Critically examine the use of a ‘makeover paradigm’ in a media text of your choice.

Critically examine the use of a ‘makeover paradigm’ in a media text of your choice.

‘Makeover’ in the sense of an alteration of appearance of girls and women along lines of ‘fashion’ and ‘taste’ has recently become a popular television genre in its own right, promoted from its television birthplace in partial slots during daytime programming to ‘primetime’ higher audience entire programmes in the mid-evening (Moseley, 2000). Critical examination of these texts reveals a number of interesting discourses at play, in particular that of self-production along gendered lines. I have chosen to examine the media text What Not To Wear (BBCTV, 2001- ) as it is a recent example of ‘makeover television’ which has achieved great popularity among UK audiences by progressing from the short makeover slot of daytime television, to a programme dedicated to teaching (mainly) women in the UK ‘what not to wear’, or rather, what to wear by analysing their lives through popular psychology, borrowing from behavioural therapy and the discourse of self-help.

In order to critically examine the use of a ‘makeover paradigm’ in What Not To Wear I focus on a particular episode entitled ‘Young Mums’ (BBC1, 27th September 2004 ). Although the analysis is based on this particular episode, the show follows a tight format therefore much of the analysis could be applied to other episodes of the same programme. To ground the analysis in the historical context of makeover, I will first examine the makeover genre itself. The analysis will provide a brief outline of the What Not To Wear format, then critically examine a number of the discourses inherent to the ‘paradigm’ of makeover as presented in ‘Young Mums’.

First, the discourse of the production of the self through transformation (Rose 1989), particularly the production of a ‘feminine body-subject’ (Bartky, 2003:33) will be examined. Second, the use of governance, regulation and surveillance will be analysed with reference to Foucault. Third, the way in which the language and symbolism of popular psychology is borrowed by the hosts to create a semblance of therapy as part of the re-production of self. Fourth, the role of the hosts as ‘expert’ and the form of language and touch used to convey the hierarchy of knowledge and class will be considered. Finally, the sites of resistance visible within the episode will be explored.

As Moseley (2000:303) argues, makeover ‘has been a continuing staple of the woman’s film . . . feminine beauty culture . . .[and] women’s magazines’. The central theme to this genre has been the individualistic ideology of self-improvement (Rimke, 2000:62, Weber, 2005: 4) with a narrative of progress whereby any woman, if she tries hard enough, and consumes the right products, can become her ‘true’ self (Weber, 2005). Underlying this ‘possibility’ is the concept of responsibility to produce and maintain the ‘best’ self possible – a responsibility to oneself and those around not to ‘let oneself go’ (Weber, 2005:4). The makeover paradigm as displayed on television follows this formula, with the revelation of the self in a climactic finale (Moseley, 2000:304).

What Not To Wear is the British daughter of the daytime television makeover paradigm. Presented by Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine, self-defined style ‘experts’, the programme has so far aired 4 series. Though each series has differed slightly in format the basic formula is the same, featuring two women’s makeover transformation:
Conversation with one of the presenters in a set that is symbolically designed to look like a psychotherapist’s office.
Friends and family are interviewed on the subject of the women’s ‘style’, Trinny and Susannah examine their wardrobes, often discarding or destroying items.
Watch their videos and discover ‘what people really think’ of them.
Scrutinise themselves and scrutinised by the presenters in a 360 mirror, often in a favourite piece of clothing.
Given a set of style ‘rules’ to follow when shopping and given £2,000 to spend.
The shopping task is divided into two days – on the first, they shop on their ‘own’ while being filmed, on the second, Trinny and Susannah evaluate the clothing that has been bought, then shop with the women to direct them.
Their hair and make-up is styled by stylists.
The revelation – the ‘new’ woman is revealed to herself in a mirror.
The ‘new’ woman is revealed to (usually) delighted friends and family.

The particular episode analysed here features two women, identified as ‘badly dressed mums’ (BBC1, 2004), Michalina, aged 35 and Sara, aged 26.

The formula for the show illustrates the discourse of the production of the self (Rose, 1989). This production occurs through a narrative of transformation (Moseley, 2000:304) in which a woman who is seen as someone who does not ‘fit in’ to an image of current styles of femininity is transformed during the episode. As illustrated below, this self is by no means finally produced, but requires constant re-production under an internalized and external gaze (Weber, 2005).

