It is such a bizarre phenomenon that we love to put ourselves out in the public sphere, yet at the same time cringe when people want to look out our profiled in public. It is strange that we love to watch, and love to be watched… but only if we do not know about it!
At work, every key stroke is recorded, every thing is watched. Even more importantly though, once something is written and sent out in e-mails… it is forever there. For a country that is so image conscious, there is surprisingly little analysis of how we present ourselves on sites like facebook.
It is amazing how under surveillance we are. I had applied for an internship last summer, and when I went in for an interview, every single person in the office knew who I was because my facebook picture had circulated around the office! I could not believe it. In one way it was great because it had exposed me, and put me out there, which could be one of the reasons that I got the job, but if I was not meticulous in how I presented myself, it could have backfired
The idea of the Panopticon, is completely interrelated with Marx’s ideas of ideology and hierarchy of power. We have a conception of class hierarchy because of these ideologies we have placed in our culture. Automatically, these affect how we fear the greater powers. Fear is definitely the KEY!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, hooks
In Bell Hooks's essay, "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance," the author discusses the way we are trained to see other people. He focuses specifically on the way white males are trained to see Black and minority females. Hegemony does seem to be suggesting an end to racism as many advertisements and media today features women of minority. However, as the sources are more carefully examined, one will find that racism is being promoted now more than ever. "They [white boys] believe their desire for contact repreesents a progressive change in white attitudes toward non-whites" (hooks 369). A common theme that promotes it is portraying colored women as exotic, animalistic, and as a thrill. By portraying them in this way, it is suggesting they are less than human. Rather than deserving the same respect society tells men to use with white females (which is still a struggle), the same respect is not even a suggestion for minority females. One clear example of this Virginia Slims ad I found online (see above this post). While it's a little dated, it provides a perfect example of the dehumanization of women. In this ad for cigarettes, a female of color is clearly being shown as animalistic. She wears a leopard print outfit. Also, her head is pointed down and her body language suggests her submissive status. But if that doesn't do it for you, her dehumanization could not be more clear in the ad's text, which reads: "Tame and Timid? That Goes Against My Instincts." This text is obviously referring to the qualities of an animal, thus it is saying she is an animal. She is less than human, and it is OK for men (and women) to treat her that way. Hooks ends his essay with a notion that fear is getting in the way of any kind of reform. With hegemony drilling these thoughts of racism into people's heads, it is not just promoting racism, but it is promoting fear to challenge it.
Elizabeth Daigh - Hooks
In Hooks article, the first sentence "within current debates about race and difference, mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgment of racial different" really stood out to me.While reading this essay I immediately thought of fashion. I think that everywhere in fashion designers are using "the other" race to make them different or more exotic from the other. I really like what Cuckoo says about America's Next Top Model, as "the other" is very prevalent in the show. On the runway designers are always using black people to make the clothes appear a different way and show them in a different light. It changes the appeal and make the clothes seem as though they are different- it makes them more appealing. At the same, I also think that high fashion magazines will use African setting with white women to advertise. In a controversial Vogue spread it was telling how "cultured" Keira Knightly was. The picture of her with Masaai Tribes in Tanzania and she was modeling with them but at the same time she was wearing a 3,000 dollar dress. Another picture was of her with an elephant which had a Louis Vuiton cashmere blanket thrown over its back. To me, this seemed crazy. The idea that wealthy America's could/ would go into an extremely impoverished country and take pictures with them with all of this high class very expensive stuff. I think the quote "when race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relations with the Other" can be applied to what I am trying to say. In the sense that Vogue used rural Tanzania as its "playground" for visual pleasure. This spread raised controversy because people thought it was crazy to go into their tribe and put all this money in front of their eye and see how we have so much technology - and I agreed. I agreed until I read an interview with my favorite photography, Peter Beard, (who has done lots of fashion Photography in Africa) and he looked at it differently. The tribes are not upset at all more so they are happy to offer their art, their land, and culture as we are embracing it by taking pictures and wanting to show it off to America society and showing it in high fashion magazines. The tribes also have no idea what an L and V all over a blanket mean. Its not like they are thinking "Oh My God how could they bring all this designer clothing in here". Peter Beard thinks of using their tribe as further embracing the art of fashion, photography, and other cultures.
Cuckoo hooks
When reading Belle Hooks, Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance, I started to think about the show Americas Next Top Model. They are always using ‘ethnicity…. to liven up the dull dish” rather their show. The models are often placed in situation where they have to mimic another culture in their photo shoot, and then are judge on how well they embodied what they were taught. People find pleasure…. in the acknowledgement and enjoyment of racial difference” (366). The judges are often talking about how certain models have something exotic about them and that it sells. During one of the challenges the girls learned about the aboriginal Australian Culture way of story telling through dance and body art. Later the girls have to incorporate what they learned into their photo shoot. Here are some examples…
This is only one of many examples through out the show that have used different cultures to sell an image. Hooks writes, “The world of fashion has also come to understand that selling products is heightened by the exploration of Otherness” and these image confirm this. (371)
When I was younger there was this billboard that had these two hands shaking, one was black and one was white. While reading this article and thinking about how media use the Other to sell products this image kept coming back to me. This image has always been a popular way to show difference. If these image were of two hands of the same race it would not be powerful, but because of the contrast of the two it stands out more. Hooks talks about the Tweeds catalogue and how they choose the model they use for the images based on contrast. Having a dark-skinned model used while in Egypt would not work because of the “play on contrast”.
