Friday, April 11, 2008
July 4-10-08
The reading wasn’t that bad this week, thanks to Fox Day and because it talked about subjects that a Critical Media and Cultural Studies Major could relate to, especially when we are surrounded by multi-media all day everyday. One quote that I would like to elaborate on and give my viewpoints on is, “Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program. It is even possible for television journalists to get important positions in the printed press.” In the simplest version possible it basically means that the television is the key to success when it comes to the entertainment business or media coverage. All actors are constantly fighting to get publicity, whether it is gained in a negative or positive way. For example, Paris Hilton would not be famous if her family didn’t own the Hilton Hotel. Paris Hilton, just like any other celebrity had to develop from a “nobody” to a “somebody,” by taking the negative route. Over a vast period of time her name was in the lead media story because of her hard partying, rational decisions, drugs, DUI incidents, and everything else that one could possibly name. Paris Hilton didn’t stop this behavior because it gave her more television time and more endorsement deals, rather than the promotion companies seeing her behavior in a negative way, they contorted it into something positive. This is common among most celebrities. Although it is the journalist’s job to get the latest and greatest news coverage on all celebrities, especially those who are currently in the hot seat, it is imperative that journalists understand that privacy is important to everybody. Some paparazzi companies are open for twenty four hours because celebrities are constantly on the go, due to various jobs. The main cause for this fixation is celebrity obsession.
WouldntULike2Know- 4/10
Last Thursday's class really helped me to understand what the heck Derrida was talking about. What I found most poignant was how we as humans crave understanding meanings. In striving for the Ur, we actually defeat what we are striving for in our attempts to attain it. Like the lost civilization, the meaning that we are searching for gets lost too. I wonder too, that in trying to understand the very complicated work of Differance, if through breaking down Derrida's impossible explantions (of which, I didn't really understand in the first place to be honest) if the actual meaning behind his intention gets erased--as he describes through the process of his own writing? If what Derrida is saying is true, how then are we communicating. Its miraculous that we all understand what everyone is saying---or even that they themselves know what they are saying! This made me think about De Saussure's notion of how everything is understood only though the simultaneous presence of other known terms. But how do we understand those terms in the first place? I certainly didnt understand what Derrida was saying until Dr. Casey broke it down--and thus, made me question if I have ever fully understood what I am saying ever?
Bumble: Post class derrida
Something that you said in class today really stood out to me and I can not seem to shake it from my mind. How in the world do we get through a single day? Language is a twisted net of words and expressions that are all clearly ambiguous and lack any structure. The essence around the word will shift what you feel or think about something at any given time. Mental state and language have more to do with each other than I ever could have imagined. Will there ever be any electrical device that we can hook up to our minds to try to understand another person’s thought processes?
It is scary enough trying to stop and watch our thoughts, in fact according to many Buddhist teachings one of the greatest challenges of meditation is to shut out and shut down the thoughts. It is almost as though your mind has a life of its own, running on auto pilot, and directing you to a new web and circle of understanding. I was thinking about what Derrida said about meaning being deferred. This is too true; there is no way of truly understanding something. In fact we will never know exactly what someone else meant by something because we are not them, and our life experiences have shaped our understanding of things entirely differently. So again this goes to the dilemma of how in the world we all understand each other. It happens on a daily basis that people do not understand the same set of language codes, and somehow the problem is easily solved. Even today I was explaining that I wanted to get some FRO-YO, which is short hand for frozen yogurt. The person who I was speaking too looked at me as though I had multiple heads and finally asked, I am sorry… but what do you want? Just imagine how many times you hear something that you might not understand and how many times you actually bother to clarify the exact meaning. We all make assumptions about language, and luckily we understand each other, but often misunderstandings and miscommunication are the greatest source of relationship problems. It seems as though our understanding should be natural, because it is so a part of our life, but not everyone understands what we do, EXACTLY how we do. These miscommunications are all around us, even when people do not understand a certain culture, for example gymnastics. When I was younger and used to compete in meets, no one would ever understand what I meant when I would say I have to go to a meet this weekend. What is the cutest to observe though is little children who are still learning a lot of the language, they try sometimes so hard to express something, and simply can not. Their determination gets weary and often they will break down crying because they are so upset that no one understands them. Somehow though years later we are able to express ourselves much more clearly!
What is remarkable to me is when people go to a new country and somehow, without understanding a single word, can learn how to communicate. Our minds must be pretty powerful machines!
The game of telephone brought me back to my childhood, where we would play this game endlessly and laugh when a word like Dog turned into Booger. This game proves the selectiveness of hearing and ability of memorization and also the simple not understanding of things.
What Derrida explained about the further from the root source you go it ceases to have any original value, reminded me of Benjamin’s theories on authenticity. Is the original word and authentic, and by replicating it, you are losing the presence of the original. It is the same as when people tell a story about an event that happened the night before. By the 3rd person who is telling the story half of the details are lost, and the meaning changes. In fact this is the core of rumors and gossip. Never jump to conclusions that someone started a rumor… there is a good chance that it is simply the natural phenomenon that Derrida talks about straying from the original.
sawsaw Bourdieu (post-power point)
After studying the Bourdieu power point, I have a new understanding of Bourdieu's concepts. Some of the main concepts that stuck out to me in the power point is how much television has had an affect on journalism and the news. Bourdieu writes on page 331: "Any journalist who wants power or influence has to have a TV program. It is even possible for TV journalists to get important positions in the printed press." This quote has become so evident in our society today. The TV journalists such as Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly, Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters have all become our "go-to person" for reliable news. These are the people we consider to be our reliable news personal. Most of these anchors started off as TV talk shows hosts or have had a previous television career. They didn't begin as writers or published journalists. However, now that they have established themselves as prestigious TV journalists they are being published in the news and have had positions in the printed press.
