The Idea of Media

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Arvind Rajagopal

Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa by Isabel Hofmeyr

November 21, 2020 by Arvind Rajagopal Leave a Comment

Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa[1]

 

Isabel Hofmeyr, University of the Witwatersrand and NYU

 

The most interesting academic work in the Global South has always had to be home-made.  Scholars have had to rely on improvisation to negotiate the exigencies of the “third world” academy, distorted by colonial exclusion and postcolonial austerity.

 

Thinking about the histories and formations of Media Studies and related disciplines in the Global South requires reckoning with these circumstances.  This article sketches how these constraints have played out in southern African, tracing how various players have maneuvered around them, producing a landscape of rich scholarship and public intellectual discourse.

 

*

 

Under colonial segregation and then apartheid, black intellectuals had little access to “white” tertiary institutions or to white-dominated publishing domains.  One major response was to set up the black press as a key site of intellectual production. This work in turn generated theorizations of the media and the politics of representation.  As I have argued elsewhere, Gandhi’s South African newspaper, Indian Opinion and his printing press functioned as a medium of information and as a site for theorizing ideas of reading and writing which in turn provided models of satyagraha (Hofmeyr 2013). 

 

These activist-inspired theories of media have powerful lineages in southern Africa.  The influential Black Consciousness movement of the 1970s and 1980s pursued practices of psychological liberation and existential freedom rather than grand political schemes.  The artisanal media they used (roneo-ed pamphlets, hand-made posters, poetry performances) enacted their philosophies in miniature. More recently, the post-apartheid student movements, #RhodesmustFall and #Feesmustfall sparked extensive debate about legacies of white-dominated media and curriculum and how these might be decolonized. Matching form and content, these projects were pursued through a repertoire of genres – durational performance, public art interventions, actual and metaphorical burning.  Like much black intellectual activity in South Africa, these latter initiatives took shape in a black Atlantic matrix, drawing on, and feeding into Black Lives Matter.

 

These media practices took shape outside or on the peripheries of academic institutions.  Inside these universities, academic disciplines related to the study of media started to take shape. These emerged initially from a Cold War crucible, taking shape as Communication Science, with strong footholds in white Afrikaans-medium institutions. These legacies persist.  South Africa’s largest tertiary institution, the correspondence University of South Africa still offers a bachelor’s degree in “Communication Science”.  One might regard the persistence of such paradigms as a type of intellectual dumping. Models from Euro-America make their way to the peripheries where they assume after-lives that exceed their sell-by dates. Academic fields in the Global South can hence be strange amalgams shaped by the accumulating detritus of older schools of thoughts.

 

Within white English-medium institutions in the 1970s and 80s, neo-Marxist models in the form of cultural studies emerged amongst dissidents in English departments and as a broader “history-from-below” movement across the social sciences. The regional politics of southern Africa with Mozambican and Angolan independence in 1975, followed by Zimbabwe in 1980 created new networks and academic formations. The Centre for Communication, Media and Society at the University of Natal, Durban formed part of a Nordic-funded venture between the English Department at the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) and the Oslo University Media and Cultural Studies program. An important strand in this configuration was an emergent African cultural studies, apparent in the work of Kimani Gecau a Kenyan exile in Zimbabwe who had worked with Ngugi wa Thiongo’s radical Kamiriithu Theatre project (Tomaselli, Mboti, Rønnig 2013).

 

The mounting post-independence crisis in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe led to Nordic funding being withdrawn and academics from the UZ-Oslo project relocating to South Africa where several scholars became important players in establishing or strengthening Media Studies departments. These departments continue to produce innovative scholarship on African, decolonial and popular cultural approaches to Media Studies (for example Chiumbu and Iqani 2020).

 

*

 

These developments were not without their own fault lines which are worth keeping in mind in order to offset overly romanticized views.  A useful illustration of such romanticization emerged around the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of EP Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (Hofmeyr 2015). The Making had been influential in left-wing scholarship in South Africa and Thompsonian-style social history inspired a “history from below’” movement. This development precipitated a major shift in the social science traditions of white English universities (as well as in emerging cultural and media studies paradigms) largely towards class-based analyses of racial capitalism in South Africa.  The 2013 anniversary sparked several accounts which celebrated the reach of The Making in South Africa and the radical anti-apartheid scholarship that it enabled. 

