The Writing on the Stall: Identity and Anonymity in Bathroom Graffiti

Graffiti comes in many varied forms, which range from being viewed as artistic to unsightly acts of pure vandalism, or both (Carrington 2009:409). In all its forms however, graffiti is a powerful mode of expression, especially for those who feel their voices have no other outlet (Şad and Kutlu 2009:39). Murals can, through artistic expression, make a dull public space more enjoyable and give a city or neighborhood character. Gang tags, denoting territory, often make people feel unsafe. But what of those more mundane graffiti writings we encounter on a daily basis? For instance, the convoluted conversations, social commentaries and insults we often find scribbled on the walls of bathroom stalls or study cubicles.

This particular variety of graffiti has one important characteristic that characterizes its expression. The nature of a stall in a public bathroom makes it a rare public space that also affords a great deal of privacy to the person inside. As a result, the things written there are seen by many, and could have been written by any of the numerous people who make use of it daily. Thus graffiti writing here is, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. Fuhrer, as quoted in Carrington, said that all manner of urban, “graffiti are announcements of one’s identity, a… testimonial to one’s existence in anonymity (2009:410).” In other words, graffiti writings are anonymous statements of an individual’s identity and presence in the world.

Furthermore, in part due to the factor of anonymity a bathroom stall provides, graffiti written here can allow the individual to express opinions they share that are socially unacceptable, without fear of social repercussions reflecting on their individual person. According to Islam, bathrooms are private spaces where “normally unsanctioned” behavior can appear (2009:248). This, coupled with Carrington’s idea that writing in this space reveal real social attitudes, because people do not fear repercussion, makes bathroom graffiti a genre full of insight into society, all because of its anonymous nature.

To evidence this, Şad and Kutlu in their study of Turkish university students studying education, identify two types of graffiti: graffiti written in classrooms or labs and graffiti written in bathroom stalls. They say that more socially acceptable topics and doodles are likely to be written in classrooms, and more controversial topics like sex, homosexuality and politics are written of in bathroom stalls (2009:51). It is the factor of anonymity that creates this division of content.

If this more controversial subject matter is being discussed in bathroom stalls and the content reflects on society, what exactly do these writings say about us? Gladly, it seems the “normally unsanctioned behavior” that is expressed here is not without reproach. Şad and Kutlu give numerous examples of graffiti as it is written in the bathroom stalls of a Turkish university. One inscription says, “Death for gays!” and the response to it is, “Freedom for gays! (Şad and Kutlu 2009:48)” This is a similar spirit to what I am accustomed to seeing in UBC campus bathrooms, if someone writes something hateful, others are quick to respond with reverse messages. I would like to believe, in putting all the above factors together, that it is then possible to infer that in society there are those that have hateful viewpoints, but the majority disagree. Hopefully those people will still stand up to unjust discrimination if their voices are not shielded by anonymity.

I was disappointed as I opened the door of stall after stall in the women’s bathroom on the main floor of the Student Union Building this week. The walls, which are usually full of intellectually provocative questions, offensive remarks, poetry and any number of other random writings, had recently been scrubbed clean, (or mostly so), and only a few unprovocative remarks had begun to replenish the supply. It made me wonder, with respect to anonymity, if people feel their identity is more at risk when they are the first to write something? After all, when the wall is full, nobody seems to hold back their opinions, be they good or bad.

Walter Benjamin’s Aura, Copies and Jai Ho

Walter Benjamin in his article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” says that new technologies allowing for the “mechanical reproduction” of works of art have in some contexts become art forms in their own right, but at the same time they have changed the way people view art, and taken something essential from it. He suggests that with copying technology, works of art lose their aura.

Aura is a complex aspect of an object having to do with an authenticity that stems from a unique “presence in time and space”, the very existence of an original, the proximity to the thing, and other factors (Benjamin 1936). The destruction of aura occurs in many ways with the mechanical reproduction of art. Benjamin takes an especially harsh criticism of film, saying that reproduction on a large scale “substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence” and this leads to a “shattering of tradition” of which “film is the most powerful agent (1936).”

