We have been discussing how communication can be reimagined through different logics. The first being communication as transmission and the second being communication as ritual. Communication as transmission and transport is about sending messages across space in order to influence or control people. We usually see transmission in the media in the forms of policies or media messages and displays of power. Communication as ritual involves bringing people together, and reinforcing shared values over time. These concepts along with sintering (Leanne B. Simpson’s concept) help us better understand the article about ICE in Minnesota, showing these ideas in real life how communication is built through relational practices and not just force.
When reading this article we see that ICE operations function through transmission logic. The armed agents and the public arrests are clearly meant to send a message, to show power. The message is in no way subtle, suggesting to be afraid and stay silent. The overwhelming violence in the article works as communication and we see that in the description of the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. ICE’s actions communicate fear, but the article is showing how people resist that through ritual and sintering and we see a shift where state violence becomes a medium where power is communicated.
The article discusses how people in Minnesota respond to ICE’s transmission tactics with communication as ritual practices. Communities were organizing food deliveries, escorting children to school and checking in on families that are too scared to leave their home. These actions are maintaining the community while dealing with the pressure of ICE instead of sending messages to the federal government in attempts to persuade them.
As I mentioned briefly before by Carey, communication as ritual is concerned with maintaining shared meaning over time which happens through repetition and participation. Acts like helping delivering groceries and checking in with the community are repeated practices that reaffirm shared values. These rituals communicate belonging through a shared social world even when the state is trying to destroy it with fear. To better understand these rituals we can look at them more deeply through Simpsons concept of sintering. Simpson uses the snowflake example to help describe sintering but in the context of the Minnesota article it helps explain how resistance is built through slow, relational practices of care instead of using force or hierarchy. There is no single leader in the organization of the movement. The strength comes from networks and mutual aid. The article talks about how the participants use code names and prioritize safety over visibility, which is the opposite of what ICE is doing. These choices combined reflect a sintering approach to resistance, where the participants are bonding to one another in ways that protect the collective. The movement is able to gain power through connection this way.
The sintering approach that the protest was using helps explain the resistance’s commitment to nonviolence. MAGA influences will do everything in their power to label the peaceful protesters violent, yet the violence enters the situation through ICE and federal agents. The protest is building solidarity through presence and restraint which is reinforcing the bonds. These bonds are built through experience and moments of loss do not undo the connections. Renee Good and Alex Pretti deepen the commitment through memorials, continued patrols and participation to turn the grief into shared responsibility.
Carey’s distinction between communication as transmission and communication as ritual helps clarify what is really at stake in this Minnesota article. ICE is relying on transmission by using force and fear to communicate control. We also see this as power of coercion. Compelling participants to comply against their will or choice. In contrast the resistance that was discussed in the article operates through ritual communication by keeping community through the repeated acts of care. Simpson’s concept of sintering extends Carey’s ritual idea by showing how solidarity is built through relational and non hierarchical connections and maintained symbolically. The ritual communication in this article helps explain how shared meaning persists while the sintering explains how bonds and relationships form under pressure. The article is proving that this form of communication is rooted in care and presence and that coalition can resist state violence in ways that transmission based power can not. The article makes it clear that communities built through care and solidarity will always be stronger than a system that relies on fear
I really liked how you clearly separated transmission communication from ritual communication, especially your point that state violence itself can function as a form of communication. Your explanation that ICE operations communicate fear and control through visible displays of force was very powerful and helped me better understand Carey’s idea that communication can operate as a tool of power rather than just information sharing. These very public arrests and deaths are really magnified by the virility of them and cause the great power of fear.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion made me think about how ritual communication often relies on repeated everyday practices rather than large public events. The examples you mentioned, like escorting children to school or delivering groceries, reminded me of how communication can build community identity through routine participation. This can be subtle or very clear. It also made me think about how these actions resemble other mutual aid movements that operate through small but consistent acts of support. For example, during crises like natural disasters or public health emergencies, community members often organize supply sharing or neighbourhood support networks where effected can temporally live. These activities seem to function similarly to what you describe in Minnesota, where communication is less about persuading institutions and more about maintaining social bonds and shared responsibility.
Your post also made me think about how digital media might strengthen these ritual and sintering practices. While ICE may use surveillance and public enforcement as transmission communication, mutual aid networks often rely on group messaging, social media coordination, and alert systems to protect communities. These platforms seem to blend transmission and ritual communication because they allow people to quickly share safety information while also reinforcing community identity and trust. In that sense, technology becomes a space where relational communication can expand beyond physical neighbourhoods.
Another connection I thought about was how ritual communication often uses emotional storytelling and memorial practices to strengthen solidarity. You mentioned how memorials and collective grieving reinforce community bonds after moments of loss. This reminded me of how public vigils, remembrance events, or online tribute spaces often serve as communication rituals that transform grief into collective responsibility.
Since these movements rely heavily on emotional connection, trust, and repeated participation, do you think they risk burnout or fragmentation without formal leadership structures? Or do you think their decentralized and relational nature actually makes them more resilient compared to political organizations?