BubbaNub: Hooks
Racial difference, orientalism, gay window advertising, and our obsession with difference as a whole has recently dominated our society. As Hooks observes, the media has become the forefront for promoting and playing off of these issues of not diversity, but difference. Largely, these advertisements still radiate racist and decentralized cultures and beliefs. There are numerous advertisements that contain white women wearing indigenous garments in everyday situations, therefore destroying the cultural significance and value along with it. Even racism becomes subliminally acceptable in what are easily offensive messages.
As I searched around for images pertaining to Hooks, I could not help but think back to my time spent in Japan. Similar to our obsession with Japanese characters in the United States, Japan runs rampant with English phrases gone wrong. Lost in translation, popular English phrases become skewed and lose all meaning when inducted into Japanese culture. This is just as evident as the Japanese T-shirts sold that literally translate to "Stupid American" and yet numerous tourists purchase and wear them around with pride.
Looking at contemporary examples such as these, it is clear that there exists a certain danger in our obsession with difference. However, it is not the difference itself that endangers us, but the lack of substance we give it. In our desire for assimilation we simplify, and remove the very things that spark our interest in difference in the first place. After that, we are simply left with nostalgic images, ones that we can't remember why exactly we like/accept.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
ChittyChittyBangBang hooks
As someone else mentioned, I too was introduced to bell hooks in a race & gender writing course my freshman year. By not capitalizing her name you can already tell she challenges our society’s ideologies. She has very interesting points and her writing style is clear and easy to follow. In her article, "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance" she begins to analyze societies interaction with "the other" and our tendency to "Other" each other. We make assumptions about people we view different than ourselves everyday. Historically westerners have categorized othering by the west vs. the rest; the primitive "them and the civilized "we". Although hooks made an interesting and important point, "The message again is that "primitivism" though more apparent in the Other, also resides in the white self" (372).
In advertising there has been a history of representing people in certain ways in order to advertise to mainstream white culture. Although overtime the desire for exotica has increased, even from white culture (if not especially from white culture). Representations of the "other" are fantasies. Sex is what sells and is what drives the advertising business therefore most images are in a sexualized manner. When I think exotic I think sex, I think minimal clothing, and I think of animalistic seductive images. Exotica also means purely different, challenging the norms such as the picture I posted of the bald woman. The picture of the gothic girl also is a representation of someone trying to be socially different and establishing their own identity. They turn something that might be considered weird beautiful. People want to see new and different things although this doesn’t mean they don't still conform to cultural norms. "To make one's self vulnerable to the seduction of difference, to seek an encounter with the Other, does not require that one relinquish forever one's mainstream positionality" (367). It is like a secret pleasure for a lot of white culture.
In advertising there has been a history of representing people in certain ways in order to advertise to mainstream white culture. Although overtime the desire for exotica has increased, even from white culture (if not especially from white culture). Representations of the "other" are fantasies. Sex is what sells and is what drives the advertising business therefore most images are in a sexualized manner. When I think exotic I think sex, I think minimal clothing, and I think of animalistic seductive images. Exotica also means purely different, challenging the norms such as the picture I posted of the bald woman. The picture of the gothic girl also is a representation of someone trying to be socially different and establishing their own identity. They turn something that might be considered weird beautiful. People want to see new and different things although this doesn’t mean they don't still conform to cultural norms. "To make one's self vulnerable to the seduction of difference, to seek an encounter with the Other, does not require that one relinquish forever one's mainstream positionality" (367). It is like a secret pleasure for a lot of white culture.
"Now that sophisticated market surveys reveal the extent to which poor and materially under-privileged people of all races/ethnicities consume products, sometimes in a quantity disproportionate to income, it has become more evident that these markets can be appealed to with advertising" (371). Images are not only satisfying white cultures fantasies; other cultures like to be and are attracted to images of their culture represented in mainstream media.
I think it is a positive step for many reasons to add diversity to our media, although stereotypes are often involved and do not represent cultures accurately. Therefore as hooks stated, we need to approach all of these images critically.
I think it is a positive step for many reasons to add diversity to our media, although stereotypes are often involved and do not represent cultures accurately. Therefore as hooks stated, we need to approach all of these images critically.