 

Yet, as Shireen Ally has demonstrated, the class-based analyses of the Thompsonian moment have to be contextualized in the emergence of Black Consciousness.  As she argues, “What Marxism’s class analysis offered this group of intellectuals was not just a powerful theoretical lens to explain apartheid, but a powerful political tool for white intellectuals to deal more comfortably with questions of race” (Ally 2005, 73). Faced with a separatist black-led organization, white radicals found themselves without a leadership or revolutionary role. One response to these changed circumstances was to embrace a class-based analysis and/or a nonracial African National Congress-United Democratic Front position.

 

Having been part of the “history from below” movement myself, I was asked to write something on The Making (Hofmeyr 2015).  Taking a book history approach and drawing on Ally’s work, I explored these configurations by comparing the marginalia in The Making with those in Biko’s I Write What I Like (IWWIL), using copies in South African libraries. In the case of The Making, marginalia reflected dutiful student engagement with the text: underlining, highlighting, asterisking. With one exception – a volume that had originally belonged to an academic – no words or phrases were written in the margins. It is as if The Making is so massive and monumental that it leaves no room for responses. All that South African reader can do is dutifully internalize it, rather like an imperial kit from the metropolis.

 

The copies of IWWIL by contrast provide evidence of a more engaged relationship with the text. In addition to the usual student markings, the edges of the pages teemed with annotations, questions, thoughts and exclamations. “What do we do when we found [sic] consciousness” mused one reader, referencing a major debate about the tactical difficulties facing any movement propounding psychological liberation. IWWIL turned readers into annotators, creating writers from readers, even if only on a miniature scale. The extent of the book’s influence is also apparent from the regularity with which it gets stolen from libraries and bookshops. The Johannesburg Public Library has had six copies taken out and never returned, producing the poignant entry “Biko, Steve. Long Overdue.”

 

*

 

Rather like the marginalia in IWWIL, academic work in the Global South has taken shape in constrained spaces.  Nonetheless scholars have produced rich and insightful work. From the redoubts of the Global North, this scholarship remains largely invisible. In keeping with the aims of this site, this article has drawn attention to the historical trajectories, regional patterns and political fault lines that have shaped Media Studies as a discipline in southern Africa and the innovative scholarship that has emerged, often against the odds. 

 

 

 

References Cited

 

Ally, Shireen. 2005. “Oppositional Intellectualism as Reflection, not Rejection, of Power: Wits Sociology, 1975–1989.” Transformations 59: 66–97.

 

Chiumbu, Sarah and Mehita Iqani.  2020. Media Studies: Critical African and Decolonial Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Hofmeyr, Isabel. 2013. Gandhi’s Printing Press: Experiments in Slow Reading.  Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

 

Hofmeyr, Isabel. 2015. “South African Remains: E. P. Thompson, Biko, and the Limits of The Making of the English Working Class.” Historical Reflections 41, no. 1: 99–110.

 

Tomaselli, Keyan, Nyasha Mboti, Helge Rønnig. 2013. “South-North Perspectives: The Development of Cultural and Media Studies in Southern Africa.” Media, Culture and Society 35, no. 1: 36–43.

 

[1] My thanks to Mehita Iqani for advice on the historiographies of Media Studies in South Africa. 

Filed Under: Institutions

On Communication by Sanil V.

September 9, 2020 by Arvind Rajagopal Leave a Comment

On Communication Studies

What can communication studies tell us about human communication while retaining the critical edge and pluralism of the term “studies”? This question becomes more pertinent now when fake news, hate speech and fanaticism have found global driving power in algorithmic rationality. Crowd sourcing has rendered learning of language unnecessary. Media as technologically enabled and networked memory opens up the future through distraction and   panic. That ‘pure communicability’ is available to usexternalized in machines should be a fortunate moment for anyone who wishes to study communication. An attempt to reflectively inhabit communication could benefit from counting on the following salient features of the latter: affective investment in truth; a radical opening to addressing; and the diversification of media as memory-technics by reinventing the cognitive power of myth that renegotiates the divide between nature and culture.