In following Benjamin’s argument, the four YouTube videos being examined here, (the official music video, the Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho, a dance by the Hagens and a Tamil dance performance to the song), are certainly guilty of many of the aura destroying characteristics he puts forth. First, their very existence as reproductible video is a fault. As they are readily available on the Internet, in an endless number of identical copies, they are guilty of jeopardizing the aura of the original through sheer volume. Arguably, their existence as digital media further jeopardizes the authenticity, because for Benjamin, the presence of an “original” is key to authenticity, and the original of any one of these, especially the amateur copies could have been erased long ago after being moved onto a computer from a camcorder, for example.

Secondly, as we are not in the presence of the performers, but rather are experiencing their performance with the camera mediating it, we lose the performer’s aura, because their presence is synonymous with their aura (Benjamin 1936). Furthermore, the different camera angles that are used in film, and in these videos, as well as the fact that a scene can be cut to include sections from different takes, thus giving a fragmented, distorted view of reality, also destroys aura. In the official Slumdog Millionaire video, even if they had filmed the entire dance sequence in one shot, the fact that it is interspersed with scenes from the film only lets us see a portion of it, therefore showing the viewer only the fragmented reality Benjamin speaks of. Therefore, because of their nature as film, the four videos all violate the aura of the originals.

My understanding of this article was that this loss of aura had to do with the creation of exact copies, which as shown above certainly applies to each of the works individually. However, the presence of multiple imitations, (all the videos save the official music video), which take some aspect of the original but create their own unique version, could further destroy the aura of the original, potentially more than just in having multiple copies of the same work.

For example, the pussycat dolls, create new song lyrics and loosely imitate the setting and costumes of the original music video, however the melody remains the same, and because of their costumes and the train station setting it is clearly in some ways a copy of the original. However, the overall mood and message of the video is entirely different. The Pussycat Dolls bring their own style to the song and the change in lyrics and costumes completely removes any of the purity of finding your one true love, your “destiny,” a line echoed in their song and the movie itself; rather the video and song become more about sex than a special connection and the struggle to find the one you love.

The amateur renditions as well remove some of the artistry that come from the original video. With inexpert dance moves, no costumes, and lesser camera quality somehow they are not as visually appealing, at least for myself. While I do not feel their presence, and the presence of a multitude of others like them detract from the original, I might think of those imitations when thinking of the original, and the connection could in some way taint it. Maybe in thinking of the Pussycat Dolls the love story will seem less profound. Or maybe I will laugh remembering the Hagen’s enthusiastic dancing. Either way, the original no longer exists apart from association with those other versions. Whether this effect is positive or otherwise I cannot say definitively, however, if Benjamin believed a simple copy could detract from the original I cannot imagine he would approve of lesser copies, being widely distributed as well.

Mazarella’s “Culture, Globalization, Mediation”

William Mazarella’s “Culture, Globalization, Mediation” is a literature review of works on media and globalization. He is interested in the issue of mediation, which he defines as, “the processes by which a given social dispensation produces and reproduces itself in and through a particular set of media (Mazarella 2004:346).” He talks of mediation in terms of globalization and the interaction between cultures. Specifically, with mediums globalization like satellite television and the Internet facilitating the increasing interconnectedness of people and cultures, people have begun a process of mediation of those new ideas they become exposed to. Mazarella wants to look at places where mediation is having real effects on the way people live their lives, or “nodes of mediation (2004:352).

He suggests that through interactions with media originating in different cultural backgrounds, people can explore aspects of themselves and their own culture, without being taken in by the new ideas they are being exposed to. There might be aspects of life that seem very similar to their own but also aspects that are very foreign to them in the media that they encounter. It is through processes of mediation that people and cultures grow from encounters with the unknown in media (2004:355). Mediation is a way in which people become and discover “who [they] are through the detour of something alien to [themselves](2004:356).”

Despite finding meaning and identity through difference, there is no risk of becoming homogeneous. This is because difference is one factor that aids social reproduction. Essentially, there is no risk of losing the “local” through encounters with difference in media, because people mediate to make meaning for themselves. Through processes of mediation people try to understand others just as they try to understand themselves. Sometimes it is not possible to come to an understanding, or to appropriately convey the differences through available media. However, people are constantly trying to make meaning from encounters with media portraying others and broaden their understandings and possibilities this way.