Another similar quote said by Bourdieu caught my attention. He writes on page 332, "If the printed press should happen to raise an issue-a scandal or a debate- it becomes central only when TV takes it up and gives it full orchestration, and, thereby, political impact." I found this quote to be very interesting because I feel now a days people only look to TV for their news. Most people turn on the TV or look on the internet for their news. It is only until the stories are showed on TV that they gain political influence and become well established.
Another similar quote said by Bourdieu caught my attention. He writes on page 332, "If the printed press should happen to raise an issue-a scandal or a debate- it becomes central only when TV takes it up and gives it full orchestration, and, thereby, political impact." I found this quote to be very interesting because I feel now a days people only look to TV for their news. Most people turn on the TV or look on the internet for their news. It is only until the stories are showed on TV that they gain political influence and become well established.
sawsaw 4/10
I found most of Derrida to be very difficult to understand while reading it on my own. However, after yesterday's class discussion I find I have a new understanding of his ideas. By getting students involved in the discussion helped me really comprehend what Derrida was trying to say. By looking up the words in the dictionary I realized that when we read or hear a word we are really bringing other knowledge of other words to that specific word. When we did the dictionary exercise with the word "cookie" I began to really understand Derrida's concept. Without having prior knowledge of what other words are we would never be able to understand the specific word we are trying to look up. Before this exercise I had always referred to the dictionary for understanding of words. I use to think that the dictionary was "the book of knowledge" that it held explanations for everything. Now, I realize that the dictionary can often times make things more difficult to understand. The quote that stood out in my mind from yesterday's class was, "The farther you get from a words root source the farther you get from its significance." This concept really struck me because in order to really gain significance from a word you have to know its root and organic make-up. We have to have knowledge of what other words mean in the definition.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
NewYorker 4/10
Today's class exercise with the dictionaries was by far the best class yet. Not only did it get individuals involved, but it really got me thinking. When Max said the word "cookie," i immediately constructed a definition in my head. I'm sure all of us did, and I'm sure all of our definitions were different, even though we all know what it is and what it means. However, when we heard aloud what the dictionary had to say, it totally blew my mind. "A semi flat piece of sweet dough" was roughly the definition I remember - and one that was not at all similar to my definition of the word. And then towards the end, you brought up a point about how it could've been the other cookie - the type that has to do with computers, but not one dictionary acknowledged that definition. Further, even defining some of the words that defined Cookie was interesting - finding out that dough is made of flour/flower? which is made up of a "meal" of "embryos!?" We all started laughing at how absured this exercise made the English language seem. If only we could incorporate the French term "differance" - Microsoft Word won't even let me type that into my computer - that word is on auto fix! But I definitely give you credit for such great and impressive improv skills - to know which word in a definition to highlight, and look that up, then further look up another word, etc, until we found that the farther we got from the origin (or Ur) the more we lost the original meaning, and erasure occured. I definitely have a firmer grasp and understanding of Derrida now because of class today. I am interested to see where the conversation will lead to next time, when you are presenting the letter "alef." As of now, I think I know what it means/ its connection, but I can't wait to hear the lecture on it.
Further, a classmate and I were talking about today's class, how we took a random, and simple word (that we all knew since we were kids) and riffed on it and its definition. We began just talking to each other in terms learned from class, and started laughing about how academic we sounded, and that only us, having taken this class, could understand what we were saying.
Further, a classmate and I were talking about today's class, how we took a random, and simple word (that we all knew since we were kids) and riffed on it and its definition. We began just talking to each other in terms learned from class, and started laughing about how academic we sounded, and that only us, having taken this class, could understand what we were saying.
ChittyChittyBangBang 4/10
So, today realllllly helped me understand Derrida's concepts better. At first, I was a bit lost. Derrida's thoughts actually connect with several other authors’ we have studied thus far such as De Saussure, Macherey, and Barthes. We focused a lot in class today on the "differences" in language. In our logocentric world we are only left with differences. Words contain so many different meanings depending on the context and your set of signifiers. We talked about that a lot during our discussion of Hebdige that depending on your background and understandings, concepts or words might mean something completely different to you than the next person. Oral articulation is another variable of difference in words. Pronunciation and even your tone can completely change what you are trying to convey. In Chinese language for instance, tone is essential to creating difference in words. I agree with Dr. Rog that after studying this phenomenon it is amazing we can communicate with each other when everything we say and their meanings seem to contradict each other.
I liked the "telephone", or "rumors" as Dr. Rog refers to it as, exercise as well. Even though we are amazing and held the value of the statement all the way across the room. It was still an effective example of Derrida's concept. We are so far away from "the original" or "ur". Over time, erasure and differance has brought us so far away from the beginning text that we cannot go back. The original meaning and validity gets lost in culture the farther away it gets.
I thought the exercise with the dictionaries was funny. It is interesting to think that we rely on dictionaries to answer all our questions about words and their meanings. Although Dr. Rog proved that at the root of every word there is nothing but difference. Trying to find the definition of Cookie was an adventure, there were repetitions and contradictions and we didn't seem to really get anywhere. Although due to our common set of assumptions most of us know what a "cookie" is. I also found it interesting when Dr. Rog asked us all to pronounce "lead" and we all said a different pronunciation of it. It can mean different things but we don't know what it means without its context. I actually really like Derrida's concepts and am encouraged to re-read his article now.
I liked the "telephone", or "rumors" as Dr. Rog refers to it as, exercise as well. Even though we are amazing and held the value of the statement all the way across the room. It was still an effective example of Derrida's concept. We are so far away from "the original" or "ur". Over time, erasure and differance has brought us so far away from the beginning text that we cannot go back. The original meaning and validity gets lost in culture the farther away it gets.