 

In India, from the camera to the mobile phone, the advent of every new media is welcomed as opportunity to give voice to the hitherto silenced sections of the society.  The graded inequality between castes is often cited as an impediment to unleashing the potential of communicative reason. However, the social theories of caste society, despite the strident calls of a phatic politics, have not shown much excitement in proceeding within the ambit of a theory of communicative action. Such a theory would count on our ability to redeem the implicit validity claims of truth, rightness and truthfulness. However, the experiences of humiliation drag some to linguistic dispossession that no dialectics between the self and other could possibly redeem. Ambedkar had ignited the spark of theoretical unrest by inverting the relation between caste and communication by locating the origin of caste hatred in an original stifling of communication that transcendental reflection cannot penetrate. He poses the problem in terms of a society’s relationship with truth and how truth inflects human existence.

 

Ambedkar proposed a diagnosis of the lack of life in the intellectual systems of India that had made remarkable achievements in ancient times. In the Philosophy of Hinduism, he asked why did the profound truth discovered by the Upanishads turn out to be ineffective in creating the sciences of the future? How could such profound thoughts allow the society to sustain the inhumanity of caste? Here Ambedkar distinguishes between cognition of truth and love for truth.

 

“The philosophers of Upanishads did not realise that to know truth was not enough. One must learn to love truth. The difference between philosophy and religion may be put in two ways. Philosophy is concerned with knowing truth. Religion is concerned with the love of truth. Philosophy is static. Religion is dynamic. These differences are merely two aspects of one and the same thing. Philosophy is static because it is concerned only with knowing truth.”[1]

 

For Ambedkar, philosophy in India pursued the cognitive access to truth without caring for the love of truth. This passion is irreducible to a validity claim implicit in acts of communication. Also, the love for truth is a very potent one. If it is not cared for and kept at a distance from the life and love of simple human beings, it turns into hatred. Such a truth-seeking enterprise could do nothing against the hate and infamy spread by the laws of Manu. As Ambedkar’s European contemporary Husserl observed, the pursuit of ruthless cognition in Indian systems of thought remain entrapped in the mindless repetition in closed communities. Truth without love failed to affect the human existence as such. We did not become us by relation to one-self and others in relation to truth. With colonialism this truth-indifferent and caste hating society will encounter the West that had imposed sanctions against lying. According to Benjamin, ban on lying and fraud killed the non-violent potential of communication[2]. Hopefully, a communication studies that takes the passion for truth seriously will write the history of the violent encounter between caste and colonialism.

 

Ramachandra Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and a student of the British philosopher Peter Strawson, argued as early as in the 1970s that addressing is the decisive presupposition of human communication. He affirmed the primacy of communication over the transport of meaning or information. It is not a matter of convention or intention.

 

The address relates saying to the happening of saying. For Gandhi, reported speech is the paradigm of communication. While Austin claims that all saying is doing, Gandhi found saying in all doing. Addressing is the disavowal of the causal efficacy of communication. Telling someone something is a matter of ‘not really’ trying to get someone to believe something, or trying to get him to believe that the speaker believes something. Communicative competence is an ability to grasp and perform acts of “not really” trying do anything causally efficacious. Addressing is the nonviolence that opens up every act to communication. The addressing cannot be accounted in any dialectic between the self and the other. It is a gesture that opens up the saying to its own ‘circum-ambient’ silence, noise and nothingness. It offers a vulnerable spot  in our communicative networks where hate speech can be tempted to take the risk of transforming itself into slogans of solidarity.

 

The priority of technicity over ethnicity has fostered the hope that technological media can open up the potential for overcoming racial and ethnic stereotyping and segregation. In India, the digital media, despite the digital divide, is celebrated for its potential to cut across the caste class and gender divide. However, the suicide of Devika, a fourteen-year-old lower caste girl in Kerala (the most literate state of India), for not being able to join virtual classes during the pandemic, belies this hope [3]. It may be seen as a sad and hasty response to the lack of technological resources that, had she waited a few days, the family, community or state would have provided for. The premature closure of the future horizon of a child when faced with a technological challenge demands us to rethink the conception of techno-media as a common fund of the tertiary retentions[4] of humanity. The technical is haunted by differences prior to culture and ethnicity. The advent of colonial technology was met with fear and suspicion, on the one hand and hope and excitement on the other. The colonial destruction of indigenous technical practices and the post-colonial adventures with the digital demand a historicity that overwhelms memory and meaning. This history runs through jugaad (makeshift), entertainment, hacking and endless migrations of impoverished craftsmen. Can the communication studies give voice to the ghosts Devika might have encountered in the digital?