Rose (1989:103) argues that this self-production is a modern construct, where consumption is the way in which we ‘shape our lives’ by creating, managing and marketing ourselves from a range of consumable options. In line with this argument, What Not To Wear presents a discourse of self-fulfilment through consumption.

The ‘self’ that is produced for each woman on What Not To Wear is presented as the ‘true’ self that had been hidden from the world. This fairly essentialist concept that ‘inside’ each of these women is a ‘true’ self, waiting to be unveiled is demonstrated in the language used by the presenters throughout the ‘Young Mums’ episode. Particular to this episode is the discourse surrounding ‘being a mother’ and the effect of this on a woman’s subjectivity. At the end of the episode, Trinny comments of Michalina’s husband: “he got back a woman he thought he’d lost, and I think that’s a big thing for a man when a woman has kids, that they sort of – sometimes stop being a wife” (BBC1, 2004). The way in which both women are portrayed throughout the episode is as a collection of identities; mother, employee, wife . The premise of the episode is that their ‘mother’ identities have taken over.

Importantly for the discourse of self-production, these identities are presented and analysed as always relational to another. Sara searches at the end of the programme for recognition of her transformation from Carl, her husband. The need for his gaze is commented on throughout the shopping task in a way in which suggests, as Weber (2005:14) puts it “being looked at in an appreciative or sexualized way affirms a woman and, in turn, allows her to be more confident”. Susannah attempts to convince Sara to buy a dress she does not like because it will have Carl “standing to attention within seconds of you walking in the door”.Similarly, Michalina feels that her ‘improved’ self will be able to “be herself” and “not have to worry about people sniggering behind my back” (BBC1, 2004).

The self that is produced to ‘fit in’ in this way is presented as what Bartky (2003:33) terms ‘the ideal body of femininity’. Although the presenters do not attempt to alter the women’s bodies in the same way as the plastic surgery of Extreme Makeover (Weber, 2005), the ‘rules’ given to the women are in line with what Trinny refers to as what the women ‘should’ be. In the case of young women, that is “sexy, trendy and fun” (BBC1, 2004). Women should look feminine, and that means showing, or creating a traditional ‘hourglass’ figure (often by wearing heels which force women to walk in a way that pushes them forward and draws attention to the compartmentalised body parts of breasts, bottom and legs considered to be feminine and likely to illicit the ‘gaze’) (Bartky, 2003), wearing makeup and styling their hair. Weber (2005) refers to this homogenisation of production as ‘the economy of sameness’; an idealisation of image that has been criticised by feminists not just for lack of creativity, but also for the way in which it is tied up with the gendered nature of social power, whereby women are represented and traded as passive objects and suffer at the hands of social and physical abuse (Bartky, 2003:35).

The ‘feminine body-subject’(Bartky, 2003:33) that is revealed at the end of What Not To Wear is not the finalised ‘self’. Throughout the episode the women are instructed in the ‘disciplinary practices’ (Bartky, 2003: 33) required to continually re-produce and govern themselves. In analysing this mode of self-surveillance, it is useful to refer to Foucault’s (1977) framework for analysing relationships of power so pervasive that they are exercised upon the individual themselves through self-surveillance.

One of the key ways in which Foucault (1977:200) conceptualises the omnipresent nature of surveillance is through the Panopticon; illustrated as the architectural design with a central, supervisory tower at the centre with cells to be supervised around the periphery. The role of the 360 mirror in What Not To Wear, is structurally similar to the Panopticon and serves to act as the focal point for ‘self surveillance’ of the women. Asked to scrutinise her body from every angle, the woman inhabits the central, supervisory space and looks into each cell onto the divided aspects of her body that must be disciplined.

In the ‘Young Mums’ episode, both women enter the 360 mirror in a piece of clothing they like. Trinny and Susannah use a combination of mockery, criticism and praise to first show the women they are not how (or who) they should be, then inform them how they should be.

