kaymac 3.20.08

I think this reading and class had to be one of my favorites. This reading is what happens when a really smart postmodern theorist gets pissed at our world and decides to write about it. I can just see Adorno and Horkheimer going to Wal-Mart and walking into the shampoo section. Here, you have hundreds of different shampoos, all in different colored bottles and shapes advertising that they can make your hair longer, smoother, curlier, straighter, bouncier, flippier, browner, blonder, natural, permed, unnatural, redder, sexier, stringier, and so on and so forth.

My favorite quote that we discussed in class was this:

“Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness.” 57

I really liked how somebody in class related this to the gladiators in Roman times. In a way, our society is still like that. Only this time we have more advanced technology that doesn't actually kill people but ultimately, it's all the same. News programs constantly bombard us with "breaking news!" and "astonishing reveals!" about our society. People watch the news for this. The news says that this is what we want to watch. And relating this back to what Dr. Tillmann said about Anna Nicole Smith's death and people actually not caring about it, what the article failed to mention was that people still watched it. People still watched the stories on the news about Anna Nicole's death while a couple channels over there were stories on the news about the economy and the decline of the public education systems. So what came first, the chicken or the egg?

We have become mindless peons of our society. We perpetuate the sameness that is so apparent in our society. In my paper for Dr. Tillman's class, I spoke about how subcultures form because youth, through the disappointment in not finding an identity through ISAs, turn to each other in order to find their identity and that is how subcultures form. Then, like what A and H were saying:

“The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power.” 47

which plays out like this: genuine style--->accepted/edited style--->next trend

So we try to oppose our society because we're unhappy with it and the differences are then produced into an accepted style which ultimately becomes the sameness that we opposed in the first place.

Please, tell me, how does this make any sense?

NewYorker 3/20

First of all - that reading for homework was brutal - the pages were single paragraphs, making it very hard on the eyes, and making me almost anxious while reading, as I kept wanting and anticipating a break in the page. However, they did manage to say quite a lot, and some of it was complicated. Today's class would have helped clarify better, for me at least, if we did not break up into groups. It is so hard to discuss the quotes with classmates, because we are never sure if we are saying the right thing, or something even close to the author's intention. It is also harder when people you are paired with did not do the reading, or if they are as clueless as you are. I like the discsussion better when you present it to us first, and we discuss as a whole class together (which is what we wound up doing at the end anyway).
One of the quotes that really interested me that we spoke about was, · “amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness” (57). I never realized how true this is, and we do this constantly, maybe on a daily basis. When it hit me though was when you showed the characters from South Park. I've only seen the one about Starvin Marvin, so what you said about it I agree with - there are actually people in Ethiopia that look like that, because they are malnutritioned and die rather quickly. It is a true and awful subject, yet here we are in America, poking fun at it by making a cartoon character out of a sad issue. But it is amusing to us, so we push back the sad realities of life to get a quick laugh or enjoy the show being presented to us. We do become powerless, unless we act out and taking a stand saying that it is wrong. But this is such a hard thing to do, especially when it is one versus many - change may be very slow, or even unattainable.

July-->Horkheimer & Adorno

From the reading about The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception I picked out two quotes that were significant to me and for my classmates to consider when reviewing this section. The first quote, “What is not mentioned is that the basis on which technology is gaining power over society is the power of those whose economic position in society is strongest (pg. 42). Hegemony plays a major role in this quote because new inventions and media have been producing rapidly but there are steps to this market production. Before these creations are put out on the market it has to receive administrative approval. The administration considers currency productivity before materials are released because it has to compensate for the money put into the product. Karl Marx supports this quote by stating that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”

Most products and forms of media displayed on the market are for pleasure rather than for beneficial reasoning. This leads to the quote, “Not only does it persuade them that its fraud is satisfaction; it also gives them to understand that they must make do with what is offered, whatever it may be (pg. 55).” Consumers consume for different reasons but one common motive is being economical. Products promise satisfaction when being advertised, but some don’t live up to their expectations which result to recalls or banishment from the market. America is a short term orientated country, which means we produce at a rapid pace rather than a long and progressive rate. Dr. Rog relates to this type of productivity, he once stated in class that “Our values depend on what it is worth.” Instead of consumers doing their research on their investments they often end-up with dissatisfaction.