 

In civilizations such as India, media, memory and technique need elaboration as myth. Myth was neither ideology as a mistaken science nor a failed technology. As scholars from Giorgio de Santillana to Michel Serres teach us, myth was directedly involved in the generation and perpetuation of data about cosmic events like the precession of the equinoxes. “Myths can be used as a vehicle for handing down solid knowledge independent of the degree of insight of the people who do the actual telling of stories, fables, etc”. This knowledge is generated and transmitted without involving the subjective conditions of the knower. The gnomon, tracked the cosmos by letting the sun cast a shadow on earth and not through the telescope that presupposes a transcendental subject – the man – behind the eye-piece. Media is myth before message and myth is measurement before meaning. Myth places media at once in nature and culture  also in metaphysics and ethics forcing us to be alert about rape in the MUD game of LambdaMOO[5] –  incidentally brought to light by the avatar Dr Bombay! – and Devika’s suicidal encounter with the real of digital learning.                  

 

-Sanil.V

IIT Delhi                    

 

[1] Ambedkar.B.R (1987), Philosophy of Hinduism in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, ed. Hari Narake (New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation), p 86

[2] Benjamin Walter (1996), Critique of Violence in Selected Writings vol 1913-26 ed. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings. (Cambridge: The Belknap Press/Harvard University Press) P 244

[3] https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/malappuram-student-commits-suicide-allegedly-over-missing-online-class-1.4800626

[4] Stiegler, Bernard (1998), Technics and Time vol 1. Tran by Richard Beardsworth and George Collins, (Stanford: Stanford University Press,  P 246

[5] Dibbell, Julian (1998). “A Rape in Cyberspace”. My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World. (
New York: Owl). p. 11–30. http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-rape-in-cyberspace/

 

 

Filed Under: Undoing/Rethinking

Audiences and Algorithms by Guillermo Orozco-Gómez

August 17, 2020 by Arvind Rajagopal Leave a Comment

 A brief look at the contemporary “audience”.

 These days, more than in any previous era, citizens of the “civilized world” live as audiences and Internet users of old and new media and communication devices. This condition in which we spend several hours a day receiving, sending and exchanging information with others, many others, known or unknown, allows us a great capacity to send and receive images, sounds and data in different channels and formats, which may amuses us or makes life and work easier for us, but at the same time it makes us more vulnerable as citizens, precisely because the data, content and meanings that we construct and exchange are exposed, and most of the time beyond our control.

A paradox of current times is that while we have the possibility of accessing more information, as it had never been possible, at the same time we leave a lot of our own and even intimate information available to others, as we never would have imagined. In terms of communication, citizens today are increasingly vulnerable to hackers, the exhibitionism of data or intimate images, the improper use of our image, the theft of our desires and preferences, or the theft of our ideas and productions.

 

Audiences as objects of a new colonization. 

This contemporary situation demands a new perspective for the research of today’s audiences/users. A perspective that, at the same time that makes it clear to us citizens the way in which we are being colonized by informatics, gives us elements to avoid the growing espionage of our actions and the systematic looting of our data, resulted from our information exchanges.

What the current situation makes more evident than ever is that, despite decades of research, the audience-Internet users remain unknown by themselves. Audiences are only known to commercial groups, digital information monopolies like Facebook, Amazon, etc. and increasingly by governments and national and extra-national political agents.

The widespread ignorance of audiences as audiences is not a casual result, less a necessary result or the price to pay for the usufruct of various contemporary technologies. Nor is it due to their own negligence, or lack of care regarding the information they upload, share and post. Their self-ignorance is the product of a research that systematically excludes them. A research that historically has focused on the extraction of data from audiences for the benefit of others and even for the abuse and exploitation of the same audiences.

