CS304 W26 Blog Post Assignment #3

 

 

Blog Post 2 Resource B

James W. Carey describes two ways of understanding communication: the transmission model and the ritual model. The transmission model describes communication as the sending of information in order to control and create a specific outcome. It focuses on authority, influence creating a power imbalance. The ritual model shows communication as something that brings people together through shared practices, meaning, and participation. Ritual communication reinforces community and collective values. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson adds to this through the concept of sintering. This frames communication as a relational practice that holds connections. Sintering is not just about sharing meaning, but about holding people together through ongoing acts of support and obligation.

Minnesota Proved MAGA Wrong from The Atlantic illustrates how these two logics of communication clash in the context of ICE enforcement in Minnesota. While the state relies on transmission-based communication to produce fear and compliance, local communities respond through ritual practices of mutual aid and collective protection. This allows those communities in Minnesota to create cohesion and resilience. In Carey’s transmission model, communication functions as a tool of power. This logic is highlighted in how federal authorities executed immigration enforcement. Reporters highlighted that protests against ICE’s enforcement in Minnesota continued into corporate settings. Employees and activists were calling out local businesses’ responses to federal actions (BBC News, 2026). The ICE surge was not only a physical one but also one that was meant to intimidate communities into silence. The state controlled the narrative of who was being targeted by withholding names, providing vague charges, and selectively releasing information. Political voices reinforced this by framing activists and detainees as “the worst of the worst.” These labels were not true and used as tools to justify violence and discourage resistance. Surveillance further supported this transmission logic. Information became weaponized through text chains and leaked screenshots.Rather than building understanding, communication was used to manage perception and instill fear. In this model, power operates through opacity, messaging, and intimidation rather than relationship.

In contrast, Minnesota communities practiced communication as ritual. Churches became places where food, diapers, and supplies were delivered. It was not as a one-time charity, but an ongoing support. There were safety plans added to communities like calling families before approaching homes to build trust and prevent the deception ICE was known to have. Groups like ICE Watch organized collective presence through honking, whistles, and big movements. These were not simply alerts but communal rituals that turned their fear into shared action. Many felt very alone, so communities used signs, chants, and protective gatherings to connect and show support to their communities.

The message of this resistance was not just verbal. It was shown through caring for each other, showing up, and protecting one another. This reflects Carey’s ritual model where communication sustains social bonds rather than transmits commands. Simpson’s concept of sintering highlights this point even more. In Resource B, mutual aid is not distant but rather a relational commitment to each other. Volunteers stayed in contact with families in hiding, provided rides, delivered supplies, and helped children attend school. These were not just symbolic gestures but acts of responsibility that continued human connection even under immense threats. The idea of neighborism”also shows how care was not conditional on citizenship, background, or if they were even friends. Communication was built through trust and courage.

Carey’s ritual model emphasizes shared meaning whereas sintering emphasizes shared responsibility. Together, they show how communication can become a form of survival. It highlights holding communitiestogether when formal institutions attempt to hurt them. Resource B shows that communication is never neutral. The state used transmission logic to intimidate and control narratives. Minnesota’s ritual communication built real relationships that sustained life rather than preying on engagement. Therefore, the article suggests that community is not just a feeling. It is something created through practice. Communication becomes powerful when it builds trust and collective responsibility.

Works Cited

Carey, James W. (2009). A cultural approach to communication (pp. 13–23). In Communication as Culture (Revised ed.). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928912-9

BBC News. (2026, February 5). Why Target is under fire over Minnesota ICE raids. BBC.

Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. (2025). Theory of water: Nishnaabe maps to the times ahead. Haymarket Books.

