Ahmed describes the concept of affective economies, which I understand as referring to the way that emotional reactions are distributed and gain value through repeated verbal expression. Fernandes quotes her, and expounds on the idea through her analyses of how The Bandit Queen and Slumdog Millionaire were used to reinforce notions of Indian barbarism and corruption. Ulysse also refers to the way transnational media productions perpetuate affective patterns for their audiences, with the trope of the white guy gone native who takes up the battle against colonial power. Both Fernandes and Ulysse raise the question of how the subaltern can be given voice, in transnational atmosphere where agents of colonizing nations are deciding what media will be funded and distributed.

Ahmed points out the way certain phrases and words come to be linked to issues around particular groups, what Goffman would call ‘framing’. A recent example of this in the U.S. was the use of the word ‘thug’ to describe Baltimore teenagers acting out in the aftermath of the Freddie Gray shooting. Or how repetition of the phrase ‘kept us safe’ served a double purpose of instilling fear and reinforcing an image of the President as protector-in-chief during the years following September 11.  If such a phrase is repeated often enough, the association ‘sticks’, and become hard to combat through rational discussion. It is interesting to see how now that association is being deconstructed only now, as Donald Trump makes the point that was certainly brought up at various times in the past decade, which is that Bush actually failed to keep us safe. Whole books were written about that in the mid-2000’s, so what were the forces that kept the public’s eyes closed then, and why are they ready to open them now? While this may seem off-topic, the underlying question is about how the affective economy can be manipulated, and by whom. Who is it that could challenge the framing of teenagers as thugs?

In class the other week, we performed an exercise of word association with France and Africa that demonstrated what all three of these authors are arguing. The representations of minority groups and “third world” populations in both scholarly papers and public media have reinforced images of France that are largely positive, while those of Africa are largely negative. With regard to Haiti, all we hear is the negative – the corruption, disorganization, devastation, disease – it always appears as a backward and hopeless case. I expected, as I read Ulysse, that I would find a more positive portrayal, that at some point I would find the stories of heroism and community she occasionally made reference to. Sadly, they never appeared beyond a mere glimpse. While I am sure, on an intellectual level, that she is telling the truth when she asserts that there is more to Haiti than poverty, danger, and hopelessness, her book did nothing to alter my affective view of the country.

With regard to the voice of the subaltern, which Fernandes dwells on, this seems quite a dilemma. If Spivak is right, that no one can speak on behalf of the subaltern without subjecting her to the influence of existing power structures (e.g., the academy), then what would be preferable? If the subaltern speaks to the researcher, we cannot be sure that she is speaking frankly, or whether a justified failure of trust suppresses the honest expression of opinion or feeling. If she does speak frankly, the question remains whether the researcher is able to hear and translate in a way that maintains integrity – that conveys to the audience an accurate depiction of the subaltern’s message. If the voices of subalterns are frankly opened, and translated with integrity, then at the next level of choice, who is deciding which voices are worthy of presentation to a larger audience? In Slumdog Millionaire, the decision to replace a civilized female lawyer with a brutal male interrogator substituted a trope of barbarism for the more realistic expression of democracy. One has to wonder if the movie would have been as successful had such alterations not been made. Or for that matter, whether the movie that was made did any good in terms of changing the world’s image of India, and if it could have done any good by insisting on more fidelity to the original story, even if that meant a reduced audience.