This has been the case of rating, later the case of opinion polls, and later of focus groups implemented by the mass media, and it is the case with the various observations and records of citizens’ digital interactions by computer consortia and government agencies or by big streaming and VoD service companies like Netflix and Amazon; what today are known as algorithms.

 

Extractive strategies in audience research.

Television audiences, especially, as a subject and object of communicational research continue to feed increasingly accurate rating studies to define the market’s advertising and sale policies on the various television channels and on social networks. From companies such as Nielsen or IBOPE, now Kantar-Ibope, and others, the methodology of “counting”, or rating, has been sophisticated and for several years it is possible  cross-matching data on purchases in shopping malls by those who watch certain programs at certain times, or use particular social networks, which provides advertisers with valuable knowledge to be more accurate in the moments and programmatic content in which they would be most likely to be seen by those audiences who like those products. The rating data has been a gold mine for advertisers who, with increasing certainty and lower spending, achieve their sales objectives.

In parallel with the rating, they developed opinion polls that, in a way, make respondents feel privileged, because they are asked for their opinion on important events or people, and that regardless of their docile acceptance to answer the questions, most times they don’t get to know the results. It is the pollsters who count and draw trends and conclusions that serve various purposes, most of them political, in the short or medium term.

In many opinion polls, at least the respondents are approached personally and directly, either individually or in groups; and although the data collection is visible, unlike the rating or algorithms, that are invisible, they cannot be openly influenced by those from whom the information is extracted. That is, by those who have submitted their answers

As with the rating, opinion polls to citizens, more than proper scientific research methods, have been and are increasingly better structured political marketing strategies, which serve those who implement them to have fast and accurate information to know the moves to make, whether in the definition of public policies or against external threats or simply for the election of their candidates. Other altruistic purposes for the poll-taking, even for the benefit of the respondents themselves, do not eliminate the extraction that is carried out, nor the secrecy or opacity in the handling of information and the definition of conclusions that affect them.

Algorithms, like the rating, are fundamentally quantitative strategies for audience research whose leitmotiv is the extraction of data and knowledge about the various audiences, not for their benefit but for their submission to the will of big commercial and political companies.

The algorithms contain information that can only be obtained by quantitatively extrapolating individual data, most of it extracted from the participation of citizens in social networks. Data on the behavior of millions of citizens that are inadvertently captured and counted to have a “meta-information”, that is, information beyond itself, and thus a great cognitive advantage from which to derive knowledge to make decisions about the supply and sale of tangible or non-tangible goods.

 As suggested by Garcia Canclini (2020), algorithmic information is only known by companies capable of gathering millions of individual data from specific citizens, to have an overall vision on certain issues.

Citizens cannot access the algorithms, but we do feel their effects. For example, when Netflix offers us a personalized menu on our screen, such as the following: “Since you watched this series, you may be interested in watching this other…”

The scientific paradigm behind extractive audience research.

A big problem with audience research is that its strategy of “data collection” was justified at the time – and continues to be so – by the predominance of a positivist scientific paradigm, for which producing scientific knowledge is synonymous with producing data through a quantitative perspective of understanding reality and its objects and phenomena. Thus, the dominant idea of ​​scientific research in the field of communication and audience studies has been to value as scientific knowledge what can be counted and therefore verifiable, and therefore reliable to make decisions regarding the reality it refers to. Decisions, not coming from those who give the information, but of those who collect that information

In the 1980s took place what has been called the “battle of the paradigms”, fought, mostly although not exclusively, by, in and from the universities. For example, at Harvard (where I was studying my doctorate: 1983-1985) courses on cultural analysis, ethnography, in-depth interviews and other qualitative research methods or strategies were added to the offer of courses on “scientific method”.

In other academic locations and universities the same thing happened. In 1987 The British Film Institute convened what has been the first international conference on the investigation of TV audiences: Television and its Audience, held in London, in which among others were Sonia Livingston and David Buckingham, who have been since then prolific qualitative researchers of audience interactions and their television literacy (Orozco, 1988).