I thought the exercise with the dictionaries was funny. It is interesting to think that we rely on dictionaries to answer all our questions about words and their meanings. Although Dr. Rog proved that at the root of every word there is nothing but difference. Trying to find the definition of Cookie was an adventure, there were repetitions and contradictions and we didn't seem to really get anywhere. Although due to our common set of assumptions most of us know what a "cookie" is. I also found it interesting when Dr. Rog asked us all to pronounce "lead" and we all said a different pronunciation of it. It can mean different things but we don't know what it means without its context. I actually really like Derrida's concepts and am encouraged to re-read his article now.
Nichole 4-10
First, I have to say that we have completed a WILD task of getting a correct telephone message all the way around the room. That is record breaking.
Even though the game didn’t really prove Doc Rog’s point, the class got the message that I had talked about in my pre blog for Derrida but can now put a name to the concept that I understood earlier: that is differ ance. This means that the farther you are removed from a work, the less true that word is to its inherent meaning. I used the example of when we did the exercise in class in the beginning of the semester with the stories of baby shoes turning into complete narratives after seeing the series of words. Similarly, I took four VERY long years of Latin in boarding school and three VERY long semesters at Rollins and would always get this: “O latin, that’s a good language to take, it is the root of all languages, you can understand all others now, right? And you must have good English grammar too!” Yea right! I wish I could but very few words are actually similar to other languages. That is because, as Derrida would explain, the words a differed. Latin evolved into romance languages and from there evolved into other languages until we came up with modern day English. My English grammar is so far removed from the root, Latin, that I don’t even recognize the relationship. AH ha! That is ideology at work. Something that has become so common sense I don’t even see it in effect (to site my friend Hebdige). Basically what it comes down to is that we have to “free ourselves from these mechanisms” by looking for “the trace”, or root of the words slash ideologies, so we do not get carried away in a sea of ideologies that have been established over time.
booboo bear April 10
“Journalists want nothing so much as to be part of the intellectual crowd. No doubt, this structural inferiority goes a long way to explain their tendency toward anti-intellectualism.” 330
Who is to say the journalists are not already part of the intellectual crowd? What defines someone as being a part of the intellectual crowd? If anything, I think we could say they are very much part of the intellectual crowd. They inform the public of information and events that they don’t already know about. To me, I consider them part of the intellectual crown because they know something that the average person does not know about. The fact that they know stories, events, and information the normal person doesn’t know about and they inform the public about them, that makes them the intellectual crowd. Some would say they are not intellectuals because they do not talk about intellectual topics. What is one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Some people might not consider some topics intellectual but other might find it very interesting and thought provoking. If you read through a newspaper you might not find topics that interest you on the first page, especially if Brittney Spears just got a divorce, but if you look through the whole thing you will find a ton of information that is very “intellectual”. Just because something isn’t pertaining to politics or world peace or Hegemony doesn’t mean it is not intellectual. Most people would see an article on Tiger Woods and automatically assume its not intellectual. Well if someone is breaking down his scoring and results over the past 10 years and comparing and contrasting his scores and performances to Jack Nicklaus and then describing how his opponents are intimidated by his presence so much their scores go up just, why cant that be intellectual? What makes something intellectual? Why is it that just because someone doesn’t have 10 books written on their resume or they have a couple letters behind their name, they are not considered intellectual?
Who is to say the journalists are not already part of the intellectual crowd? What defines someone as being a part of the intellectual crowd? If anything, I think we could say they are very much part of the intellectual crowd. They inform the public of information and events that they don’t already know about. To me, I consider them part of the intellectual crown because they know something that the average person does not know about. The fact that they know stories, events, and information the normal person doesn’t know about and they inform the public about them, that makes them the intellectual crowd. Some would say they are not intellectuals because they do not talk about intellectual topics. What is one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Some people might not consider some topics intellectual but other might find it very interesting and thought provoking. If you read through a newspaper you might not find topics that interest you on the first page, especially if Brittney Spears just got a divorce, but if you look through the whole thing you will find a ton of information that is very “intellectual”. Just because something isn’t pertaining to politics or world peace or Hegemony doesn’t mean it is not intellectual. Most people would see an article on Tiger Woods and automatically assume its not intellectual. Well if someone is breaking down his scoring and results over the past 10 years and comparing and contrasting his scores and performances to Jack Nicklaus and then describing how his opponents are intimidated by his presence so much their scores go up just, why cant that be intellectual? What makes something intellectual? Why is it that just because someone doesn’t have 10 books written on their resume or they have a couple letters behind their name, they are not considered intellectual?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Elizabeth Byrne -Derrida
After reading Derrida's essay I also thought about the the fact that there are no longer innocent texts and that everything goes back to a "chain of signifiers". However, I linked back to the quote earlier this semester about how we relate thing back to prior knowledge, history, and/ or experience. I think that when every person see' s an image it has a slightly different meaning due to the importance that it holds with the individual.
I also agree with "WouldntULike2Know" about how people say xerox instead of copy. I think it is similar to how Dr. Rog was talking about the word "bling" and how words are used and then picked up as natural or "normal" to say. Because of the culture and society that we live in we know things because of the knowledge that we have.
We can't escape the signs or signifies because as Nichole talks about we wouldn't know which bathroom was for men or women. Images are everywhere and we interpret them all differently but just as Habermas has talked about how media and culture are synonymous. One is constantly influencing another which also links to how youtube and multi-million dollar movies are continuously working off one another.
I also agree with "WouldntULike2Know" about how people say xerox instead of copy. I think it is similar to how Dr. Rog was talking about the word "bling" and how words are used and then picked up as natural or "normal" to say. Because of the culture and society that we live in we know things because of the knowledge that we have.