Bella (bell hooks )
bell hooks is probably one my absolute favorite writers. I first encountered her work in my freshman writing course Race, Class and Gender. I was fascinated that she did not capitalize her first or last name, a statement meant to neutralize herself in the world. Her name is no more important than anyone else’s name…why should it be capitalized? Her writing captivates me and I hang on every word. In her essay titled “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance”, she discusses the modern world’s obsession with race, difference, and ‘Othering each other’. She argues that we have no other way of understanding the universe than by understanding what we are not. Race has become not only a source of difference, but rather a source of entertainment. She writes, “The commodification of Otherness has been so successful because it is offered as a new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling…withing commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (hooks 366) Our obsession with the ‘primitive’ sheds light on our ‘nasty fantasies’ hidden beneath white supremacy, namely, our obsession with the Other. She says that difference is seductive, a spicy, sexualized distraction for the white bread and butter people in American modern culture. We will take the Other, distort it, mute it, make it “whiter” and then regurgitate back into the culture as a more ‘acceptable’ form of Other. This version has been swept clean, Americanized, polished to perfection. Think of famous ethnic singers or actresses: Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, Halle Berry. These women are successful, beautiful, and different. They have a claim to ethnicity that my Northern European heritage is not truly able to claim. They are seen in society as “Others”. However, they all have one thing in common-they are light skinned. They have lighten the color of their hair, straightened out any curls or give-aways to “Nappy Roots”. They have had plastic surgery to make their noses smaller, lips bigger, eyes rounder. Everything about them is manipulated. We accept them in society because they are no longer Other…they have become Us.
hooks DetectiveDanny
In my other Critical Media core classes, I have found an interesting subject in advertising, especially the ads for high fashion displayed in magazines such as Vogue and W. Ive analyzed the content of ads and I am working on researching how college aged women process these ads. The bell hooks piece on the other brought an interesting perspective to this, looking at ads in regards to critical theory and “The Other”
“The Other” is a familiar concept with our group of Critical media students. We have learned of the commodification of the other that hooks speaks of in the context of Ota Benga and Ishii. Both of these primitive people were literally kidnapped and put on display for the white American public. The ads use our xenophobia and fear of the other to provoke deep desires as “the ‘real fun’ is to be had by bringing to the surface all those nasty unconscious fantasies and longings about contact the Other embedded in the secret (not so secret) deep structure of white supremacy”.
This Tecate Beer ad assumes that all of us dream of the proposition of having relations with a ‘spicy latina’, but their beer may offer us the same pleasure without bringing the caliente attitude.
Another Other is the homosexual, and Dolce and Gabanna is notorious for bringing the consumer homosexual imagery in their ads. These three men can be looked upon and one wonders if they are homosexual. The mystique and taboo nature of homosexuality raises our interest as we let the image into our heads and project ourself into it.
United Colors of Benetton has taken a more socially critical road. Here we see the white man chained to the black Other, and we interpret that painting of race relations any number of different ways.
NewYorker - Hooks
Despite there still being a hegemonic want for the "all-American" looking model when it comes to modeling, more and more different cultures are becoming more appealing and attractive. Sometimes advertisers want to take a different angle, and will hire a different race. I have seen a lot of black, Asian, and Indian models lately. As a few people had commented on America's Next Top Model, I want to add something too. They always have contestants of different races, and always take them to another country. On the last season, the two finalists were a black woman, and a blonde American. I totally thought the blonde was going to win, but it turned out that the black model won. I feel this show is trying to show people that models can look different, because every season the winner has not been the mainstream hegemonic look.
The want for a specific looking model will always be in flux, because consumers want to see people in the ads that look like themselves, that they can relate to. However, I think here is where stereotypes come into play, and exotica/Other, because sometimes when an advertiser wants to represent something different, they immediately go to a stereotype, because they feel that will get the message across and that people will be able to identify it (such as getting an Indian model that completely looks Indian, not something in between, or a mix. Or to have a black woman sporting an Afro.) This relates to the paragraph on the Tweeds catalogue that Hooks spoke about (372).
Further this article just made me think of many of the commercials that are out right now for such items like vacuums, cleaning fluids, and plastic bags. It is always the woman of the house vacuuming, or feeding the kids the proper cereal, and the mother disinfecting the bathroom. There is not one commercial that shows men doing this! A typical commercial where the man of the house is the star, is for things such as credit cards, electronics and garbage bags.
Here are some examples I have found:
http://www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/266188
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NUA6ivmBPs
The want for a specific looking model will always be in flux, because consumers want to see people in the ads that look like themselves, that they can relate to. However, I think here is where stereotypes come into play, and exotica/Other, because sometimes when an advertiser wants to represent something different, they immediately go to a stereotype, because they feel that will get the message across and that people will be able to identify it (such as getting an Indian model that completely looks Indian, not something in between, or a mix. Or to have a black woman sporting an Afro.) This relates to the paragraph on the Tweeds catalogue that Hooks spoke about (372).