At the IAMCR (International Association for Media and Communication Research) audience studies were understood as quantitative studies. Several colleagues: Klaus Jensen (Denmark) Robert White (England) and James Lull (USA), all audience researchers, and myself (Mexico) proposed in 1990 to open a working group within the Association that we called: Qualitative Audience Studies. This proposal was approved, but it was on trial for several years, until in the mid-1990s it was formally accepted as a formal research group in the Association.

This was not only a bureaucratic victory, but also an international academic recognition of the qualitative perspective in the “scientific” investigation of the audiences. The space at the IAMCR meant a legitimate call for audience researchers from any country to present the results of their qualitative research at conferences. This legitimation effort culminated in a qualitative multinational investigation in nine countries, including Mexico, the results of which were published as a book: News of the world. World cultures look at TV News, edited by Klaus B. Jensen (1998), coordinator of the global research.

Towards a horizontal, empowering knowledge in qualitative audience research.

Although the qualitative research perspective allowed asking other questions about the audience and focusing on other elements to understand in a more comprehensive way the impact of the media on their culture, on their beliefs and on their entertainment, by itself it did not modify the vertical intervention towards the investigated subjects, nor the formulation of conclusions, “outside” the research situations.

The missing key to this historical process has been the very conception of the production of the knowledge sought and the type of questions and research methodology with the audiences, as well as their inclusion in the research results as interlocutors, not only as respondents.

Martín-Barbero (1980) has posed this challenge very clearly when he emphasizes that what is serious is not so much that the research objectives are external to those investigated and their particular circumstances, but that the research structures themselves are exogenous: question guide, diagnosis of the situation, etcetera. This has to do with the subject-object relationship, and especially with the researcher-researched link. It is in the type of link that is established where the horizontal production of knowledge is defined as an epistemological and methodological perspective to carry out an inclusive research of the investigated subjects (Corona, 2020).

Achieving the inclusion of those investigated and “their worlds” must give up the idea of ​​science, but not the idea of the validation of the knowledge that is sought and obtained, to focus precisely on the production of collective knowledge. Knowledge that arises from a process of dialogue between the participants of an investigation. A process that begins with the shared objective of what to know and how to do it, and that continues with the analytical exchange of information considered useful to build a new understanding about a situation or information and its repercussions on the participants

An inclusive research, then, moves away from the use of detached techniques, to rely on language itself and on dialogue, from which understandings of the dialogic object and new questions should emerge to enrich the dialogue.

The key to a non-colonial knowledge, that is, “not extracted from” but “co-produced by” the participants in a peer-to-peer audience research is not what these audiences receive but what they produce from their reception in a process of interlocution with the screen and with others. The role of the researcher in an investigative-emancipatory process of the audiences is then to make evident what is not, by itself, to build from that recognition the dialogue of the group of participants and reach conclusions

 

 Bibliography

Corona, Sarah. (2020) Producción Horizontal del Conocimiento. CALAS, University of   Guadalajara, Mexico.

García- Canclini, N. (2020) Ciudadanos reemplazados por algoritmos, CALAS, University  of Guadalajara, Mexico.

Jensen, Klaus B. (1998) News of the World. World cultures look at television news.   Routledge, London.

Martin-Barbero, Jesús (1980) Retos a la investigación de comunicación en América Latina, Comunicación y Cultura No. 9. Mexico.

Orozco, Guillermo (1988) Research on cognitive effects of non-educational television: an epistemological discussion. In Drummond and Paterson : Television and its Audience. British Film Institute. London.

 

 

Guillermo Orzco-Gomez, Emeritus National Researcher, University  of Guadalajara, Mexico. Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7943-2217

Filed Under: Objects

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa by Isabel Hofmeyr
  • On Communication by Sanil V.
  • Audiences and Algorithms by Guillermo Orozco-Gómez
  • The Decolonial Option by Melody Jue
  • Miscommunication by Arjun Appadurai

Recent Comments

    Categories

    • Ideologies
    • Institutions
    • Objects
    • Undoing/Rethinking

    Archives

    • November 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
    • Ideologies
    • Institutions
    • Objects
    • Undoing/Rethinking

    Copyright © 2025 · Agency Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in