We can't escape the signs or signifies because as Nichole talks about we wouldn't know which bathroom was for men or women. Images are everywhere and we interpret them all differently but just as Habermas has talked about how media and culture are synonymous. One is constantly influencing another which also links to how youtube and multi-million dollar movies are continuously working off one another.
kMO 4/1
Tuesday's class really shed light onto Bourdieu's theories... FOX news, CNN, NMC, and ABC are the news channels that most Americans tend to gravitate towards so it was interesting to see peoples reactions. I really enjoyed watching outfoxed because I have personally always felt that this channel was a disgrace to television.. (In my opinion the perfect news station would offer non-biased information and AVOID linking unrelated events i.e. a baby dying in a refrigerator and Obama.) After class I did some research regarding Fox news and discovered some more clips that could be used as supportive evidence. There is an entire youTube segment regarding the treatement of African Americans on FOX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E). Some of the "opinions" that leave the mouths of these reporters should be illegal...
As much as I would enjoy just bashing Fox news it would be unfair to exclude other news channels from this concept. No matter what news source a person chooses they are always going to be subjected to bias information due to government involvement... After class I realized that Herman and Chomsky's explanations of propaganda fit right into our discussions...All of these theorists hold valuable ideas regarding the media's effect on Americans. One of the largest problems we face is the gullability of those the media is reaching. Without proper evidence NO-ONE should take anything said on the news too much to heart. It is also very important read into and acknowledge the underlying messages found in our daily news...
As much as I would enjoy just bashing Fox news it would be unfair to exclude other news channels from this concept. No matter what news source a person chooses they are always going to be subjected to bias information due to government involvement... After class I realized that Herman and Chomsky's explanations of propaganda fit right into our discussions...All of these theorists hold valuable ideas regarding the media's effect on Americans. One of the largest problems we face is the gullability of those the media is reaching. Without proper evidence NO-ONE should take anything said on the news too much to heart. It is also very important read into and acknowledge the underlying messages found in our daily news...
Nichole, Derrida
In Jiggy’s blog, he talks about Derrida’s idea that there are no longer innocent texts. Everything that we see for the first time is linked “to a chain of signifiers” which we have seen before. This concept reminds me so much of Barthes discussion of the understanding of words, but instead of words we are now examining images. Think back to the exercise we did in class with the stories or screen plays that we made up based on a series of words. We all witnessed first hand how a chain of words previously read can significantly change the direction of a story and in the end we all ended up with different ones. Well I think the same works here in saying that everything we see, we connect to previous experience with signifiers. Thus, we may not all get exactly the same meaning out of an image every time. In fact, that most likely is never the case.
I like how Jiggy brings up the idea that if we had no experience or didn’t make connections to past experiences, our existence would be very difficult. He uses the example of golden arches associated with food but it can literally be linked to anything, even our most primal instincts would be thrown off if we didn’t have a greater understanding of previous experience with images and signifiers. Just think: we wouldn’t even know where to use the restroom when we need it (instead we might think someone was trying to go tribal on us and painting men and women on certain doors). The spine of our existence would no longer exist. This kind of proves everything that we have discussed over the course of the semester in saying that signs and ideologies are literally everywhere and have become so “normal” to us that we don’t even recognize what we would or wouldn’t be without that saturation in our heads.
kaymac derrida
Wow. Derrida is one thick fellow. How does a person come up with this kind of talk and not have his/her head explode? I guess we'll never know.
One of the things I understood was about language. "Within a language, within the system of language, there are only differences...These differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language, in speech as well, an din the exchange between language and speech. On the other hand, these differences are themselves effects. " (127)
DeSaussure is definitely speaking through him on this, which is probably why I understood it. What we understand in language is because we understand what is missing. I think that concept goes into what Derrida is saying about differance. (Which makes sense because he did use this concept to explain it). He explains that differance is neither active nor passive, but in the middle. It's like a color. A color is neither active nor passive, it just is (at least in my opinion). But we also use colors to signify things but here we are using differance to signify the the process and theology behind signing, difference, and everything of that sort, so isn't Derrida kind of digging himself into a hole?
"Being/speaks/through every language,/every where and always/." (140). It took him so long to get to this point. I could have said this in a passing conversation. Everybody and everything speaks through everything and everybody all the time everywhere. However, it is the process of signification that has me interested.
One of the things I understood was about language. "Within a language, within the system of language, there are only differences...These differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language, in speech as well, an din the exchange between language and speech. On the other hand, these differences are themselves effects. " (127)
DeSaussure is definitely speaking through him on this, which is probably why I understood it. What we understand in language is because we understand what is missing. I think that concept goes into what Derrida is saying about differance. (Which makes sense because he did use this concept to explain it). He explains that differance is neither active nor passive, but in the middle. It's like a color. A color is neither active nor passive, it just is (at least in my opinion). But we also use colors to signify things but here we are using differance to signify the the process and theology behind signing, difference, and everything of that sort, so isn't Derrida kind of digging himself into a hole?
"Being/speaks/through every language,/every where and always/." (140). It took him so long to get to this point. I could have said this in a passing conversation. Everybody and everything speaks through everything and everybody all the time everywhere. However, it is the process of signification that has me interested.
romulus Derrida
"Ethics must be sacrificed in the name of duty". (p.226)
Abraham killing his son Issac is completely irresponsible. Stories of absolute devotion to 'God'
is why I am an Atheist. It is completely mind boggling to me that the Bible which contains
stories of this magical guy who is a sort of metaphysical dictator who demands blind obedience
is even used as a guide to live ones life. The Bible is not a creditable source. Abraham is a
character used by the church to provide an example of the perfect servant. One who can be
compared to a trained dog.
Ethics should never be sacrificed especially in the name of duty. To do so is not to think. It's
allowing ignorance to flourish. Abraham lacks substance. His brain is incapable of critically
analyzing and understanding his world. He has no heart, and his soul is covered in the blood of
his own son. I am offended that people actually buy into this nonsense.