The Media and Cholera in Haiti: Foul or Fair?

Photo:Ramon Espinosa/Associated Press










          To say that life has been tough for the people of Haiti since January 2010, when a magnitude 7.0 earthquake devastated their nation, would be an understatement. With over 200,000 killed, 300,000 injured and approximately 1.5 million people left homeless after the disaster (World Vision 2011), the nation was, and largely remains, in ruins. Upon seeing the earthquake’s aftermath in the media people, governments and NGOs worldwide opened their hearts to donate their money, time and resources on a massive scale; however, despite this a second disaster befell Haiti in October 2010, an outbreak of cholera.

Cholera causes only mild illness in the majority of the people who contract it, however in a small percentage of infected people, (approximately 5%), life threatening dehydration can occur. According to the Centre for Disease Control two conditions must be met for cholera to spread: “(1) there must be significant breaches in the water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure used by groups of people, permitting large-scale exposure to food or water contaminated with Vibrio cholerae organisms; and (2) cholera must be present in the population (CDC 2010).” Given that the huge number of homeless in Haiti remain in “temporary” tent villages, with poor sanitation and water distribution systems, the first requirement is obviously met. However, it was not anticipated that cholera infection would become a problem because Haiti did not meet the second condition. Now that it is present, however, it cannot be ignored; while only a small percentage of people will become gravely ill from cholera, when virtually the entire nation’s population is at risk, the number of severe cases becomes unacceptably high. As of Mid January 2011 almost 4000 people had died of cholera in Haiti (BBC 2011a).

Gourevitch, in his article “Alms Dealers,” takes a critical account of aid organizations, saying that despite having good intentions, things don’t always go well for them and they’re not accountable for their actions (2010:109). He also outlines the critique Linda Polman puts forward in her book, “The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong With Humanitarian Aid?” explaining how the media brings attention to the work of aid organizations, but not always positively. For example/ in Sierra Leone, when the R.U.F.’s soldiers realized that amputees were attracting support from international aid agencies due to international news coverage, specifically by the BBC, they increased the number of amputees dramatically. Additionally, many amputees began hoarding prosthetics and going around without them to keep the media attention, and the aid, coming. Meanwhile, people kept sending support, not knowing they were essentially part of the problem.

This villainization of the media is not entirely warranted, at least not in the case of Haiti. The media cannot be faulted for its failure to mention fears of cholera from the outset, when nobody could have foreseen that cholera would make its way to Haiti. It cannot be faulted for the amount or continuation of coverage it gave the problem. A search of the BBC news website shows that there were 92 articles published about the cholera epidemic between October 21, 2010 and January 23, 2011 (BBC 2011b). Until the beginning of January, multiple articles were written daily. That seems like good coverage considering that the media tends to give new stories priority, and a lot happened in the world this year. For example, if Haiti remained the feature story we would not have known about the disastrous flooding in Australia, or the trapped Chilean miners. It is simply the nature of the news to prioritize the next big story, and I would argue that that is in large part due to popular demand and what will bring in readership. Responsibility also lies with readers to go beyond the headlines if they want to stay informed.

Haiti received massive amounts of aid, and without media attention it likely would not have; the world would not have been aware of the issue in the first place. Certainly the ability to move people to action is a power the media has, and one to be taken seriously, but the media is limited by the constraints of its structure as a mode of reporting current affairs. With prolonged situations, it cannot continue to give priority to every issue. In fact, it would be irresponsible to keep the public from learning of new issues facing the world by focusing on just one. Therefore, the media is a limited resource for mobilizing aid, with only limited responsibility, and should not be judged for its role in sufficiently or insufficiently aiding the cholera epidemic in Haiti.

The First Post

Welcome! This blog is for my anthropology of media class at the University of British Columbia. Throughout the term I’ll be posting a variety of assignments relating to the anthropology of media. If you found your way here accidentally, I hope you find it interesting. Enjoy.