kMO Horkheimer and Adorno

On page 50 Horkheimer and Adorno discuss “the relationship to the past.” The comparison of mass culture to late liberalism is based on the idea of the exclusion of the new. Put in simpler terms, in the film industry any manuscript which is not reassuringly based on a best-seller is viewed with mistrust. This hesitation is also seen across most mass-media industries. Horkheimer and Adorno state that “tempo and dynamism are paramount.” This basically means that we are always in motion. We are always searching for something new and living in the moment instead of placing what we already have on a pedestal and letting it sit in time. I recently read an article by Butler and she discusses the difference between art and fashion. She says that art is timeless and is admired for what it is whereas fashion is ever-changing and criticized for what it could be. In my opinion this idea parallels what Horkeimer and Adorno are trying to say. In fact this next quote supports my point. “The frozen genres - sketch, short story, problem film, hit song represent the average of late liberal taste threateningly imposed as a norm. “ An interesting thought that these two theorists brought up was the idea that the more all-embracing that the culture industry has become the more it has forced the outsider into bankruptcy or a syndicate. Apparently some people believe that entertainment or “light art” betrays pure expression….

However, what I would really like to know is what the difference between light art and autonomous art is? If anyone can offer a good explanation I would really appreciate your comment underneath my blog…Thanks!

Sgt. Pepper, Horkheimer and Adorno

While reading Horkheimer and Adorno's article, "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception," I found a lot of parallels with other authors we have read. For instance, one of first concepts they talk about is the false reality films give to people, which goes right along with Benjamin's theory of film and its falsities. Both authors also talk about the lack of art found in film today, and how it's becoming mostly politics. A few other people in their posts seemed to be upset by their quote about film and how it no longer should be considered an art, but could be better described as trash. Before jumping all over them though, I think people might be taking what they said too literally and not looking at the factors behind the statement. What I think they meant was that while there are great films being produced every year, there are many many more bad films being produced. These films they are referring to are the corporate-influenced and the corporate-funded films. This goes along with the thesis of their article, which is the overwhelming totality in our culture and how it's affecting every aspect of our lives.

"As a result, the word, which henceforth is allowed only to designate something and not mean it, becomes so fixated on the object that it hardens to a formula."
An interesting point they made was ideology's influence in the development of language. They explained that through advertising, and through how we communicate in response to advertising, our language changes every day. Most definitions in Webster's now have their own little twist thanks to our culture. In the same manner, our emotions and even our thoughts, are all controlled by the ideology of our culture, and also could be argued to be controlled by corporations.

"All are free to dance and amuse themselves, just as, since the historical neutralization of religion, they have been free to join any of the countless sects...But freedom to choose ideology, which always reflects economic coercion, everywhere proves to be freedom to be the same." Horkheimer and Adorno end their article with this quote. Like Hebdige, they claim that we cannot get away from ideology and hegemony the ruling class creates. Ugh.

Bumble: Horkheimer and Adorno

Most of the responses to this piece triggered me to think about what we TRULY feel about this shift in art for arts sake verse art for profit. While it is so easy to attack the notion that the purpose of doing this for money is wrong or even "evil," it is actaully a pretty hypocritical statement. It seems to be sad yet we all recieve enjoyment from it! Jiggy had talked about our progression from the bare minimals to this need or obsession with getting items and commodities. This objectively seems to be very easy to critique. Money can easily be equated with evil, but at the same timne... why do we all want it soooo badly!? If I really thought about it, I would not want to necesarilly live with the bare essentials. We are so accustomed to a life with an abundance of wonderful goods. It is important to not take it for granted, howevwer we would really have no way of knowing the pain of being on the opposite end, starving or not being able to enjoy art which is produced for money's sake. Money is not a quality or value of life, however maybe we should simply appreciate what we have and enjoy it because we are supposed to love and enjoy the guilty pleasures of life.

Kaymac has expressed that it was upsetting as to what is qualified as art today however maybe we should just embrace what is happening with it. We can have a great appreciation for art, but its exciting because in another day an entirely new form of asrt culture might arise!

Also, as starfish said, our art forms are a direct connection with culture and so as cultures are constantly morphing over space and time, so will our art forms.