Further this article just made me think of many of the commercials that are out right now for such items like vacuums, cleaning fluids, and plastic bags. It is always the woman of the house vacuuming, or feeding the kids the proper cereal, and the mother disinfecting the bathroom. There is not one commercial that shows men doing this! A typical commercial where the man of the house is the star, is for things such as credit cards, electronics and garbage bags.
Here are some examples I have found:
http://www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/266188
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NUA6ivmBPs
booboobear Hooks
bell hook in Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance that "Mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgement and the enjoyment of racial difference"
As I began to think about this comment I couldn’t really think of an example of this, until I realized the music that most high school and college students listen to is from the Other. Rap music is from (or at least perceived from) lower class urban individuals. But the astonishing thing is the statistics show the majority of album sales are to upper class suburban white kids. All rap songs are about shootings, drugs or sex. Because most rappers are black, we have come to associate rap music with black people. These black rappers have become the Other that bell hooks is talking about. Most of the consumers of this music look at rappers and the subjects they sing about as primitive and not relative to there lives. But they seek pleasure from this music because the topics are taboo for their upper class lifestyles. This is a perfect example of how people are seeking pleasure from the Other.
For some reason I couldn’t get the picture on here, I couldn’t figure it out. But the picture I was going to use is a rap music advertisement. The advertisement has a picture of the rapper 50 cent. In this picture the rapper 50 cent is holding a gun, pointing the gun right at the camera acting like he is about to shoot the camera. 50 cent appears very primitive and urban in this picture because he is standing with a mean look on his face with his shirt off. His body is covered in tattoos and gun shot wounds.
As I began to think about this comment I couldn’t really think of an example of this, until I realized the music that most high school and college students listen to is from the Other. Rap music is from (or at least perceived from) lower class urban individuals. But the astonishing thing is the statistics show the majority of album sales are to upper class suburban white kids. All rap songs are about shootings, drugs or sex. Because most rappers are black, we have come to associate rap music with black people. These black rappers have become the Other that bell hooks is talking about. Most of the consumers of this music look at rappers and the subjects they sing about as primitive and not relative to there lives. But they seek pleasure from this music because the topics are taboo for their upper class lifestyles. This is a perfect example of how people are seeking pleasure from the Other.
For some reason I couldn’t get the picture on here, I couldn’t figure it out. But the picture I was going to use is a rap music advertisement. The advertisement has a picture of the rapper 50 cent. In this picture the rapper 50 cent is holding a gun, pointing the gun right at the camera acting like he is about to shoot the camera. 50 cent appears very primitive and urban in this picture because he is standing with a mean look on his face with his shirt off. His body is covered in tattoos and gun shot wounds.
romulus hooks
"It was commonly accepted that one 'shopped' for sexual products in the same way one 'shopped' for courses at Yale, and that race and ethnicity was a serious category on which selections were based."
Biologically, this makes complete sense. Everyone is ultimately a brand. Through the choices we make, everything from appearance, intelligence, ideology, etc., we cultivate an image, an identity that we present to the world. Some of the aspects of our design are shaped by genetics and cannot not necessarily be altered, by race and gender. With the amount of exposure one can have in his lifetime free to reach great heights, its important for us to stand out. The advertising I predominately consume is hyper sexualized, and there is only one gender involved. Being of persian Indian descent, I used to but not anymore wonder if I was a desired race. There is an emphasis on physical appearance that all ethnicities of men included share, but obviously most of the ads are dominated by whites. The male models I see in fashion ads all share the more refined and beautiful of western masculinity. High cheek bones, slender noses, wide eyes, and strong jaw lines for the face. Tall, lean muscles, toned body, perfect abs, wide chest and much more.
The image above is of Cas, a model and good friend of mine. His pictures in his portfolio are ideal, they embody a number of aspect of the male beauty in fashion advertising. The picture got my attention. After watching so many seasons of America's Next Top Model, I have learnt a multitude about high fashion modeling. Tyra Banks has taught viewers much about the industry as she finds that 'one'. That one is what everyone desires. Cas is that one. He's also Japanese, which I never could of guessed. This brings me back to my point of race being a reason for consideration when determining who is attractive, but physical appearance is the deal breaker. Those who have those qualities becomes desired, they become aware of this and improve their image or 'brand'.
kMO Hooks
The concept that there is pleasure to be found in racial difference is one that is echoed throughout our society in many different ways.. Hooks states, "Cultural taboos about sexuality and desire are transgressed and made explicit as the media bombards folks with a message difference no longer based on the white supremacist assumption that 'blondes have more fun.' The real fun is to be had by bringing to the surface those 'nasty' unconscious fantasies and longings about contact with the other embedded in the secret (not so secret) deep structure of white supremacy." Hooks describes these desires as "interest in the primitive". Due to this the ideologies explored through her writing are on target and remain of interest even today. In my opinion Hooks uses this type of terminology in order to acknowledge "interlocking systems of domination" and address all forms of racism at once (considering they are simultaneously occurring).
