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/
No comments:
Post a Comment