Blog Post #2 - Resource B

James W. Carey has outlined two distinct approaches to the study of communication: communication as transmission, and communication as ritual. Carey's transmission model conceptualizes communication as the transfer of information across space for the purpose of controlling, efficiently managing, or influencing other individuals or groups. This approach views messages as being sent, received, and ultimately evaluated based on their success in terms of their intended effect. In contrast, Carey conceptualized his own model of communication, which he referred to as "communication as ritual." According to Carey, communication as ritual is a way of understanding communication as a means by which societies maintain themselves over time by producing shared meanings, promoting participatory engagement, and establishing a sense of community among participants. Therefore, communication as ritual is concerned with fostering a sense of fellowship, utilizing symbols, and participating in actions that create and recreate community.

"Minnesota Proved MAGA Wrong," an article in The Atlantic, provides examples of the manner in which grassroots resistance to Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis utilized Carey's logic of ritual communication instead of a logic of transmission. While the coverage of news organizations focused upon transmitting information about raids or policy disputes related to immigration, the actual political power of the movement was derived from neighborhood-organized mutual aid networks and collective care activities. Therefore, the Minnesota movement relied more upon relational practices (such as neighborhood organizing and providing mutual aid), rather than upon broadcasting messages or calls-to-action to alter public opinion. For example, the article reported that when community members saw the need for assistance in response to ICE activity, they would provide rides, shelter, food, and legal support to one another, as well as physically show up to demonstrate their support for one another. Such actions were functioning as forms of ritual communication due to the fact that they reinforced a shared moral universe centered around values such as protecting the dignity of all people, and collectively assuming responsibility for the welfare of community members. Participation in the movement itself became meaningful and important.

Carey argued that ritual communication functions in a manner similar to that of a ceremony or a cultural practice. The act of participating in a ritual establishes a symbolic space in which individuals identify as part of a collective. In Minneapolis, the various forms of mutual aid and rapid-response networks, as well as neighborhood mobilizations, have established such symbolic spaces. Furthermore, each act of protest has served to reinforce a collective identity opposing the violence of the state and its policies of exclusion. Therefore, resistance has become less an event and more an ongoing social process.

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson's concept of "sintering" further develops this analysis. In her book Theory of Water, Simpson uses sintering to refer to the process in which separate components combine under pressure to form a single, solid unit. As a metaphor for Indigenous practices of solidarity, sintering refers to the formation of coalitions between neighbors - human and nonhuman - through the process of working together through shared struggles, caring for one another, and taking responsibility for one another.

Simpson emphasizes that sintering is an adaptive, relational, and experiential process. Her ancestors, she writes, engaged in sintering by developing ways of living that created relationships of dependence between themselves, the land, and the water, creating webs of interdependence rather than systems of control.

Therefore, communication and relationship-building cannot be separated in the case of sintering. Thus, this analytical tool allows us to better understand the effectiveness of the Minneapolis resistance. The movement did not rely on a top-down, centralized leadership or a broadcast style of messaging. Instead, it developed through a decentralized system of bonds formed among neighbors who watched out for one another, volunteer teams formed rapidly to address emergency situations, and neighborhoods organized to provide mutual aid. These practices reflect the sintering process. Each individual action - such as offering someone shelter, resources, or warning of ICE activity - acted like a snowflake bonding with other snowflakes, eventually forming a dense network of resistance.

Moreover, this type of communication resists the logic of state power embedded in the transmission model of communication. ICE relies on surveillance, documentation, and bureaucratic messaging systems to control populations across space. However, Minneapolis residents responded to this system of control not by attempting to out-message the state, but by creating alternative communicative structures that are based on trust and reciprocity. The power of the Minneapolis resistance lies in its proximity and participation, not in its reach.

Finally, Carey's ritual model of communication will help us to understand why these types of movements continue to exist. Movements that rely on a transmission model of communication tend to burn out quickly after the initial wave of attention has passed. On the other hand, ritual communication creates a form of sustained communication because it is deeply embedded in the daily routines of the participants. The acts of mutual aid become habits, and the solidarity becomes a natural part of the community's social fabric. The community does not simply react to emergencies, it continuously produces itself through the shared practices of its members.