Hooks repeatedly refers to exotica is a term which (undeniably) was given by the "superior race". On numerous different websites exotic was listed as something 'uncommon'. I found a blog on yahoo.com that discussed similar topics. I felt that this answer was most relative to hooks understanding of the word...
"I've heard exotic, doesn't neccessarily mean beautiful. Other times, I've heard exotic means a different unique type of beauty. When I think of a face that looks exotic, I think of someone who resembles animals from the jungle"...
Hooks repeatedly refers to exotica is a term which (undeniably) was given by the "superior race". On numerous different websites exotic was listed as something 'uncommon'. I found a blog on yahoo.com that discussed similar topics. I felt that this answer was most relative to hooks understanding of the word...
"I've heard exotic, doesn't neccessarily mean beautiful. Other times, I've heard exotic means a different unique type of beauty. When I think of a face that looks exotic, I think of someone who resembles animals from the jungle"...
ChittyChittyBangBang 4/15
Discussing Foucault was a very graphic class experience. Imagining the plague was intense but a great representation of Foucault's points about our government. It was crazy to think about the Panopticon. The fact that authority is able to scare people into doing what they want through deception really makes me think. What else do we abide by just because we are told something by an authoritative person or group? There are certain norms created in our society such as that we have to do what our teacher tells us to and that we definitely have to do anything a police officer tells us to do. These authoritative figures have power over us and there is certain validity to everything they tell us...but why?
"Induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power" (98. It is interesting to think that society basically prisons themselves because we assume that what the government tells us is truth and we are afraid of consequences. They don't necessarily need to tell us exactly what to do all the time, it becomes engrained in our culture and we restrict ourselves from acting in certain ways that are "unacceptable".
"A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation" (99). How do we really know the truth? How do we really know there is a Sky Marshall on the plane? How do we really know that the police officer's gun is loaded? How do we really know anything? The system has to be built on a level of trust. Such as during the plague inspections, officers had to believe that you were telling the truth about how many people and/or dead people you have in your home. People are mostly honest though because they are afraid of the system. As Dr. Rog said in class, if you don't subscribe to the system, you die.
All of these quotes and examples really make me feel like our whole society is behind bars. We are constantly watched. Although is all of this necessary? There are more of us than them, why don't we rebel? Although, if we didn't have this cloak of rules, this system, wouldn't all hell break loose?
"Induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power" (98. It is interesting to think that society basically prisons themselves because we assume that what the government tells us is truth and we are afraid of consequences. They don't necessarily need to tell us exactly what to do all the time, it becomes engrained in our culture and we restrict ourselves from acting in certain ways that are "unacceptable".
"A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation" (99). How do we really know the truth? How do we really know there is a Sky Marshall on the plane? How do we really know that the police officer's gun is loaded? How do we really know anything? The system has to be built on a level of trust. Such as during the plague inspections, officers had to believe that you were telling the truth about how many people and/or dead people you have in your home. People are mostly honest though because they are afraid of the system. As Dr. Rog said in class, if you don't subscribe to the system, you die.
All of these quotes and examples really make me feel like our whole society is behind bars. We are constantly watched. Although is all of this necessary? There are more of us than them, why don't we rebel? Although, if we didn't have this cloak of rules, this system, wouldn't all hell break loose?
Starfish Hooks
Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance, by Bell Hooks discusses how in our culture, the other or things and people who are different than the majority of the culture, tend to be made into commodities. They are labeled ethnic and “ethnicity becomes spice” (366). It seems that in our society people have a craving for the other, and this is what is marketable. They have “…desires for the ‘primitive’ or fantasies about the other…” (367). I personally have seen and know what Hooks is discussing in his writing. In the fashion world, specifically modeling, you can see that exotic is what is in right now. I watch America’s Next Top Model quite a bit, and Tyra Banks and the other judges often say to some of the models, “your look is very exotic and is marketable.” Many of the themes for the photo shoots the girls do have to do with exotica as well. Here are two examples…
I also link Hooks reading to Hebdige who discusses subcultures. Subcultures are unique and different and try to stand out from the rest of the culture. Our culture does one of two things to these subcultures. We trivialize, domesticate or normalize them or we transform them into exotica. Exotica is accepted and loved in our culture, and therefore is a normalized. It is interesting to see how our culture has changed. Exotica used to be looked down upon by our culture. Anything that was different was questioned and usually not accepted in the culture. Now, as a culture, we embrace it but I wonder do we embrace it because we think it is beautiful or becomes it is marketable?