Horkheimer and Adorno, DetectiveDanny

This was a very interesting article about how culture has been industrialized and marketed to us over the years, but I have one hang up with the article that I cant get over. In the beginning of the article, they argue that “films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce”. “Trash”? In an industry that run so smoothly that people hardly notice, how can we discern what is trash?
By using the word trash, Horkheimer and Adorno immediately distance themselves from me. When looking at the movie and music industry, of course we have to realize that there is a very visible bottom line. If a movie studio, an important mechanism in the culture industry, releases a movie knowing full well that it is trash and that people will willingly consume the trash then we cant call it trash anymore. Taste evolves with ideology and now as our culture is ruled by apathy, we can not get enough of what they refer to as “trash”.
“Amusement, free of all restraint, would be not only the opposite of art but its complimentary extreme. Absurdity in the manner of Mark Twain, with which the American culture industry flirts with from time to time, could be a corrective to art” but why cant art be amusement? I believe that there is a certain art to amusement and entertainment, an art that is absolutely connected with culture. As we discuss the culture industry and its productions, I cant help but think of Marx and the question of what came first, ideology or individual thought. We can ask the same with culture and art and which of those came first. To me, art is such an intangible force, but as I side with Marx on the previous question, art is definitely a product of the current collective conscious or ideology of the time.

Starfish Horkheimer/Adorno

In Horkheimer and Adorno’s writing, two things really grabbed my attention. ”Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce” (42). I thought this quote was very intense but made sense to me. In the entertainment world, is it still about creating beauty and art or is it about making money? For example, I really enjoy the Harry Potter films. To me, they are fun and beautifully done. Warner Brothers is the company that puts out these films. Is the company concerned with the beauty and art of these films, or just the money? I believe that they want these films to be well done not for arts sake but to make a profit. The better the films are, the more money they make off of them. To me this is sad. Film is something wonderful. It is a chance for people to show off their artistic sides and transport the viewer into a different world. When you mix this with business and money the film loses its charm and mystique.

“The mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” 43.
“…The differences, even between the more expensive and cheaper products from the same firm, are shrinking…” (43).
I really like this concept because brand name shopping has always amazed me. When people go shopping they usually tend to always look at the clothing from brands that they are familiar with. Because the name is well known and the clothing is popular, they feel that they are purchasing a better quality product. The truth is, these clothes are probably the same quality as something much cheaper. Because the name “Gucci” or “Fendi” is slapped on it, it automatically increases in its worth. I was just in Paris over spring break and I went shopping with my friends. We went into Hermes and looked around. My friend really loved this bracelet in the store. All it was was a black string with a piece of metal on it. The price was outrageous for what it was, but because Hermes was slapped on it, they can get away with it.

kaymac horkheimer/adorno

I have a beef with today’s art. I was walking through the Winter Park Art Festival, a festival which I have been going to since I can remember (my mom did the southern art show circuit when I was young and always brought my sisters and me along) and I felt severely disappointed. Not only that, but it did not surprise me that I was disappointed. Did anybody happen to see the best in show piece? It was a slab of wood on the wall that was grooved and polished! A slab of wood! Art just doesn’t have the same flair it does anymore. It lacks the zest that it had in the 60’s and 70’s and even the 80’s. Or maybe I expect too much from art. Either way, that is why I love this quote from the Horkheimer/Adorno reading:

“Yet it is only in its struggle with tradition, a struggle precipitated in style, that art can find expression for suffering (48).”

I think that as a viewer, I’m expecting art to be what it mean in a time of revolution. As an artist, we are struggling with these older (traditional) methods and styles and we are trying to make them our own. As viewers and artists, we are not visualizing the new form that any kind of art and even culture can take with the world we live in today. It’s like building a skyscraper out of bricks when steel is available. It just does not make sense anymore.

Or, you can look at this quote in another way. Because we as a culture are struggling with who we are, we are able to develop outlets for the suffering and troubles (like the one I mentioned above) that we are going through. So we are going to find this new art form only if we keep on struggling with our problem of looking back on the past too much.

Either way, the Winter Park Art Festival sucked. And since the Winter Park Public Library buys the Best in Show piece every year from the festival and displays it in the library for eternity and I happen to work at the Winter Park Public Library, I get to stare at it all the time now. Whoopee.