This illustrates Carey's argument that communication is not about moving messages across space, but rather about maintaining society over time. Therefore, the networks in Minneapolis are not simply responding to ICE, they are creating an alternate social reality based on care rather than coercion.

When taken together, the theories of Carey and Simpson provide a strong analytical framework for understanding the nature of resistance today. Carey shows us how ritual communication creates collective meaning, and Simpson shows us how sintering transforms that meaning into concrete solidarity. The movement in Minneapolis demonstrates both processes at work. Communication in this movement is not limited to media coverage or political rhetoric, but is expressed through the relationships, shared labor, and physical presence of the participants.

Blog Post #2 - Politics as a Spectacle

Ethan Silver

James W. Carey famously argued that communications can be understood in two distinct overlapping forms of logic: communication as transmission and communication as a ritual. While the transmission model emphasizes efficient information sending across spaces, the ritual model instead focuses on communication being a symbolic process, sustaining shared beliefs, identities, and social order over a period of time (Carey, 2009). These two frameworks provide a powerful lens through which helps analyze contemporary political communication, especially in the spectate-driven politics associated with Donald Trump. The Current Affairs article “The Line Between Politics and Pro Wrestling Has Disappeared” argues that Trump political style is deeply shaped by his experiences with professional wrestling, which is not only a form of entertainment but an experience that is built not on truths or persuasion but on performance, reputation, and emotional investment. When analyzing through Carey’s frameworks and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s concept of sintering, Trump’s politics do not just come off as simply misinformation or a source of manipulation, but as a form of a ritualized communication system that fragments a collective meaning and accelerates political polarization.  

Carey’s transmission model of communication understands that communication is the movement of messages from a sender to a receiver with the purpose of using these messages for control, influence, and information delivery (Carey, 2009). This model of communication dominates a substantial portion of political analysis, particularly critiquing the use of propaganda, “fake news,” and disinformation. Using this perspective, Trump’s communication from a political standpoint appears to be incoherent and deceptive: stating often factually inaccurate, inflammatory, and contradictory information. Though focusing exclusively on the transmission of Trump’s communication functions for his audience. His messages and speeches are not primarily designed to inform or persuade his audience through factual evidence and information; rather he actually operates and uses his messages to provoke emotions and reactions, dominating media cycles, and maintaining visibility, recently even discussing how he thought that the Bad Bunny half time show at the super bowl was a ‘slap in the face’ to America, even though Porta Rico being a part of the United States, in order to have his name in the news and to stay ‘relevant.’ In this sense, Trump exploits the logic of transmission in modern media, particularly by using cable news and social media, being able to ensure that his statements travel rapidly and fast, regardless of what he is saying being truthful and of value. 

Carey’s ritual model offers a more illuminating framework. Communication as a ritual is not about just sending added information but about the maintaining of the shared meaning through things like repetition, participation, and symbolic action (Carey, 2009). The Current Affairs article highlights how professional wrestling operates within almost entirely through a ritualistic logic Wresting, not aiming to convince an audience that the events are so called “real” in a factual sense; instead, it actually invites fans into the shared performances where the characters are exaggerated, there is moral binaries and a recurring themes of conflicts that reaffirms collective emotional investment and engagement. Trump's use of media appearances, political rallies and his online persona and presence function at similarly. His use of antagonistic nicknames, repeated slogans, and staged confrontations do not seek to resolve anything or to create political clarity. Rather, they play a part in affirming a worldview where Trump is the heroic outsider that is battling the corrupt elites and hostile enemies. 

Through this use of ritualized information, Trump’s supporters are not passive recipients of information but actively being participants in a symbolic order and reinforcing group identity. By chanting slogans, defending trump on online platforms, and dismissing critical media all function as ritualistic actions supporting the MAGA group identity. The emotional intensity of these rituals matters more than simple factual coherence, explaining why fact checking and journalistic rebuttals often fail to weaken trump’s overall appearance and influence. They often address transmission issues but ignore the ritual success and Trump’s politics thrive because his politics do not depend on rational persuasion.  