I also link Hooks reading to Hebdige who discusses subcultures. Subcultures are unique and different and try to stand out from the rest of the culture. Our culture does one of two things to these subcultures. We trivialize, domesticate or normalize them or we transform them into exotica. Exotica is accepted and loved in our culture, and therefore is a normalized. It is interesting to see how our culture has changed. Exotica used to be looked down upon by our culture. Anything that was different was questioned and usually not accepted in the culture. Now, as a culture, we embrace it but I wonder do we embrace it because we think it is beautiful or becomes it is marketable?
BubbaNub: 4/15
As we discussed Foucault's reading in class the other day, I could not seem to forget a certain exercise Doc Rog made us do in class one day. In retrospect, it appears as a fairly simple activity until we truly examine our reasoning behind it. He told us to stand, and we stood. However, why did we stand? Was it because he represented some sort of repressive authority or did it begin as purely ideological (i.e. stand for our elders)? Foucault asks us these very same questions as he examines such authoritarian structures as the Panopticon.
Another similarity we could tie to the functionality of the Panopticon is our very own honor code. Do we refuse to cheat because the honor code hovers over us, making us think it is watching when it is not? Or do we refuse to cheat because we have been raised with the ideals of "honor" and "responsibility"? Just like the Panopticon, as we write our honor code down at the end of the day we are not sure if the windows are open, or closed. Therefore, is all ideology necessarily a bad thing? Or does it allow morals to be instilled upon us? And for those without similar morals, does the repressive state serve to mold them into this ideology? These are all pertinent questions that Foucault's reading brings to light.
Another similarity we could tie to the functionality of the Panopticon is our very own honor code. Do we refuse to cheat because the honor code hovers over us, making us think it is watching when it is not? Or do we refuse to cheat because we have been raised with the ideals of "honor" and "responsibility"? Just like the Panopticon, as we write our honor code down at the end of the day we are not sure if the windows are open, or closed. Therefore, is all ideology necessarily a bad thing? Or does it allow morals to be instilled upon us? And for those without similar morals, does the repressive state serve to mold them into this ideology? These are all pertinent questions that Foucault's reading brings to light.
Bumble: Hooks
Bell Hooks discusses many issues pertaining to our secret wishes and desires. Whatever nationality you are (particularly from the perspective of an American) there is an egocentric identity that we can imperialize everything. If we can get our hands on something tangible, then we have claimed ownership over it. We have this interesting desire to separate ourselves from the cultural “Other,” however still gain control over it. By controlling “them, or these other people, we essentially take what is there’s or things that they have originated, and make it our own. As Bell says, we, “desire “a bit of the Other” to enhance the blank landscape of whiteness” (Hooks 372). Similar to Karl Marx and issues of ideologies created and controlled by the dominant powerful groups, the “white and superior” group claim what is considered eclectic and exotic. It is exotic because it is NOT them. We commodify these other people’s cultures. If we take something from their culture, we are not a part of that culture and therefore do not have a common understanding of that particular custom or clothing article etc. We try to pull in these cultural ways into our own culture, entirely changing the meaning and context of it. This is how we exploit these other cultures and imperialize them. We take what is theirs and claim ownership over it.
We want contact with the other in many different ways.
We take rituals, languages, restaurant foods, clothing, decoration, and more. We take it to tinker with and make the new popular or trendy item. Like we have learned from past theorists we do not like culturally other things. That is why when something deviates from the norm, we mass produce it. Hebdige talks about deviating from the norm and the only way to handle it is to mass produce it, as Adorno claims as well.
All of the latest trends and cultural phenomenon are these eclectic mixes from all different cultures. It could literally be taking someone else’s religion or religious practices and make it your own.
Madonna is the perfect example of this, taking yoga and kabbalah and all different mystical rituals and picking and choosing what she likes from them and then using them for her own person enjoyment. Of course, then these popular notions are solidified into culture.
Language, we borrow and use expressions from others and make it our own. Even terms like lingerie, or c’est la vie. We intermix languages all of the time. To add into our mundane vocabulary, we might throw in a little, “je ne sais quoi!”
Next comes restaurants, you may go to a restaurant, created by Jean-Georges, a famous French restaurant owner and chef, which specializes in Chinese food! But, it is not only Chinese food, but it is Thai food or Indian food. This is borrowing and using the “other” for our own good. In a sense, these intermingling of genres can help alleviate some boundaries and stereotypes which were originally set in stone.
http://www.jean-georges.com/
sample of a menu from Vong: the asian inspired fusian restaurant in NYC
“Chicken and Coconut Milk Soup galangal and shiitake mushrooms
Warm Asparagus Salad enoki mushrooms and thai hollandaise
Spicy Thai Beef Salad Raw Tuna and Vegetable Roll nam prik vinaigrette
Vietnamese Pork and Shrimp Spring Rolls nuoc cham sauce
Asian Vegetable Fritatta Vegetable Pad Thai Tofu Tempura,
Lily Bulb and Radish Salad white sesame and lavender
Crispy Basil Salt and Pepper Calamari thaitar sauce
Prawns thai herbs and bok choy
Grilled Tuna Burger bonito mayonnaise, shiso-yuzu marinated pickle”
People find more excitement from interracial and cultural restaurants, and it is accepted more as a cultural norm and so in a way it can help reduce some of the racial tensions. But, as Hooks says there are issues with racial identity and representation of racial identity. However, there still are norms and the hierarchy of desirables. The number of Jewish women I know who have gotten nose jobs to appear more hegemonically Christian etc… is countless!