Sara is informed by Trinny, as the presenter pulls her dress tight to her body; “You have a figure to show off, so you need to get that waist back – you know, we’d like to see more” Susannah, reinforcing the message, pulls her dress up, stating “you’ve got great legs, you’ve got such good ankles you should show them off” (BBC1, 2004). Michalina is laughed at by the women in a display of class elitism, when her assertion that the clothes she is wearing look “quite classy” is met with schoolgirl-style ‘cruelty and viciousness’ (McRobbie, 2004:106). Susannah, in a voice laden with sarcasm, praises Michalina for talking “about the outfit with such conviction” and Trinny is unable to contain her disgust, screaming “I think that is SO HIDEOUS!”. Both comments are met with confusion from Michalina, who clearly does not consider herself to look hideous. Interesting, considering Trinny’s tendency for raising her voice, and reminiscent of Rowe’s (1997:79) analysis of the reaction to ‘unruly women’ who take up ‘too much space’ is her assertion that Michalina comes “running and charging at us” with her bright clothes, and that this frightens people. By the end of the episode, Michalina affirms the comments that the presenters made at this first site of surveillance, signalising its internalization and necessity for constant regulation to prevent relapse. Looking at her new produced self, Michalina agrees with the presenters, stating; “I was a blob…a clown and a blob” (BBC1, 2004).

Rose (1989:227) places the rise of self-regulation in the nineteenth century, in the context of a shift from individuals controlled by an interventionist state, to individuals controlled much more closely by themselves and those around them. Intrinsic to this regulation and ‘production of selfhood’ (Ibid:231), he argues, are the ‘techniques of psychotherapeutics’. Importantly, this link is clear in What Not To Wear. At the beginning of the episode, the presenters conduct conversations with the women to “probe their minds” (BBC1, 2004) in an environment culturally recognisable as that of a psychotherapist, with the women ‘probed’ on a chaise longue. During these conversations, the presenters refer to ‘feelings’ and the language of popular psychology, contributing to the assertion common to the genre of ‘self-help’ that it is the individual inside, not structural constraints of society, that lead to problems (Rimke, 2000:64) and that by altering her appearance, the woman will alter her life. In a style similar to that of the daytime television talk show, the short conversations do no not offer ‘sufficient space or time for personal emotions to be fully developed’ (Macdonald, 2003:83) and are very much directed by the presenters.

During Sara’s conversation, she starts to talk about the fact that her identity seems to be consumed by looking after her triplets (earlier in the programme, Trinny illustrated the hard work involved in looking after three children). Rather than explore the many structural constraints that are involved in this exhausting (and seemingly unrewarded) work, Trinny responds to the statement with the question “how does your husband feel about how you dress?” (BBC1, 2004). At the end of the programme, Trinny refers back to this feeling of identity loss, indicating that the ‘new’ Sara can be the centre of attention. Revealingly, Trinny comments that people will no longer constantly ask her about her children, but will now focus on her clothes instead, indicating that she feels Sara’s identity is her clothes.

The presenters also borrow from behavioural psychology, invented to ‘render human conduct amenable to reshaping’ (Rose, 1989:239). Trinny and Susannah use both reward and punishment in order to ‘reshape’ the women. At a key moment in Michalina’s shopping task, Trinny begs her to buy a dress, giving up on the ‘rewarding’ of compliments and screams in Michalina’s face; “JUST BUY THE OUTFIT OK!” (BBC1, 2004). This illustrates that What Not To Wear lies firmly in the discursive tradition of self-regulation through psychotherapeutics (Rose, 1989:227).

Within the genre of self-help, particularly makeover, the role of the ‘expert’ is key (Giles, 2002:606). Trinny and Susannah present themselves as therapist and teacher. They adopt a position of authority that can be conceptualised in the way that Foucault (1984:61) has analysed the therapist and priest who gains power through confession. They intervene ‘in order to judge, punish, forgive, console and reconcile’ (Foucault, 1984: 61-2). The hierarchy evident in this authority manifests itself both in the language used by the presenters when addressing the women and the ‘economy of touching’ (Bartky, 2003:30) whereby the presenters touch the women often aggressively and intrusively.

The language used by the presenters often takes on a patronising tone; the difference between Trinny admonishing Sara’s children for not eating with their spoons, and the order to Michalina to get “back in your box, try the other thing on” (BBC1, 2004) is barely noticeable in tone. The way in which the presenters grab, pull and on one occasion rip the knickers, from the women is intrusive and humiliating at times for the women . Trinny and Susannah also touch the women in a way that would usually be associated with animals; they are ‘herded’ around and continually have their thighs patted and slapped. Although this form of touch is presented as jest, it echoes the power hierarchy within a society where women are often subject to un-requested touch and bodily intrusion, including high incidence of rape . The message given out that it is acceptable to herd and intrude on women ‘for their own good’ is a dangerous one.