ChittyChittyBangBang Horkheimer/Adorno

I really enjoyed this article on the Culture Industry. It reminds me a bit of the topic I chose for my Theory Praxis paper. The two points in this article that I related to the most was the idea of production being ultimately the same and the fact that films are passed through a culture industry filter as well.

"But the differences, even between the more expensive and cheaper products from the same firm, are shrinking..." (43)
People tend to become attracted or attached to a certain brand and will purchase those items (even if they are more expensive) to either express their social/economical status or just because they have been convinced that it is the better item. Advertising can play a huge role in this. An example of this is water bottles, they are all essentially the same thing but people usually still have a preference. I almost always purchase Dasani and I'm not even sure why. I have heard that Dasani is the best for you and then I have heard that its actually really bad for you, I'm not sure if I think either of those claims makes sense. It reminds me of a Saturday Night Live skit I saw a few years back, a French waiter was going in the back and filling up glasses from a hose and telling them it was certain brands of water. Of course the couple could not even tell a difference but got extremely upset when they found out they weren't drinking bottled water. People also tend to want the item such as a car with the most gadgets even if it serves the same purpose as something cheaper. This goes along with Habermas's theory of "the cult of the new".

Another point I found to be true was about film. Films often create the illusion that that is what real life is like. People start expecting things to happen like they do in the movies and get frustrated when they don't. This goes for images seen on television, in magazines, etc... People assume they need to look like and act like the celebrities or the models they see every day in the media. The power of the culture industry is deeply seeded into society.

Bella Horkheimer/Adorno

The Industrial Revolution in the late 1700’s made it possible for products to be mass-produced and sold at a cheap price. The ready availability of materials sparked a steady increase in the desire to consume, a sensation that has overcome today’s culture. Before this era, consumerism was usually on an as-needed basis. Only the rich and royal could afford to spend money frivolously. Today, most people believe that consuming will lead to happiness. Yesterday, the pain I feel in my shoulders on daily basis reached an all time high so I called me doctor. He asked me if I use a tote bag to carry my books or a backpack. I use a tote bag. He gave me the name of a backpack that is designed to keep weight off the shoulders and distribute it more into the hips. By 10pm last night, I had ordered on online and it should arrive by Friday. Consumerism has become so simplified that I can simply search the name of a product, find a vendor, enter my credit card numbers, and have it delivered to my door at a whim. I never have to leave my bedroom. As Jiggy wrote in his blog, “Our whole lives are one big business transaction where we put ourselves in position to buy everything and question nothing”.
Despite my doctors referral, I knew that the brand he was recommending to me was a well known name-brand backpack and would stylish every day. It sounds stupid, but I was relieved. The media has influenced me to recognize those symbols as ones of success, status, and power. Horkheimer and Adorno wrote, “The procedure [of media influenced consumption] is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiated products are all ultimately the same” (43). A backpack is a backpack. It is unfortunate that the name should have so much influence but was it not Benjamin that argued that the name of something is what gives it its importance? Horkheimer and Adorno addressed the issues facing our culture today, our obsession with consumerism, and it makes me worry about where our culture will go next. I don’t know how to stop myself from wanting.

Nichole Horkheimer/adorno

I find it to have been perfect timing that I should read this article directly after attending the first session of the symposium today on Florida environmental issues. Much of what the first speaker talks about is reaching for the lowest and most easily accessible fruit on the metaphoric environmental preservation tree. That is to say that it is MUCH easier to lower our demands for materialistic things than it is to quickly invent alternative energy sources. Similar to what Jiggy brought up in his blog, when he writes that the media has persuaded us to believe that there is this new level of consumerism which the media convinces us that we should all feel that we need to keep up. So called essentials are so expensive and extreme that few families can truly afford their luxuries without feeling the hurt of extra hours or financial debt.
A possible solution is to understand what the reading says, “the procedure [of the media persuading us to buy newer and better] is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiated products are all ultimately the same” (43). This quote means that we shouldn’t be fooled by what an ad might say perhaps fastest drying machine EVER but instead realize that ours works at home and what is that extra 4 minutes of not having a few shirts going to really hurt you anyway? The environmentalist at the symposium was quick to point out that this new craze has had a profound on our waste management. Never before has there been so much trash in the dump and this is all a result of people feeling as though they need a more stylish car when the one they have will sustain their needs for another ten years. The media reaches so far into our everyday lives that it has now become a burden on our environment. The authors and the speaker would argue that lowering our idea of what is necessary would prevent a bunch of current issues.