Then there is the Bombay Co. a commercialized store that mass produces “authentic” and exotic goods to decorate your own house with. This relates to Benjamin’s issue of authenticity, we want the original, but we are mass producing these goods, drifting further from the origins. http://www.bombayco.com/
Among the most interesting of taking otherness is that of clothing and fashion. Celebrites all over the red carpet are taking the exotic look to the new level. The greatest example of this is a Youtube video I found which shows celebrities who are wearing the traditional Indian dress, the Sari.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrzmGu3qx1c
Elizabeth Hurley decided to have a wedding where every woman had to wear a Sari, and of course cut it up in every which way possible to make it their own!
We want contact with the other in many different ways.
We take rituals, languages, restaurant foods, clothing, decoration, and more. We take it to tinker with and make the new popular or trendy item. Like we have learned from past theorists we do not like culturally other things. That is why when something deviates from the norm, we mass produce it. Hebdige talks about deviating from the norm and the only way to handle it is to mass produce it, as Adorno claims as well.
All of the latest trends and cultural phenomenon are these eclectic mixes from all different cultures. It could literally be taking someone else’s religion or religious practices and make it your own.
Madonna is the perfect example of this, taking yoga and kabbalah and all different mystical rituals and picking and choosing what she likes from them and then using them for her own person enjoyment. Of course, then these popular notions are solidified into culture.
Language, we borrow and use expressions from others and make it our own. Even terms like lingerie, or c’est la vie. We intermix languages all of the time. To add into our mundane vocabulary, we might throw in a little, “je ne sais quoi!”
Next comes restaurants, you may go to a restaurant, created by Jean-Georges, a famous French restaurant owner and chef, which specializes in Chinese food! But, it is not only Chinese food, but it is Thai food or Indian food. This is borrowing and using the “other” for our own good. In a sense, these intermingling of genres can help alleviate some boundaries and stereotypes which were originally set in stone.
http://www.jean-georges.com/
sample of a menu from Vong: the asian inspired fusian restaurant in NYC
“Chicken and Coconut Milk Soup galangal and shiitake mushrooms
Warm Asparagus Salad enoki mushrooms and thai hollandaise
Spicy Thai Beef Salad Raw Tuna and Vegetable Roll nam prik vinaigrette
Vietnamese Pork and Shrimp Spring Rolls nuoc cham sauce
Asian Vegetable Fritatta Vegetable Pad Thai Tofu Tempura,
Lily Bulb and Radish Salad white sesame and lavender
Crispy Basil Salt and Pepper Calamari thaitar sauce
Prawns thai herbs and bok choy
Grilled Tuna Burger bonito mayonnaise, shiso-yuzu marinated pickle”
People find more excitement from interracial and cultural restaurants, and it is accepted more as a cultural norm and so in a way it can help reduce some of the racial tensions. But, as Hooks says there are issues with racial identity and representation of racial identity. However, there still are norms and the hierarchy of desirables. The number of Jewish women I know who have gotten nose jobs to appear more hegemonically Christian etc… is countless!
Then there is the Bombay Co. a commercialized store that mass produces “authentic” and exotic goods to decorate your own house with. This relates to Benjamin’s issue of authenticity, we want the original, but we are mass producing these goods, drifting further from the origins. http://www.bombayco.com/
Among the most interesting of taking otherness is that of clothing and fashion. Celebrites all over the red carpet are taking the exotic look to the new level. The greatest example of this is a Youtube video I found which shows celebrities who are wearing the traditional Indian dress, the Sari.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrzmGu3qx1c
Elizabeth Hurley decided to have a wedding where every woman had to wear a Sari, and of course cut it up in every which way possible to make it their own!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
kMO Derrida
"What am I to do in order to speak of the a of différance? It goes without saying that it cannot be exposed. One can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present, manifest, that which can be shown, presented as something present, being-present in its truth, in the truth of a present or the presence of the present"
At first glance this paragraph could be considered one of the most confusing set of sentences ever written...however we have heard this concept before from a different author. De Saussure focused on the sign and all of its meanings including the signified and the signifier. After all, "in language there are only differences..."
While searching for other meanings of the text I found a website that explains this point even more clearly. They state, "Derrida re-emphasizes the point that meaning isn't in the signifier itself, but that it only exists in a network, in relation to other things. Différance comes before being. This throws the idea of "origin," of true original meaning, into radical question..."