This clear hierarchy is one of both knowledge (of ‘what to wear’) and class. The presenters are from upper-middle class backgrounds and display their opinion of the way in which the other women dress with ‘extreme bodily displeasure’ (McRobbie, 2004:105). Their class difference is illustrated by and reinforces their role as ‘experts’ and is tied to their knowledge of ‘style’. Trinny displays this by telling Sara; “we might know a bit better than you” (BBC1, 2004).

Although the power relations within the makeover paradigm of What Not To Wear are pervasive and permeate into the minds of the women being made over, as Foucault argues, this form of power depends on ‘a multiplicity of points of resistance’ (1984:95). Certainly, there are multiple points of resistance throughout the episode. Often this resistance is played up to the camera, to the audience as fellow participant; Michalina, picking up a pair of brightly coloured trousers, says “they are lovely, aren’t they [pauses, puts them back on the shelf] … no, I’m gonna be good [picks them up again] no, I’m not gonna be good.” (BBC1, 2004).Similarly, as a site of class resistance, Sara argues with the presenters on the necessity of spending over £100 on a pair of jeans. Although both women thank the presenters for their ‘new’ selves, and seem genuinely happy at the end of the episode, this does not reduce the importance of their resistance throughout their encounters with Trinny and Susannah.

The ‘Young mums’ episode of What Not To Wear is critically examined above in relation to discourses of self-production, surveillance, popular psychology and the authority of expert and class. The makeover paradigm within What Not To Wear is part of the discursive production within society of ‘feminine body-subjects’ (Bartky, 2003:33) through self-production (Rose, 1989) and surveillance. There is a great deal more that could be critically evaluated within the media text What Not To Wear. The role of surveillance could be examined in far more detail, particularly in the earlier series where hidden cameras were used to survey the women. Although not used in the episode analysed here, some episodes of What Not To Wear have featured video diaries, which could be viewed through a Foucauldian analysis of the role of confession (Foucault, 1984: 63). In terms of this particular episode, the women were actually revisited by Trinny and Susannah for the 2005 series of What Not To Wear, which could be analysed in terms of resistance, surveillance, governance and the portrayals of class. Although analysing such texts often meets with a resistance of its own, it is important considering the cultural weight and sites of power within the makeover paradigm as demonstrated above.

Bibliography

Bartky, S, (2003), ‘Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power’ In Weitz, R (Ed) The politics of women’s bodies : sexuality, appearance, & behavior . New York : Oxford University Press

Foucault, M, (1975) ‘Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison’. Harmondsworth : Penguin

Foucault, M, (1981), ‘The History of Sexuality’. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Giles, D ‘Keeping the public in their place: audience participation in lifestyle television programming’ Discourse Society, Sep 2002; 13: 603 - 628.

Hume, E ,(2005) ‘Talk Show Culture’ (Online). Available:
http://www.ellenhume.com/articles/talkshow3.htm

Macdonald, M (2003) ‘Exploring Media Discourse’. London : Arnold

McRobbie, A (2004) ‘Notes on ‘What Not To Wear’ and post-feminist symbolic violence’ in Adkins,L (ed) (2005) Feminism After Bourdieu , Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford pp 99-109

Moseley (2000), ‘Makeover takeover on British television’. Screen 41(3)pp299-314

Rimke, H, (2000), ‘Governing Citizens Through Self-Help Literature’ Cultural Studies, 14(1) pp62-78

Rose, N (1989), ‘Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self’. London : Free Association Books.

Rowe, K, (1997), ‘Roseanne: Unruly Woman as Domestic Godess’ in Brunsdon et al (Eds), (1997), Feminist Television Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Truth About Rape Campaign, (2005) (Online). Available:
http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/index2.html

Weber, B (2005) ‘Beauty, Desire and Anxiety the Economy of Sameness in ABC’s Extreme Makeover’ Genders: 41.

What Not To Wear, ‘Young Mums’, BBC1, 27th September 2004, 7pm

What Not To Wear, BBCTV, (2001- )

Why racism is very much White on Black.

Share
15 April 2009 at 17:51
I feel compelled to clarify the definition of racism, its meaning and its context. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do for a while because of situations which have arisen over the past couple of years while I’ve been involved in student politics.