Jiggy Horkheimer/Adorno

Our mass media and global marketplace has created a sense of need for goods. The last hundred years has seen the development of mass popular culture where products and services are advertised as essentials. What is really needed to make our lives better? Selling the people culture by way of goods and services is taking advantage of our global technologies. The simple fact that products in Florida can be mass produced and shipped anywhere in the world overnight is the biggest change in commersial development in human history. To increase sales and to propperly promote companies need to sell to the masses, create a need that their product fulfills. This can be seen with thousands of products in our stores today that are so called necessities. My thinking on this critique is how to think in terms of people in the past. For thousands of years humans have survived with bare essentials, limited land, food and entertainment to pass the time and live a fulfilling life. It is only in the last hundred, maybe two hundred, years that products made outside of the family home have been vastly availble and needed by humans. We are becoming so un-self helping that every possible need has been packaged and sold to us. Technology is in business, it is not there to be cool or inovative but simply to sell us something faster and easier. Our whole lives are one big business transaction where we put ourselves in a position to buy everything and question nothing. I would want to step back from the goods of the everyday to try to understand how and why we have gotten to this place. The culture we live in is bought and sold everyday, how we buy changes the culture we live in.

Jiggy 3/18

How can one accuatly define culture? The two ways, as described in class today, are culture as the ordinary behavior of the people and the best that been thought and said. These ideas of culture, by Arnold and Williams, show the polar oppisite sides of the culture debate. The culture that surrounds the everyone on a daily basis I would refer to as the "ordinary behavior", as said by Williams. I see ordinary behavior as normality shared by a large group of people, in this case most often seperated by countries. The ordinary behavior that our culture is made up of is constantly changing to coinside with the adapting subcultures and amerging dominate ideals. This can be seen in global scale with the popularity of Youtube.com, a website created in 2005 that is now one of the most known websites in internet history. Thrown into our culture Youtube.com is an example of a small idea, or subculture, transforming into an international phenomenon. I dont like to think of culture as "high culture" because it leaves out the ruff edges of the histories normality. Though looking back at the times of the greeks and romans is often fixated on the high art created it is often more interesting to see how the average man lived. Imagine if we had to leap 300 years in the future, would our ancesters look at our art works and sculptures or would they dive into the "pop culture". The ins and outs of the average life in any given time period seems to best capture the true culture without creating a notion of exclusivity.

WouldntULike2Know 3/18

The discussion of conventional wisdom today in class further proves the effectiveness of hegemony. If “ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense” as Hebdige says, then we are a bunch of accepting idiots. Many of the conventional wisdoms we are taught, or rather socialized to accept by our parents and role models are true. A surprising number, however, are not. Many urban legends are carelessly labeled Conventional Wisdom so much so to the point that these wives tale annecdotes are embraced in personal metanarratives that shape individual lifestyle.

It used to be widely accepted “common sense” that the earth was flat. That turned out to be wrong. This example, as well as countless others creates a problematic situation for the public, which is discouraged from individual thought that could challenge what is currently believed to be true.

Another common perception is that marriage is a failing institution due to the alarming divorce rates reported in excess by the media. This uncontested “fact” misrepresents the union of individuals where as statistics have shown that the divorce rate is actually declining. Such a presumption undoubtedly has significant impact on adults considering making the important decision.

Another ideology that has serious implications on the format of society is the ideology that gender is innate. Conventional wisdom is that men are hardwired to support their families and women are programmed to bear and raise children. The division of labor is intensely constructed through this theory of gender roles. This conventional wisdom is false and problematic because of the restrictions it places on an individual and the pressure society places on them to abide by a very strict set of rules.

We thoughtlessly accept notions that we may internally reject. However, we would never admit to such a thought out of fear of being ostracized by our very controlling society. Its really quite a brilliant tactic.