This dynamic connects to Leanne Betasamosake Simpson's concept of sintering, as explained in Theory of Water. Simpson uses sintering to describe the process through relational systems to crumble under pressure, and that the fragmented collective understanding and shared meaning (Simpson, 2017). In a political sense, sintering helps breakdown a shared public reality. Rather than simply fostering a collective understanding, Trump instead, communicates through intensifying division by encouraging his listeners and supporters to reject all external sources of actual substance like journalism, science, and democratic institutions, especially in favor of an internally reinforced narrative.  

Trump’s use of wrestling inspired politics do not just paralyze opinions; they actively erode the conditions for shared communication. Each spectacle he created, regardless of how large or small deepened sintering by hardening the symbolic boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ In this case, media and communication cause a deeper divide and separation rather than building a bridge between groups. Simpson’s framework highlights that this is not accidental but produced through repeated uses of communication practices that privilege domination rather than relational accountability. 

Importantly, this analysis does not suggest that Trump also is responsible for political sintering. Instead, it is the media systems who support, and reward spectacle create fertile ground for ritualized performance politics. Trump's success reveals a far deeper crisis in political communication. That is the domination of transmission-oriented critiques of media environments and their increasingly governed ritual dynamics. Without recognizing these shifts, the media attempts to use counter spectacle politics which risks reinforcing this behavior. 

Conclusively, applying Carey’s model of communication and Simpsons concept of sintering to “The Line Between Politics and Pro Wrestling Has Disappeared” reveals that trumps political power is not only primarily focused on persuasion and misinformation, but rather on ritualized communication that continues to sustain emotion, identity and create division. Understanding politics as a spectacle requires moving beyond just factual transmission  

 

Communication, Ritual, and Resistance: What Minnesota Reveals About Power (Blog 2)

Introduction: Rethinking What Communication Does

In contemporary political life, communication is often understood as the transmission of information. Commands are issued, messages are delivered, and authority flows from institutions to citizens. This logic of communication is especially visible in the practices of the modern state, from press conferences to policing, to immigration enforcement. However, as James W. Carey argues, communication can also be understood through a very different lens, not as transmission, but as ritual. When applied to the grassroots resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) described in The Atlantic article “Minnesota Proved MAGA Wrong,” this ritual model of communication helps reveal how communities resist state power not primarily through messaging, but through shared practices of care, presence, and mutual responsibility. When read alongside Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s concept of “sintering,” the Minnesota case shows how communication can function as a living, relational process that sustains community and challenges violent forms of authority.

Communication as Transmission: Power, Control, and ICE

James Carey’s transmission model of communication is rooted in the idea of transportation. Communication, in this view, is about sending information across space in order to control, persuade, or inform. It prioritizes efficiency, speed, and clarity, and it is closely tied to bureaucratic power. This logic dominates modern institutions such as governments, corporations, and law enforcement agencies. ICE operates almost entirely within this transmission framework. Its power is exercised through surveillance, bureaucratic directives, and enforcement systems that concentrate authority at the top while determining who is targeted, when raids occur, and how force is deployed. Communication here is instrumental and coercive. It is not designed to build shared meaning or trust, but to assert control over bodies and territory. Individuals are positioned as objects of enforcement rather than participants in a shared social world.

Communication as Ritual: Community, Participation, and Meaning

In contrast, Carey’s ritual view of communication emphasizes participation rather than delivery. Communication as ritual is not primarily about sending new information, instead, it is about maintaining shared values, reinforcing bonds, and sustaining community over time. Ritual communication is repetitive, embodied, and social. It draws people together rather than positioning them as senders and receivers. Carey argues that this form of communication is foundational to culture itself because it creates a sense of belonging and continuity. Importantly, ritual communication does not depend on centralized authority. It emerges from collective practice and shared experience.