Whenever the issue of racism arises in student unions and especially if it is in the context of elections the same themes, the same complaints, the same questions arise, time and time again.

Essentially they can be all answered if one understands the meaning of racism and its history. Once that is done, the answers to questions such as ‘Why don’t we have a White student’s officer?’ will become clear as well as an understanding of why, generally speaking, when we refer to racism in the West it is the discrimination of Black people as opposed to White people.

Firstly, a definition of race:

“subspecies: (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species”

Of course, this is the scientific definition but it is also the definition which is the root to understanding the development of racism as it occurs in the contemporary world.

Taking the scientific definition we realise that the concept of ‘race’ has no validity in Homo sapiens. When the human species is viewed as a whole, underlying genetic variation and expressed physical traits exhibit gradients of differentiation, not discrete units. Therefore, humans do not fracture into races (subspecies).

So how then do we have ‘racism’ within the Human race?
This is where history serves its purpose. Racial classification is a modern phenomenon dating back to the 15th century during the slave trade when the Colonialists encountered sub-saharan Africans and referred to them as Negro (meaning Black in Spanish).

Maintaining that Black people were "subhuman" was the only loophole in the then accepted law that "men are created equal" that would allow for the Triangular Slave trade to flourish. The same logic was applied in order to further the aim of Colonialism beyond Europe. This notion seeped in to the recesses of the Western establishment as it was this fundamental reasoning which allowed them to build their vast Empires. The result has been a systematic oppression and discrimination of Black people since then.

So when a Black person suffers from racism – understanding it in its historical context, it is just that. Being thought of as a being from a different race, rather than that of the human race.

When a White person suffers ‘racist’ abuse, behind that abuse, the degrading idea of the person being sub-human is not entertained by the perpetrator which is why, technically speaking, White people don’t suffer racism. They could suffer from abuse but not racism.

The other issue which I suspect will increasingly become a common perception is that racism no longer exists or is no longer such a problem in society. The logic being that America has a Black President or some other equally naïve reason.

Racism still exists in big and small ways. In small ways …we still have ‘flesh coloured’ plasters in that one perfect shade of pinkish beige, the colour of human flesh (sic). ‘Default’ printer settings are clearly programmed with only White people in mind – try printing off your picture in black and white. In big ways…we are currently occupied in wars which are steeped in racist ideology. Black history is still not incorporated in to mainstream education.

The point is that racism is still very much a reality today and therefore the need for challenging and eliminating racism is still relevant. The responsibility to eliminate this particular form of discrimination falls more greatly on students who will be the movers and shakers of tomorrow’s world.

My suggestions for activists against racism would be to equip themselves with a thorough understanding of the history of racism and all its current formations. This will allow an informed campaign to materialise which will undoubtedly lead to a more effective campaign.

Hossein Derakhshan and Virtual Iran-Free the Blogfather

The Iranian blogging phenomenon was triggered after the contribution of Hossein Derakhshan on how-to to write blogs in Farsi and one of the most recurrent themes analysed by academics interested in Iran's youth culture.

Hossein Derakhshan now imprisoned since last November 2008 contributed in establishing bridges of communication between a country with a limited public sphere like Iran and the rest of the world. The phenomenon he contributed to represents the need for alternative platforms of expression and is a vehicle for social development and assertion of Iranian Identity both within and outside the boundaries of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the usage of new media technology sets Iran the challenge of global free-flow of information.Hossein’s arrest is the prove of the danger that new media set to the I.R.I. This leads one to question: is Iran ready to use those media to develop its own “Neither East nor West” particular political, social and economical non-western-like model in setting the country back into the race of worlds most influential country? Or is it going to use them to increase its isolation from the international panorama by threatening the safety of Iranian online journalists and bloggers hence contributing to it’s own demonization?

Hossein Derakhshan is an Iranian-Canadian blogger and journalist and a fellow student at SOAS, University of London, who spent the last eight years between Canada and the U.K before his return to Tehran in the past month of October 2008. Hossein, aka Hoder, is hailed as the "blogfather" of Iranian Blogging because in 2001 he published guidelines of how to blog in Farsi on the site blogger.com. contributing to the boom in blogging that has led to Iran being today amongst the ten biggest blogging nations of the world according to Technorati statistics on the State of the Blogosphere.