Starfish 3/18

Today’s class made me thing back to De Saussure. “Choice of a given slice of sound to name a given idea is completely arbitrary.” In life as well as language, I might look at something and it will mean something completely different to me then somebody else who observes it. Dick Hebdige discusses this notion by talking about ideologies in our culture. These ideologies tell individuals how to see something or what to think of right away. For example, when Dr. Roger wrote the word ARod on the board I immediately jumped to thoughts of the Yankees. I automatically made the assumption that ARod was a baseball player without thinking of any other possible meanings. ARod, however, could have signified a pop singer or the name of a town in another culture. I see how these different ideologies can cause dilemmas. Volosinov said, “Sign becomes the arena of the class struggle.” These different assumptions that people have can lead to arguments. For example, the conflict is the Middle East is due to ideological assumptions. Israelis believe that Israel is their holy land and Palestinians believe that it is their holy land. Each culture was taught to believe that Israel is their holy land and these two different assumptions or ideologies activated struggle and war.

Another aspect of today’s lesson that I found interesting was the whole idea of culture being the “ordinary behavior of the people” Williams. We are a transforming and moving culture. What is in and what is “cool” is always changing. Sometimes it is hard to keep up with the times. I always find myself buying a cell phone or an IPod thinking it is amazing and then the next day something even better will come out and what I have bought wont be considered popular anymore. We can link this to Haberman’s theories of modernity, which says what is modern is always changing and always moving. We, as a culture, are never at a stand still. We are in constant motion, never stopping.

Nichole 3-18

“Nothing is natural anymore, everything IS because of ideologies”. This has a particularly profound impact on my right now especially because Im applying for a few internships in Boston this summer for an advertising firm position. I feel like knowing this quote gives me the upper hand in an interview (if they would only give me one) because I could go on to explain that we should aim to create the NEW norm. Taking chances is obviously risky but if you start the new norm and people talk about an advertisement that is the new standard then the advertisement would obviously be working; that is based on the idea that no media is bad media (even if people are talking bad about the advertisement, they are still talking about it and as CMC100 taught us, it eventually and subconsciously seeps into our brains as we talk about an ad). If the media dictates ideologies, which I think it does, then in my opinion, a good advertising firm should idealize something new and different to be ahead of the crowd to be successful.

Ariel’s experiment sparked some interest in me about what else I could do to irritate others because they clearly are unaware that they are irritable only because they have been taught all along that THIS is the correct way to do things and all else are weird. But think about Borat. I think the reason he is wildly successful is because he knows about ideological assumptions and goes out of his way to do cooky things that aren’t in the norm (he did after all go somewhere like Harvard right?). One specific example that I can remember right now is when he goes into a house and brings them a live duck as a house warming present and licks them on the cheek and says, “What do you look at me like that for? In my country this is standard procedure”. He was simply making a joke about what we talking in class today about: ideological assumption.

Bumble: post class 3/18

Shared cultures or understandings can unite people. The idea of Barthes that mythologies or stories are these shared perceptions of a word or an experience is seen in every day life! When you meet someone and start talking about things you used to do in your childhood, sometimes a movie called “We sing in silly-Ville” would come up. If the other person knew that movie, suddenly there was such a connection between us and we were instantaneous best friends. I know that my baby sisters who watch their shows have a different understanding of whats cool to watch versus what was cool for us to watch.

Ideologies are clearly unconscious, and the best way to realize them is to be in a different country where a cultural norm is very different from a cultural norm in our culture. The greatest example of this was a trip my father went on to India. My father is a big runner and every morning he runs about 7 or 8 miles. It is his daily routine for fitness, and mental awareness, and of course the adrenaline rush. It was a morning in Bombay when he started running; he was doing his usual thinking and breathing when all of a sudden about 10 men in their rickshaws start chasing after him. Some are on their rickshaw bicycles; some are in their rickshaw cars. All of them were yelling stop! Stop! Get In Get In!! What my father did not know before that day, (which he quickly learned) was that in India you run or exercise if you need to go somewhere. You never ever move if you do not have to. When this happened in India there was no such thing as a leisurely run for enjoyment. All of the men on their Rickshaws assumed because of their cultural ideologies that he needed to get somewhere. They all tried asking, “Where are you going?” He was thoroughly confused at first and responded, just on a run. The baffled looks and lack of understanding is that cultural difference of ideologies of a simple thing like a jog.