Minnesota’s Resistance as Ritual Communication

The resistance to ICE in Minnesota exemplifies this ritual model of communication. As described in the article, community members did not simply spread information about ICE raids through formal announcements or media campaigns. Instead, they built dense networks of mutual aid, warning systems, and physical presence. Neighbors alerted one another. People showed up at homes and workplaces. They shared resources, offered shelter, and stood together in moments of risk. Much of this communication was face-to-face, embodied, and rooted in trust developed over time. The meaning of these actions did not lie in the content of any single message, but in the repeated practice of solidarity itself. Through these rituals, community members affirmed who they were and what they stood for, even in the face of state violence.

Sintering: An Indigenous Perspective on Communication and Care

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s concept of sintering uses the metaphor of snowflakes bonding with their neighbors to form a strong, dense, and lasting snowpack. Importantly, this process creates collective strength without erasing individuality. Sintering describes a way of coming together through shared experience, care, and relational responsibility. From this Indigenous perspective, communication is not abstract, detached, or primarily about the transmission of information. Instead, it is grounded in lived relationships and sustained through accountability to one another. Sintering directly challenges colonial and state-based logics of communication that treat information as something that can be controlled, extracted, or weaponized. Rather than knowledge being transmitted from above by institutions or authorities, Simpson emphasizes that knowledge is generated collectively through ongoing relationships. Communication, in this sense, is inseparable from ethics, responsibility, and care. It is not just about what is said, but about how people show up for one another over time.

Sintering in Practice: Mutual Aid and Collective Survival

The resistance to ICE in Minnesota closely resembles this practice of sintering. As described in the article, community members did not rely on formal leadership structures or centralized messaging. Instead, they operated through relationships built over time. Relationships strong enough to withstand fear, surveillance, and repression. Neighbors looked out for one another, warned one another, shared resources, and offered protection when needed. Through these repeated acts of care, they moved from being loosely connected allies to functioning more like an extended family. Communication in this context happened primarily through action: showing up, sharing food, standing watch, and protecting one another. These acts were not merely symbolic, they were practical, relational, and deeply meaningful. Rather than functioning as an exchange of information, communication became a form of collective survival, rooted in trust and mutual responsibility. This is sintering in practice, a lived, relational form of communication that builds strength through care rather than control.

Power, Media, and the Limits of Transmission

Seen through this lens, the failure of ICE’s approach becomes clearer. Transmission-based power depends on compliance and isolation. It assumes that individuals can be separated, identified, and controlled through bureaucratic systems. Ritual communication and sintering disrupt this logic by creating dense webs of connection that are difficult to penetrate. When people act together, repeatedly and visibly, power no longer flows in one direction. Authority becomes contested not through counter-messaging or spectacle, but through alternative ways of living and relating. This challenges dominant assumptions about what communication is and how political power operates.

Conclusion: Why Ritual Communication Matters

Ultimately, the events described in “Minnesota Proved MAGA Wrong” remind us that communication is never neutral. How we understand communication shapes how power is exercised and how resistance becomes possible. Carey’s ritual model and Simpson’s concept of sintering help us see that meaningful political action does not always begin with messages or media coverage. Often, it begins with people coming together, again and again, to care for one another. In a political environment dominated by enforcement, surveillance, and transmission, these ritual forms of communication offer a powerful alternative, one grounded in relationship, responsibility, and collective strength.

References

Carey, James W. (2009). A cultural approach to communication (pp. 13–23). In Communication as Culture (Revised ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928912-9

Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. (2025). Theory of water: Nishnaabe maps to the times ahead. Haymarket Books.

