Changing Publics

The discussion we had in class today was one of my favorites thus far as we explored a piece of work that might not necessarily be considered “academic” in nature. I got to hear multiple viewpoints as to who we as a class thought that Kluwe was intending to gear his letter toward and was intrigued to hear the opinion that he was using the letter to show Burns in a bad light, instead of promoting the acceptance of an issue which he could have done in his position as a public figure. I believe that by writing about the topic in itself shows that he wants to promote the acceptance of same-sex marriage, and believes it is something that needs to be realized in the public sphere and through legislation as well. I don’t think that he was using the letter to just bash Burns, but rather, the fact that he himself cannot sway the opinion of those in legislation who actually vote on this issues - so he wrote to someone explaining the ridiculousness of them not supporting it. I’m not sure if what I’m trying to write about makes much sense, but in essence, I don’t think the piece intended to solely attack Burns. Rather, it was used to show that people in positions of power who attack those for speaking out (Burns initial letter to the Ravens) are doing exactly what they say should not be done. That it’s hypocritical for them to expect everyone to sit back and let things play out, because everyone does have an opinion and is entitled to that opinion.

  In terms of how this letter translated from “private” to “public” I don’t think there’s much of an argument there. From the beginning it was an open letter, published in the Huffington Post, and multiple other news channels (Yahoo!, Deadspin, etc.) By including this letter in so many different public spheres it had an overreaching connection with everyone from sports fans (Deadspin) to anyone who had their front page set to Yahoo!. Basically playing to Warner’s theories of a public. It touches on connecting strangers, being constituted through mere attention, and lastly “poetic world making” which I found to be the most interesting of the seven. The poetic world that is created with Kluwe’s letter is one that is a narrative of athletes or sports fans normally thought of as macho roles coming together to support an issue that everyone from left leaning readers of the HuffPo to college students who passed this letter to one another joining their own public and each getting something out of the letter that was published. Whether it was a new perspective, or a reaffirmation that their beliefs are right; I think it created a public that could be accessed by so many different types of people.  
The access to this piece was incredibly bigger than it would have been in comparison to maybe a piece of graffiti, or the “**** NEU” line written on the bathroom stall of the mens bathroom. The thing about any of these pieces is that, while they might have a direct ‘first” intended audience, they will always reach another audience, either by orator or by passing of maybe a photo of the text. There’s so many ways to disseminate information nowadays that any piece of writing can create new publics when introduced in new ways. I wonder if when the intended audience changes, does the message or purpose of the piece of writing change as well? I’d have to believe yes. The example I’d use for this is that when someone is in the Holmes Hall Men’s bathroom and sees “**** NEU” the quick assumption is some punk kid who wrote it there and will be seen by quick glances instead of broken down academically. Which in this case, when Charlie introduced this to us, we looked at the motive behind it and the purpose it could have and different intent. So it does change as the piece of writing enters new publics.
While it’s still difficult to think about the paradox that is publics being created from mere attention it’s still very interesting to discover ways in which this is applicable, as in what we discussed in class today.