In response to the issue of abnormal or normal behavior, this happens a lot on a daily basis regarding food. Everyone grows up eating different things and trying different food combinations. During Passover one year at Rollins College, I was serving myself some matzo ball soup and had at least 5 people stare at it in disgust. WHAT IS THAT!!? It is so easy to forget that eating certain types of foods (particularly culturally defined food) is not natural but is a learned and solidified thing. I initially reacted in shock that they had never even seen it before, this is because where I am from it is such a cultural standard. A deli has matzo ball soup. At first I was offended but then I realized that they had simply not been exposed to this type of food and what a great opportunity to expose them to a different ideology!

sawsaw Hebdige

After reading this passage from Hebdige, I am immediately reminded of an example of hegemony while traveling in West Virginia last Spring Break. I went with my church on a missions trip to serve an impoverish family. This family had absolutely nothing. There was eight people living in a one bedroom house with only one toilet and no shower. I was completely astonished that people were living like this in America. Since this family was so poor and needy it was “socially unacceptable” for people to associate with them. Most of the people around them lived in normal houses with all the common necessities. This family was under the control of the middle to wealthy social class. They were seen by others as being a “charity case” and were pitied by others. It was really great to be able to go and love on these people and be genuine in helping them. We wanted to help them because they really needed people to help not because we were ashamed or embarrassed by their living conditions.

I find Hebdige’s quote on page 150 to be very interesting. He writes, “The class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” This was so true of the family in West Virginia. Since the people in this family from West Virginia never received a formal education they were seen as stupid and unintelligent. This quote really expresses the harsh truth that people who come from low class households are viewed as being intellectually stupid because they are not a part of the ruling material force of society.

NewYorker - Hebdige

When I think of the term culture, I think about the ways of life of a certain population in a certain destination. It varies from state to state, or country to country. But when I read the opening of the piece, the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of culture, I was shocked. It first spoke about soil and organisms, and only last did it dicuss civilization and education. It's amazing how once again, it is proved how language is so arbitrary, and that a single word can have multiple definitions. But then reading further on, I agreed more with what Williams had to say about culture. "A particular way of life ... values not only in art and learning but also in ordinary behaviour ... clarification of meanings and values..." (Hebdigs 145). I think this definition is what we base our thoughts on, especially when learning about it in school. I took a class here called Intercultural Communication, and we did ethnographic research on a different culture, and learned about traditions and values of people from all over the world. There are different customs for different things, different holidays, etc. Even hand gestures mean different things to different cultures, so when going abroad, it is a good idea to learn their culture and customs before implying anything that you don't mean, because it means something different to an American.
"The theory of culture now involved the study of relationships between elements in a whole way of life," (145) - this is important to make the connection between individuals and the country they live in, their way of life. It is good to look at individual parts that make up the whole, and draw conclusions/find answers that way, because then you are looking at a micro level of culture to a macro level of culture.

WouldntULike2Know Hebdige

“First, without appreciating good literature, no one will really understand the nature of society, second, literary critical analysis can be applied to certain social phenomenon other than “academically respectable” literature (for example, the popular arts, mass commuications) so as to illuminate their meanings for individuals and their societies (Hoggart, 1996) (Hebdige 146).

Hebdige’s use of Hoggart’s basic premises of cultural studies helps to explain the massive influence of Macherey’s notion of intertextuality. We are unable to understand our world around us without being influenced by what we have observed or read in the past.  De Saussure also emphasizes this point: “Language is a system of independent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of others” (de Saussure 7). 

I don’t believe that Hoggart is saying that in order to understand your role in society, one needs to have read every word of War and Peace, however, he is critical of the less serious media forms that have infiltrated society in such a grand scale and is worried that they have begun to define our current culture.

However, with the rise in DIYers (Jenkins) and the increasing popularity and following they receive, it seems unavoidable for “good literature” to dominant the public sphere.  These forms of media, in my opinion, have a greater effect on this generation of viewers then those deemed “academically respectable” which are being pushed aside or even morphed into popular art.  This overhauling of radical, liberal, or untraditional phenomenon certainly has “illuminated meanings for individuals and societies,” a trend that has certainly posed a threat to the neoconservative lifestyle.  

BubbaNub Hebdige

  Going against the norm or against culture has played an interesting role in the revolution of development of society.  However, as with most things these rebellious subtexts merely become another niche market that media and the American consumer culture devalue to the American Dollar.  Hebdige talks in length about the punk subculture and how it was perceived as threatening at first, but if you look around today the punk culture has become another area of exploitation of values.