In Feminist Theory we heard first hand of the mess in Congo. Rape, including infant rape is an
epidemic that is destroying, women, families, and culture. One man was asked about if his wife
would be raped how would he react, his answer was that it would be okay if it was for the
country.
By turning an eye on ethical issues, human rights are violated. I do not accept violence in the
name of anything. I can't decide who committed the bigger crime, Abraham the murderer, or
God the psychopath who would even suggest such an outright disturbing scheme.
WouldntULIke2Know Derrida
"Signs represent the present in its absence; they take the place of the present. When we cannot take hold of or show the thing, let us say the present, the being-present, when the present does not present itself, then we signify, we go through the detour of signs." Derrida's rather wordy and difficult explanation of difference/differance and signs was, as Dr. Casey warned, one of the more difficult things we will read. In trying to contemplate exactly what it is that Derrida is getting at, I found myself growing increasingly frustrated. However, after stumbling into this section and abandoning the a/e controversy, I found a connection to the above quote.
Signs represent the present in its absence. In understanding signs and what they signify, I began to think about how our culture creates new meaning daily. Adorno discussed how "Countless people use words and expressions which they either have ceased to understand at all or use only... as trademarks" (70). These trademarks take the place of the present so much so that they represent the "thing" they signify more easily than the "thing" itself. Many of these cultural icons are easily recognizable that they actually transform speech. For example, people often say that they are going to make a "Xerox" instead of a "copy." Coming from the daughter of a man who owns is own copier business selling Sharp copiers, I find this incredibly annoying. While working this summer at his office, I corrected a new employee who said she was going to "make a Xerox" of a certain document. I politely corrected her. Regardless of the actual "thing" itself, the word Xerox has effortlessly made its way into everyday discourse in place of the actual word. When it is mentioned, others know what is being said.
kMO Bourdieu
One of the most important ideas I found in Bourdieu's On Television was his theory that the entire field of journalism owes their importance in society to their de facto monopoly on the large-scale informational instruments of productions and diffusion of information. Through other theorists we have discussed this semester, we have learned that vertical integration allows media to have almost complete control over the public but what we haven't discussed is the impact media has on cultural producers...
Bourdieu believes that having the power to control a person's public existence (ones ability to be seen as a "public figure") is the key to success. This type of responsibility is very important and comes with a high level of respect. My question now becomes why are journalists regarded as structurally inferior in today's society. Bourdieu suggests the idea that journalists want nothing less than to be part of the intellectual crowd - which is potentially why many tend to lean toward anti-intellectualism may be part of it... But how can one hold the power to decide WHO we listen to yet still be considered socially inferior?
Bourdieu believes that having the power to control a person's public existence (ones ability to be seen as a "public figure") is the key to success. This type of responsibility is very important and comes with a high level of respect. My question now becomes why are journalists regarded as structurally inferior in today's society. Bourdieu suggests the idea that journalists want nothing less than to be part of the intellectual crowd - which is potentially why many tend to lean toward anti-intellectualism may be part of it... But how can one hold the power to decide WHO we listen to yet still be considered socially inferior?
NewYorker - Derrida
The first thing that I thought of when I started reading this article was a link to deSaussure. We identify things by knowing what they are not. Thus, we are then able to compare and contrast, and to understand a difference between things. Derrida goes to further explain "To differ signifies nonidentity"(120) - which would definitely agree with deSaussure.
I was confused though when he was talking about difference and differance, because differance is not a real word. I was also confused about what he meant by temporalizing and temporalization.
But then he goes on to define the word differance - "differance is not simply active...it rather indicates the middle voice, it precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity." (120). Here it seems to have created a binary stance - something that Habermas would agree with.
When he then speaks about the common and identifiable definition of 'to differ,' "the sense of not being identical, or being other, of being discernable," (124) this links back to when we spoke in class about previous knowledge builds on how we learn new things. Backgound also influences what people think of certain things. One person may think something is the same (like the taste of Burger King hamburgers and the taste of McDonalds's) while another person is able to recognize a difference. Same thing goes for many other examples such as recognizing shades of a color, a fake brand bag, etc. Also, common knoweldge comes into play when we recognize that a camera is still a camera even if it comes in different sizes or colors, or that a car is still a car even though there are different models, shapes, sizes and brands. So what's the difference?
I was confused though when he was talking about difference and differance, because differance is not a real word. I was also confused about what he meant by temporalizing and temporalization.
But then he goes on to define the word differance - "differance is not simply active...it rather indicates the middle voice, it precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity." (120). Here it seems to have created a binary stance - something that Habermas would agree with.
When he then speaks about the common and identifiable definition of 'to differ,' "the sense of not being identical, or being other, of being discernable," (124) this links back to when we spoke in class about previous knowledge builds on how we learn new things. Backgound also influences what people think of certain things. One person may think something is the same (like the taste of Burger King hamburgers and the taste of McDonalds's) while another person is able to recognize a difference. Same thing goes for many other examples such as recognizing shades of a color, a fake brand bag, etc. Also, common knoweldge comes into play when we recognize that a camera is still a camera even if it comes in different sizes or colors, or that a car is still a car even though there are different models, shapes, sizes and brands. So what's the difference?
