namely the power relations of patriarchy, heterosexuality and masculinity, are now largely responsible not only for managing domestic violence but are also instrumental in the way that domestic violence is constructed and consequently the way that domestic violence victims are constructed and represented. This clearly represents the murder case between Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steekamp. Bibliography Berger, P. and Luckmann, T, 1966, The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books: USA Burr, V, 2005, Social Constructionism. Routledge: London Damean, D, 2006, Media and gender: Constructing feminine Identities in a postmodern culture. Journal for the Studies of Religions and Ideologies, Vol. 14 Dobash, R. E and Dobash, R. P, 1979, Violence Against Wives. The Free Press, London: Macmillan Dobash, R. E and Dobash, R. P., 1992, Women, Violence and Social Change. Routledge: London Foucault, M, 1977, Discipline and Punish. Penguin Books: London Foucault, M, 2005, Core Cultural Theorists series. London: Sage Publications Loseke, D, 1992, The Battered Woman and Shelters. State University of New York Press: Albany McRobie, Heather, 2013, Gender violence in the media: elusive reality. Open Democracy, viewed on 9th Dec, 2013 Msimang, S., 2013, Crime knows no race, City Press, viewed on 9th Dec, 2013 Read More

4 Through such reflection by the media, individuals in the public domain are provided ways through which they can shape their personalities. This appears to be so, since these individuals get educated using social and sexual role models who perceive certain aspects to be valuable, while focusing on discouraging aspects in the society.5Therefore, the media uses the idealistic view of femininity to reflect a woman’s position in the society. Moreover, using panopticsm, we can evidently see that Reeva had used her ideal femininity to internalize to take up on the role of participating in activism.

The media uses panopticm as a tool for conducting surveillance and control. Michel Foucault defines the panopticon as a highly efficient instrument of surveillance and control that is present in all modern institutions.6 Inside the panopticon the observer can see without being seen, while the observed is permanently exposed. This implies that with the tabloids pulling pranks on Reeva’s dead body, its representations on the society are negative. This only provides more of such incidences, since women are perceived as the weaker sex, hence, are subjected to control and required to obey all rules.

From a setting of how the masculine and feminine genders are separated, the roles played by men and women in the society today are indicative of their private and public lives, which are in a way or another divided. In the murder case, both Pistorius and Reeva are role models in society, thus, they are expected to do only what is good. Nevertheless, this leaves the masculine gender as a central authority in the family, hence, is regarded as a breadwinner, and representative while in the public.

This then showcases that through the murder, Reeva could have portrayed some sort of indiscipline, which might have angered Oscar leading to an unexpected tragedy. This issue then proceeds to create headlines in the media, since both are role models, but infringes their private life as well. In the same case, the family is seen as a central value in a traditional setting. This occurs hierarchically, placing the man on top of the woman, which depicts power and authority. Alternatively, the egalitarian setting provides that both genders hold private and public responsibilities on an equal basis.

5 According to how the media tries to titillate readers on how Reeva is depicted, studies conducted show that the process through which intimate partner violence becomes constructed is through interactions that occur over time, hence, this creates the concept of representing each other’s actions in a relationship. Having been depicted as such, the concepts grow into a habit and are institutionalized into society.7In addition, through the development of knowledge and beliefs, the meaning of violence against women is only viewed as a reality, which is embedded into society.

Discourses surrounding intimate partner violence have led to the construction of different types of people namely, female/male victims of abuse and perpetrators of abuse. In turn these constructions have led to the need for further knowledge and discourses, which construct experts whose aims, are to reinforce these constructions through increased knowledge and more powerful discourses. An example of this can be seen through the construction of the perpetrator of intimate partner violence. The perpetrator is a constructed ideology made up from legal discourses and certainly the concepts of punishment and justice for the domestic violence victim have reinforced the need for this construction.

The perpetrator role has led to discourses around the prevention of violence, the need to rehabilitate and reduce offending and has given credence to fields of psychological discourse and consequently to “new” types of experts. According to other studies, such form of knowledge is ultimately used to control people whilst making it appear to be in their best interests and is considered to be a form of “disciplinary power.

Read More