Self-Immolation In Tibet: Beyond The Lens Of The Western Media

This thesis provides a critique of Western media articles concerning self-immolation in Tibet. I begin by illustrating how the Western media provides reductionist accounts of Tibetan self-immolation by depicting the act solely as a form of political protest in response to Chinese occupation. I argue that these limited portrayals of self-immolation can be attributed to the Shangri-La imagery that characterizes much of the Western conceptions of Tibet. Through Shangri-La imagery, both Tibetans and their Buddhist religion are portrayed as utopic, peaceful, and able to provide the antidote to solving Western problems relating to modernization and consumerism. After illustrating the ways in which Shangri-La imagery influences Western media portrayals of Tibetan self-immolation, this thesis explores the commonly disregarded Buddhist dimensions of the act. Looking to Buddhist doctrine, scripture, and history, this thesis establishes a clear relationship between self-immolation and Buddhism, which situates the act as being more complicated than mere political protest. I argue that these limited portrayals given by the Western media are problematic because they overlook a fundamental aspect of self-immolation, thus potentially misrepresenting Tibetans. This thesis explores the Buddhist dimensions of self-immolation as a possible way to further understand what has led more than one hundred Tibetans to perform this act during the time of political crisis.

Aleatory Sovereignty and the Rule of Sensitive Spaces

Addressing life in borders and refugee camps requires understanding the way these spaces are ruled, the kinds of problems rule poses for the people who live there, and the abilities of inhabitants to remake their own lives. Recent literature on such spaces has been influenced by Agamben's notion of sovereignty, which reduces these spaces and their residents to abstractions. We propose an alternate framework focused on what we call aleatory sovereignty, or rule by chance. This allows us to see camps and borders not only as the outcomes of humanitarian projects but also of anxieties about governance and rule; to see their inhabitants not only as abject recipients of aid, but also as individuals who make decisions and choices in complex conditions; and to show that while the outcome of projects within such spaces is often unpredictable, the assumptions that undergird such projects create regular cycles of implementation and failure.