Jiggy Derrida
How do you understand what images mean? The process in which Derrida talks about is that we can never understand an image for what it is, but rather it is part of an endless string of signifiers. This means that when we see something we are acually seeing the meaning attached to something else rahter than the purity of the image presented. The brain constructs images in our heads in order for mutual understanding can be seen throughout people in different cultures. An example of this is the "golden arches", to almost everyone in america this means "fast food" "mcdonalds" "hamburgers". That one image is read simularly amongst millions of people because of the representations that it carries in our everyday life. Imagine is the images we saw were pure to us every single time that we saw them, no signifiers and no preconceived notions. If this situation happened the fabric of our lives would be completely different, everything in our culture would be destroyed. The simple thought that people wouldnt know what red, green and yellow mean on the roads if they couldnt associate it with meaning would mean global chaos. I believe that the meanings and conclusions of Derrida are rooted in the fuctions of the brain that are arguably unique to humans, for the most part. Sign and signifiers are the faberic of our lives, without it words and language would almost be impossible. Words themselves are just representations of the actual image or thing. We need to understand the functions of our daily brain function in order to fully appritiate its complexities.
boo boo bear Derrida
“Speech/writing stands as a binary opposition…”
I disagree with this statement completely. I think this is part of the problem with “academic” writers. They view speech and writing as two completely different things. Writing should be speaking on paper. The very thoughts that person is thinking or feeling should be put on the paper the same way they would say it in a casual conversation. Where does the transfer take place where someone thinks understandable conversation and decides when they put it on paper they have to pretend to be really smart by saying things in a complicated way? I’m not saying everything should be written at a 5th grade reading level but when there is a class full of college students that read something and only a handful can truly grasp what the writer is intending to say, there is a serious problem. Reading should come as fluent as listening to a speaker and vice versa. There are too many things that I read as a student that I have to read sentences three times just to have somewhat of a clue what the writer is talking about. What is the point in writing something if it isn’t a joy to read? At the same time, there are a lot of speakers that need to relax their minds and speak at a conversational tone, just like some writers do. Speaking should be easy and flowing just like a conversation with a friend is like. The place I see this most is when people pray. As a Christian I encounter too many people trying to pray like they are so smart and holy, when in reality prayer is just simply conversation with God, no different than writers having conversation with their readers.
I may be taking this completely out of context because I don’t really know what this guy is talking about, if so sorry.
I disagree with this statement completely. I think this is part of the problem with “academic” writers. They view speech and writing as two completely different things. Writing should be speaking on paper. The very thoughts that person is thinking or feeling should be put on the paper the same way they would say it in a casual conversation. Where does the transfer take place where someone thinks understandable conversation and decides when they put it on paper they have to pretend to be really smart by saying things in a complicated way? I’m not saying everything should be written at a 5th grade reading level but when there is a class full of college students that read something and only a handful can truly grasp what the writer is intending to say, there is a serious problem. Reading should come as fluent as listening to a speaker and vice versa. There are too many things that I read as a student that I have to read sentences three times just to have somewhat of a clue what the writer is talking about. What is the point in writing something if it isn’t a joy to read? At the same time, there are a lot of speakers that need to relax their minds and speak at a conversational tone, just like some writers do. Speaking should be easy and flowing just like a conversation with a friend is like. The place I see this most is when people pray. As a Christian I encounter too many people trying to pray like they are so smart and holy, when in reality prayer is just simply conversation with God, no different than writers having conversation with their readers.
I may be taking this completely out of context because I don’t really know what this guy is talking about, if so sorry.
sawsaw Bourdieu
The quote I found most interesting from Bourieu's essay is: "The farther a paper extends its circulation the more it favors such topics that interest 'everybody' and don't raise problems." I found this quote to be very true in the media today. If a paper is conscious of their audience they will better be able to ensure their happiness. By a paper extending its circulation, more people will be reached and more groups of people will be included in the paper.
Another quote I found to be interesting is on page 329: "TV news, 'suits everybody because it conforms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact." This quote is saying that TV news doesn't force people to think and gives them what they already know. Bourdieu is criticizing the TV news and saying that it doesn't allow the audience to question and analyze the news mentally.
Another quote I found to be interesting is on page 329: "TV news, 'suits everybody because it conforms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact." This quote is saying that TV news doesn't force people to think and gives them what they already know. Bourdieu is criticizing the TV news and saying that it doesn't allow the audience to question and analyze the news mentally.
Starfish Derrida
Dr. Casey was not joking when he said this reading would be rough. I found myself lost and confused for the most part, but I will post on parts that I understood.
In the Speech/writing section I found it interesting that do very different things like speech and writing could be compared to each other. The reading stated that writers such as Hegal and Saussure have, “privileged speech over writing on the grounds that it is closer to inwardness and thought, and so treated writing as merely a technical derivation from speech, a writing down of what is already there” 114. I was surprised to see that writers preferred speech over writing, when their lives are based around putting down their thoughts onto paper. I also do not agree that speech is closer to inwardness and thought. Although you speak your mind and speak what is inside of you, when you write you are transferring your thoughts onto paper, therefore writing is equally as close to inwardness and thought in my opinion. Sometimes writing is even closer to inwardness than speech because you may write something that you would never feel comfortable to say out loud.
Another part of the reading that I found interesting was when Derrida discusses the definition of difference. “The verb ‘to differ’ seems to differ from itself” 120. The word difference had two definitions that are very distinctive from each other. This just proves that differences are everywhere in our culture, including within the word itself.
Finally, I liked Derrida’s thoughts on signs. “…a sign is put in place of the thing itself…Signs represent the present in its absence...the movement of signs defers the moment of encountering the thing itself, the moment at which we could lay hold of it” 125. I automatically thought of literal signs and moving or traveling down a road in Orlando. Everywhere you see signs for Disney World, 15 miles etc. These are representing the present, because Disney world exists but they are also representing it’s absence because Disney world is not where we see these signs, we need to drive further
In the Speech/writing section I found it interesting that do very different things like speech and writing could be compared to each other. The reading stated that writers such as Hegal and Saussure have, “privileged speech over writing on the grounds that it is closer to inwardness and thought, and so treated writing as merely a technical derivation from speech, a writing down of what is already there” 114. I was surprised to see that writers preferred speech over writing, when their lives are based around putting down their thoughts onto paper. I also do not agree that speech is closer to inwardness and thought. Although you speak your mind and speak what is inside of you, when you write you are transferring your thoughts onto paper, therefore writing is equally as close to inwardness and thought in my opinion. Sometimes writing is even closer to inwardness than speech because you may write something that you would never feel comfortable to say out loud.