According to Derakhshan (Khosravi 2008:157), the popularity of blogs among young people in Iran symbolises the great changes that Iranian society has undergone during the past two decades. The Iranian blogosphere is a reflection of the increasing tolerance in Iran’s society, he says. (1) His blog Editor:Myself or Rooznegar blog by Sina Motallebi his fellow blogger and journalist, were held by the Online Journalism Review as powerful tools for free-speech that linked Iran with the West.

Since the time of Hossein's statement to the current day, blogging has been widely embraced by Iranians throughout the whole spectrum of Iranian society, inside the country and within diaspora communities. Clark Boyd, technology correspondent for the BBC World Service, wrote in his 2005 article about Persian blogging around the globe that Internet has become the main medium for information, news, analysis and information exchange for Iranians inside and outside the Iran.

The fact that blogging is embraced by religious and political figures such as the President Ahmadinejad, could symbolize that the IRI is moving towards a more tolerant model of society that looks into the new media as a tool to overcome the isolation that certain policies have drawn the country into. The almost equivalent presence of topics concerning conservative politics, religion, secular and reformist ideas on the Iranian blogosphere is surprising, states Mark Jones in his Blogging Iran article to Reuters in April 2008. However, blogging is still a risky activity for Iranians, particularly for those who publish under their own name, as we can see by the recent death in prison of Omidreza MirSayafi.

The arrest of Hossein Derakhshan in Tehran last November has come to destabilise the world of free-speech activism, in which the "blogfather" was a major figure. Accused of “espionage for the Israeli government” at first and later of “insulting religion“, Derakhshan travelled to Israel in 2006 and 2007 and blogged about this experience as well as the intentions behind it. Treating these as a mission for peace activism, he attempted to present the human face of Israel to Iranians and to reassure Israelis that the average Iranian does not want to cause any harm to their country. Since then, he has continued to write prolifically, putting forward controversial opinions in defence of the IRI, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the right of Iran to develop nuclear energy. Activists and members of the Iranian diaspora started tagging Derakhshan as an "Agent of the Regime" and many heated discussions can be followed on his weblog until the day of his arrest last November 2008.

To all those willing to take a closer look at the contribution of Hossein Derakhshan to his country's development of public sphere and free-speech, it is well worth looking at the Iranian blogosphere which he helped generate. Numerous blogs, used by an extremely wide range of people, reflect a vast range of debate topics. Nevertheless, we can claim that Hossein is one of the pioneers of technological and cultural development for the IRI, that he so clearly stands out to defend from diverse threats. His weapon is no other than his words defending his belief in the Iranian republic.

The IRI could be growing towards a more tolerant model if we take the increasing presence of Iran in the blogosphere. However, the filters, the successive arrest of bloggers and Internet journalists like Hossein Derakhshan , Sina Motallebi - among many others- and the death of bloggers such as Omidreza MirSayafi show us something different. Still, Iranian’s mark a daily presence on the web. In parallel to the reality of the country itself, a Virtual Iran is developing despite the attempts on restrainin the free-flowing information. The attempt of control of Virtual Iran’s free speech can affect the development of the “real” Iran as well as the image passed on Internationally.

Independently of the content of the speech itself, the Internet is a tool for freedom of speech. Blogging represents the possibility of discussion, debate and freedom of expression for the individual, and is arguably conducive to individual and social progress. The development of Iranian blogosphere is a symbol of the development of Iranian society and the changes of the IRI. The fierce critique to some of it’s content, especially to those defending a pro-regime position, might only symbolize the lack of experience of free-speech by some particular individuals. However, the importance is that the blogosphere is there and must strive to maintain it’s diversity and contribute to Iran’s development.

Iran could be developing slowly into a new state model where new technologies serve s its own inner development, and simultaniously allowing Iran to be back in the race as world leading country. However, the control and use of new technology to threatening its own people might only increase its unpopularity and isolation from the rest of the world. The answer lies not only in the daily choices of Iran’s Govern, but also on how much it allows negative international pressure to interfere in inner politics that degenarate on an increasingly self-threatening paranoid state.

Let us hope that Hossein Derakhshan's passionate quest for a progressive and tolerant Iran does not fade with his arrest and – for now – uncertain future.

If you want to contribute to the Request of the immediate release of Hossein Derakhshan visit the website freetheblogfather.com and sign the petition.

By Maria Rijo Lopes da Cunha.