Serwer, A. (2026, January 26). Minnesota proved MAGA wrong. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/

Blog Post 2 Resource A - Mya Murray

What if professional wrestling is the best method to explain the current status of the American government? According to the article "The Line Between Politics and Professional Wrestling Has Disappeared," it is one of the most obvious ways to understand how political communication works nowadays. After applying James Carey's two logics of communication, we can see that it is not simply about Donald Trump behaving like a wrestler or using dramatic language. The idea instead highlights the nature of communication itself, where spectacle, emotional reward, and continuous attention are more important than accuracy or policy. In wrestling, maintaining the audience's emotional investment in the act is more important than proving that what is happening is real. When politics begin to operate under the same logic, we can make valuable observations, see patterns and make connections to James Carey's logic.

A keyword in the article is kayfabe, which is a part of professional wrestling vocabulary. Kayfabe is basically the unwritten rule that everyone involved has to protect the illusion that what is happening in the ring is real. Wrestlers, referees, announcers, and promoters all play along, even outside the arena. Wrestlers who are supposed to hate each other on screen can’t even be seen hanging out in public, because that would break the illusion. The audience is what drives Kayfabe's success; rather than falling for it, fans voluntarily suspend their disbelief since the story's emotional reward outweighs the dull reality. 

In wrestling, the most important goal is not being liked but generating heat, which means getting a strong emotional reaction from the crowd. Heat is the real currency. The article explains this through the story of wrestler Roddy Piper, who played the villain in front of a mostly Latino audience. Piper spent weeks insulting the crowd to build anger, and when he finally promised to apologize by playing the Mexican national anthem, he instead played “La Cucaracha.” When the crowd erupted, Piper fled before they could reach him. This appeared to be a disaster from a moral or legal standpoint, but it was a success for wrestling promoters. Events were sold out, and venues became packed as a result of the heat. Engagement was more important than accountability or the truth. According to the report, Trump utilizes the same tactic of inciting conflict on purpose in order to keep the spectacle alive.

This is where James Carey’s idea of communication as transmission helps explain what is happening. Carey describes communication as transmission, as the process of sending messages across space to persuade, influence, or control others. In this lens, communication is about impact and efficiency. Trump’s communication style fits this logic almost perfectly. His speeches and media appearances are not meant to carefully explain policies or encourage debate. Instead, they deliver short, emotionally charged messages designed to provoke fear, anger, or loyalty. Immigration and crime are examples of topics that work more like wrestling promos than political debates; they create conflict, define enemies, and reaffirm Trump's position as the protagonist. This reasoning holds that even if the message is misleading or overstated, it is still successful if it draws attention and elicits a response.

The article argues that this style of communication only works because the media plays along, much like wrestling promoters do. In wrestling, promoters don’t stop a villain for causing outrage; they amplify it because controversy sells tickets. The article claims that modern news media frequently behaves in the same manner. This leads to what the article calls neo-kayfabe, where everyone knows the performance is exaggerated or misleading, but still chooses which parts to believe.

This is where Carey’s second model of communication becomes important. Alongside transmission, Carey also describes communication as ritual, which focuses less on sending information and more on creating shared meaning over time. Ritual communication in this sense is about repetition, participation, and reinforcing a common worldview. The goal is not to change someone’s mind with new facts, but to keep people emotionally connected to a shared story. When politics is viewed through this lens, it starts to look a lot like wrestling. Supporters return again and again to rallies, slogans, and media appearances not to learn something new, but to reaffirm what they already believe. 

Even though wrestling-style politics clearly works as ritual, that doesn’t mean it builds real community. Trump’s politics fit this on the surface, with rallies, slogans, and constant media attention that keep supporters emotionally invested. In The Theory of Water by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, her idea of sintering shows why this kind of ritual eventually falls apart. Sintering is about slow bonding that creates strength and durability, like snowflakes forming a snowpack. The article also adds this to corporate stories like Frito-Lay’s Richard Montañez myth, which sells an uplifting fantasy while protecting corporate power. These performances only work as long as people’s lived reality doesn’t push back. When everyday life becomes too hard, the spectacle stops working because ritual without real connection cannot last.