Another part of the reading that I found interesting was when Derrida discusses the definition of difference. “The verb ‘to differ’ seems to differ from itself” 120. The word difference had two definitions that are very distinctive from each other. This just proves that differences are everywhere in our culture, including within the word itself.
Finally, I liked Derrida’s thoughts on signs. “…a sign is put in place of the thing itself…Signs represent the present in its absence...the movement of signs defers the moment of encountering the thing itself, the moment at which we could lay hold of it” 125. I automatically thought of literal signs and moving or traveling down a road in Orlando. Everywhere you see signs for Disney World, 15 miles etc. These are representing the present, because Disney world exists but they are also representing it’s absence because Disney world is not where we see these signs, we need to drive further
ChittyChittyBangBang Derrida
Not going to lie, Derrida's article, Differance, was a bit out there for me...there was a lot of "theory" talk: "We provisionally give the name differance to this sameness which is not identical..." (120) ; )
Although from what I gathered he made some interesting points. He referred to some of De Saussure's principles of semiotics. As Sausurre said, "In language there are only differences" (16). According to Derrida, "Differance is neither a word nor a concept..." (120) He points out the separation of difference from differance as, "differance points out the irreducibility of temporalizing...Differance is not simply active; it rather indicates the middle voice..."
Derrida focuses some on the letter A which is the most important difference in differance. With it's a, differance more properly refers to...the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play of difference." Macherey says that, "What is important in the work is what it does not say" (18). Differance could be read as an open text. We need to turn the text inside out to really understand it and read it from multiple angles.
Differance is more than just a word. I found it interesting the way Derrida would speck of letters such as a and e. The structure of a word can influence its signs and meanings so much. Words can mean so many different things. It reminds me of our class discussion about Hebdige. We have a common set of assumptions but some words have different meanings based on people's interests and backgrounds. So words are ambiguous in that sense.
Although from what I gathered he made some interesting points. He referred to some of De Saussure's principles of semiotics. As Sausurre said, "In language there are only differences" (16). According to Derrida, "Differance is neither a word nor a concept..." (120) He points out the separation of difference from differance as, "differance points out the irreducibility of temporalizing...Differance is not simply active; it rather indicates the middle voice..."
Derrida focuses some on the letter A which is the most important difference in differance. With it's a, differance more properly refers to...the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play of difference." Macherey says that, "What is important in the work is what it does not say" (18). Differance could be read as an open text. We need to turn the text inside out to really understand it and read it from multiple angles.
Differance is more than just a word. I found it interesting the way Derrida would speck of letters such as a and e. The structure of a word can influence its signs and meanings so much. Words can mean so many different things. It reminds me of our class discussion about Hebdige. We have a common set of assumptions but some words have different meanings based on people's interests and backgrounds. So words are ambiguous in that sense.
Bumble: Derrida: differance
Difference
Derrida’s
Discombobulating perception of language reminds me very much of De Saussure’s explanation of language and the ambiguity of words and meanings.
Difference according to Derrida is neither a word or a concept. From his explanation that it can mean, “distinction, inequality, or discernibility,” proves the point that a word as general as Difference can be packed with an enormous assortment of meanings and contexts. I was thinking about all of the different ways to use Different. He describes this term to mean ambiguous, there is essentially no meaning, it is too general. Unless you understand the context of what is going on, it is essentially impossible to define.
I loved how Derrida used the word “Assemblage” to attempt to define and describe the term difference. His parallel to De Saussure is very strong in this portion of the essay. He wrote that assemblage allows for, “bringing- together proposed here has the structure of an interlacing, a weaving, or a web, which would allow the different threads and different lines of sense or force to separate again, as well as being ready to bind others together” (Derrida 121). The meaning of words is entirely based on pulling together your past experiences and knowledge to try to make sense of something. Every single context is different, and therefore the lightest change of a letter (like he talks about with the letter a) and the pulling together an infinite number of ways to perceive a word in its context, changes the entire perception of what someone is saying. It is very powerful because it could even be a different meaning to the same person five minutes from when it was said before. The world is always changing, so your mental state and mind set might have shifted dramatically even within such a small portion of time. That is why I love his explanation of the word through this other word ‘assemblage.’ Derrida likes to think of difference as a, “whole complex of meanings…” (Derrida 125).
One of the large problems with this way of thinking is that people look for definitions, “that moves according to the discursive line of a rational order” (Derrida 123).
Derrida gives credit to De Saussure to the conflation of the terms arbitrary and difference. Even though it seems to be a common perception in post modernism to consider language and word selection quite dependent on the context. Whether it is Machery and Bhartes discussing the Gap and Tmesis, or it is talking about defining a culture according to Althusser.
Also, if differences in language have been produced, as nothing is natural ( or fallen from the sky as he puts it) and everything is culturally created, then who exactly created the various meanings?
Derrida’s
Discombobulating perception of language reminds me very much of De Saussure’s explanation of language and the ambiguity of words and meanings.
Difference according to Derrida is neither a word or a concept. From his explanation that it can mean, “distinction, inequality, or discernibility,” proves the point that a word as general as Difference can be packed with an enormous assortment of meanings and contexts. I was thinking about all of the different ways to use Different. He describes this term to mean ambiguous, there is essentially no meaning, it is too general. Unless you understand the context of what is going on, it is essentially impossible to define.