Now you can walk into stores such as "Hot Topic" and go against everything that the punk culture stood for as you pay the corporations major money so you can buy their clothes and patches to "look punk".  It is scary when you realize how quickly our economy catches onto fads and turns them around in their favor, so they can make a profit.  Now we have people walking around thinking that they embody a punk philosophy or lifestyle when in reality, the Chuck Taylor's they are wearing were bought out by Nike and are now made in sweatshops in China.  Just like the American Dreams illusion of freedom, our exploited subcultures have become illusions of choice, illusions of personality, and illusions of culture.

The only culture America has is that which we produce and exchange for the almighty coin.  Money is our culture and money is our religion.  We have heard that America is a melting pot, a mix of various cultures that construct our identity.  I agree that we are a melting pot, but to me this does not carry positive connotations.  When we all melt together we lose our individuality, our culture, and melt into a new kind of currency.

Sgt. Pepper, 3/6

Last Thursday was one of those days that's going to make me look at everything through the eyes of "postmodernity." Thanks a lot, Dr. Rog.

Althusser and Marx's main theme discussed ideology, and more specifically, what constitutes ideology. Each author basically explains the effects hegemony has on people every second of every day. Dr. Rog gave good examples of this by pointing out the binary oppositions of the ruling class, and how hegemony (or the norms set by the ruling class) teaches us to prefer 'fast' to 'slow' and 'new' to 'old.'

One of my favorite ideas from class on Thursday was that if you said, "Ideology doesn't affect me at all," then Althusser would most likely respond, "That's the most ideological thing you could say." This idea of someone not thinking they conform to ideology is pretty much impossible*, yet it's so common these days. I actually spoke with Dr. Rog about this a few days ago, and how so many people these days strive to be cut off from ideology and to be "different." We talked about the idea of "alternative" music, and how it's pretty much what's popular, so it's almost like an oxy moron. This behavior of trying to be different than everyone else could be compared to the days of the hippies in the '60s and '70s and their attempts to "bring down the man." But while these individualists try to be different, it's clear (and Althusser would agree) that their behavior is, and forever will be, ideological.

*I was driving to my Grandpa's farm this past week (which is in the middle of nowhere, at least 40 miles from anything that could be remotely considered civilization), and I started to wonder if and how it would be possible to be cut off from all ideologies and to live unaffected by hegemony. The only thing I could come up with, and it still might not work, is that maybe if someone lived 40 miles from any civilization without the government knowing. If they raised farm animals to eat, and drank strictly water from the creek, would they be considered 'living without ideology'? I decided probably not, but they'd definitely be a lot closer to it than any of us.

Bumble: Hebdige

“Breach our expectancies…” Weird, unusual, “deviant behavior,” all of these can describe the consequences of acting on counter-hegemonic or ideological impulses. There are societal norms that people must follow in order to keep the social structure flowing smoothly. If you do go against these taken for granted norms then they disturb the peace. Often, it is hard to notice the ideologies, until they are violated! These Mythologies as Barthes puts it tries to uncover the normally, “hidden set of rules, codes, and conventions…” (Hebdige 147). Deviant seems to be a very powerful word, it is almost implying that it is so wrong that it is borderline illegal!

I decided to test just how powerful breaking the rules can be. I went on a search for a societal norm, or code of conduct in every day life atht we often take for granted. I thought of situations where there is a fine line of how to behave. The first thing I thought of was an elevator.

Over break I did an experiment and I was in a busy office building. I decided to wait for the elevator and then try to purposely breech the unconscious behavior of how we all act in an elevator, making sure not to violate any one’s personal space. So when the elevator door opened, I walked in and faced the back. There were about 3 people already in the elevator and it stopped a multiple number of times afterwards. Well, I stayed facing in, and did not turn around to face the door (which is the norm). People were so uncomfortable, and I knew that I had violated these unspoken rules of society. For one thing, I was facing people who did not want to make eye contact, and then the people who walked in were so confused as to whether or not to turn around or stay facing towards the back like me.

Immediately, by not turning around and finding my own space in the elevator I challenged the order and the norm. This little experiment I did proves just how powerful these rules are!