I loved how Derrida used the word “Assemblage” to attempt to define and describe the term difference. His parallel to De Saussure is very strong in this portion of the essay. He wrote that assemblage allows for, “bringing- together proposed here has the structure of an interlacing, a weaving, or a web, which would allow the different threads and different lines of sense or force to separate again, as well as being ready to bind others together” (Derrida 121). The meaning of words is entirely based on pulling together your past experiences and knowledge to try to make sense of something. Every single context is different, and therefore the lightest change of a letter (like he talks about with the letter a) and the pulling together an infinite number of ways to perceive a word in its context, changes the entire perception of what someone is saying. It is very powerful because it could even be a different meaning to the same person five minutes from when it was said before. The world is always changing, so your mental state and mind set might have shifted dramatically even within such a small portion of time. That is why I love his explanation of the word through this other word ‘assemblage.’ Derrida likes to think of difference as a, “whole complex of meanings…” (Derrida 125).
One of the large problems with this way of thinking is that people look for definitions, “that moves according to the discursive line of a rational order” (Derrida 123).
Derrida gives credit to De Saussure to the conflation of the terms arbitrary and difference. Even though it seems to be a common perception in post modernism to consider language and word selection quite dependent on the context. Whether it is Machery and Bhartes discussing the Gap and Tmesis, or it is talking about defining a culture according to Althusser.
Also, if differences in language have been produced, as nothing is natural ( or fallen from the sky as he puts it) and everything is culturally created, then who exactly created the various meanings?
Monday, April 7, 2008
kMO 3/27
Mass media's function is not hidden, it is simply to bombard us with systematic propaganda. This is why the essential ingrediants of propaganda are based around media ownership...who owns the media HAS THE INFLUENCE. The increasing problem with american culture is the constant confusion between choice and democracy. Fox News is a prime example of propaganda gone wrong...the forced opinions exerted by their anchor reporters does the exact opposite of what we expect from a news channel. Instead of reporting what is currently happening we are exposed to biased lies (intended to sway our opinions). However, under the United States constitution they are allowed to act this way and sadly many people fall victim to this blantant trap.
The idea that advertisers will want, more generally, to avoid programs with serious complexities and distubing convtroversies that interefere with the buying mood also fits into the above statement. In my opinion it seems nearly impossible to find the pro's of a news channel such as Fox. What exactly could one advertise? It seems that at some point that same product could be torn apart by Fox itself. No one and no prodcut is safe from the brutal opinions of this particular media concentration...This set of ideas became much more clear to me post - class.
The idea that advertisers will want, more generally, to avoid programs with serious complexities and distubing convtroversies that interefere with the buying mood also fits into the above statement. In my opinion it seems nearly impossible to find the pro's of a news channel such as Fox. What exactly could one advertise? It seems that at some point that same product could be torn apart by Fox itself. No one and no prodcut is safe from the brutal opinions of this particular media concentration...This set of ideas became much more clear to me post - class.
Cuckoo 4.1
I really enjoyed watching the OutFoxed video’s during Tuesday’s class. It was interesting to see how someone pulled different clips together to make their point. Even though we all do this in order to make our point. This also could easily be done with other news sources such as CNN, NBC, and ABC, which all give you different perspectives about what is going on. The news is something that you think would be straight forward because it is just facts, yet we can watch the same store on different channels and get a different view point of what is going on. One could watch a similar story on each of these different channels and come out with something different from each one. When you choose what channel you are going to watch you are aware of what view point you are getting, and will choose what channel you watch according your own perspective. There is not just one channel that will give you a general overview without and from of a bias opinion.
sawsaw Derrida
After reading this article, my whole definition of the word "Difference" changed. I had always assumed that difference was something that wasn’t the same and abnormal, know I realize that difference cannot be defined by just one thing but is a collect of ideas put together. Derrida writes on page 123, “Already we had to not that difference is not, does not exist, and is not any sort of being-present.” He is saying that difference is not a being-present. It cannot be contained or defined. The quote that spoke to me the most is on page 124, “The other sense of “to differ” is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, ect.” This definition of difference is most evident in today’s society. Everyone wants to be different. If someone has a different opinion or feeling about something it is accepted. I often hear the quote, “What’s good for me might not be what’s good for you.” People accept different and some people and organizations strive off difference. For a product to be successful in today’s culture it must offer something different, something the consumer hasn’t seen before. In today's society, people are admired for being different or exotic.
I learned a lot from this essay by Derrida and have found it be very truthful in our culture. The question I am left with after reading the essay is how the same people who define "normalcy" in our society are the same people who are accepting "difference?"
I learned a lot from this essay by Derrida and have found it be very truthful in our culture. The question I am left with after reading the essay is how the same people who define "normalcy" in our society are the same people who are accepting "difference?"
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, Derrida
I'm not positive that "Differance" is the article Dr. Casey warned us about, but if not, then I'm terrified for the rest of the semester. I found Derrida's "Differance" to be a very difficult read, but I think I was able to catch a few points he was trying to make. First of all, Derrida's notions on language, specifically on words, reminded me a lot of some of the other authors we've studied. The basic structure of Derrida's text is him dissecting the word 'differance,' which is a term that he coined to explain a few theories of his on writing and speech. In Derrida's analysis of the word 'differance,' one conclusion he reaches is that writing and speech are equally important. He also points out that his word 'differance' is not, or it's nonexistent. His definition of the word 'differance' comes from two root words: first is differ, which signifies non-identity, and second is the -ance part of the word, which refers to something between active and passive. One of the points he tries to make with his idea of 'differance' is to show that the presence of a word's meaning isn't there in speech. Rather, we rely on an authoritative power to make up for its lack of spoken meaning, which brings me to another concept. A word cannot simply mean what it means. To reach the meaning of a word one must consider everything it does not mean. This directly connects to another author we've studied (who Derrida even mentions in his article) named de Saussure. de Saussure also follows the idea that in language, there are only differences (that might even be a direct quote). Both authors would agree that to find the true meaning of a word, or concept, the only way to reach an answer is to narrow it down. To first consider everything it does not mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)