Through his works Derrida states that difference is never offered to the present. It is in the "occult of a non knowledge." In simple terms differance does NOT expose itself. In order to understand these concepts I found that it was important to acknowledge the main points:
1. Signs only mean difference
2. At the heart of existence is not "essence" but differance
3. Differance calls into question both time and space
At first glance this paragraph could be considered one of the most confusing set of sentences ever written...however we have heard this concept before from a different author. De Saussure focused on the sign and all of its meanings including the signified and the signifier. After all, "in language there are only differences..."
While searching for other meanings of the text I found a website that explains this point even more clearly. They state, "Derrida re-emphasizes the point that meaning isn't in the signifier itself, but that it only exists in a network, in relation to other things. Différance comes before being. This throws the idea of "origin," of true original meaning, into radical question..."
Through his works Derrida states that difference is never offered to the present. It is in the "occult of a non knowledge." In simple terms differance does NOT expose itself. In order to understand these concepts I found that it was important to acknowledge the main points:
1. Signs only mean difference
2. At the heart of existence is not "essence" but differance
3. Differance calls into question both time and space
Bumble: 4/15
Today’s class revolving around the transliteration of languages from one religion and culture to another and about the riddle and playfulness of words reminded me of an expression in Hebrew. A little memorization technique that my mother made up to help me learn certain expressions… it rhymes:
Ani is me
Me is who
WHO (Hu) is he
And He is she
This little riddle makes one realize that when I say me, in our culture it means I, me, etc…. while when speaking Hebrew it means the question who.
Like Derrida says, Language definitely is fully of games.
Also, in the line of Hebrew it is interesting to think about the roots of every word. Every word stems from the Shoresh or root, which is three letters. Those letters can be manipulated in all directions to make different meanings. All words that contain the same root are in some way related to every other word containing the same root.
For example take the word: Bereshit:
The root for this word is: R (resh) A (Aleph) (SH) (Shin)
Bereshit means the beginning, or referring to creation, and then the root means literally head. We use this word in Rosh Hashana, which literally means head of the year or new years.
This interrelated language system proves how everything revolves and feeds and builds off of one another.
When we stated to talk about Foucolt, I was intrigued because it was clear that like Adorno had said, and Althusser in order for there to be an established understanding of something, there has to be common ground and everyone must subject themselves to the system.
When we had discussed about the ideologies at work in airports and prisons, it is amazing how powerful our minds are. Our minds can not differentiate between reality and fiction, and so if there is a prison guard booth, and our minds want to believe that there are guards inside of it, then that is what you will believe. It is in essence like the placebo effect and self fulfilling prophecy.
While in our culture and society our airports run by this belief that is mostly based on a fear in our minds, in some places it is a legitimite fear. For example, in Israel everyone must agree to abide to a very strict system because their lives are in jeopardy if not (like Foucolt talks about the plague). When there is a briefcase, bag, anything left in a public space, it is called a Hephesh Hashud, This means suspicious object. Immediately people are under the ideology to report this item, and then it is taken to a bomb proof room to blow up, because of how many times people plant bombs in places like airports. I was in the airport there once when the sirens went off and they screamed drop everything and run to the garden. This is because they found a briefcase left and had to blow it up, just. In. case. Our ideology at the airport is to behave passively, and try to blend in and not cause attention to be drawn to yourself, this may not be the ideology everywhere, proving the idea that ideologies are NOT natural, but cultural.
Ani is me
Me is who
WHO (Hu) is he
And He is she
This little riddle makes one realize that when I say me, in our culture it means I, me, etc…. while when speaking Hebrew it means the question who.
Like Derrida says, Language definitely is fully of games.
Also, in the line of Hebrew it is interesting to think about the roots of every word. Every word stems from the Shoresh or root, which is three letters. Those letters can be manipulated in all directions to make different meanings. All words that contain the same root are in some way related to every other word containing the same root.
For example take the word: Bereshit:
The root for this word is: R (resh) A (Aleph) (SH) (Shin)
Bereshit means the beginning, or referring to creation, and then the root means literally head. We use this word in Rosh Hashana, which literally means head of the year or new years.
This interrelated language system proves how everything revolves and feeds and builds off of one another.
When we stated to talk about Foucolt, I was intrigued because it was clear that like Adorno had said, and Althusser in order for there to be an established understanding of something, there has to be common ground and everyone must subject themselves to the system.
When we had discussed about the ideologies at work in airports and prisons, it is amazing how powerful our minds are. Our minds can not differentiate between reality and fiction, and so if there is a prison guard booth, and our minds want to believe that there are guards inside of it, then that is what you will believe. It is in essence like the placebo effect and self fulfilling prophecy.
While in our culture and society our airports run by this belief that is mostly based on a fear in our minds, in some places it is a legitimite fear. For example, in Israel everyone must agree to abide to a very strict system because their lives are in jeopardy if not (like Foucolt talks about the plague). When there is a briefcase, bag, anything left in a public space, it is called a Hephesh Hashud, This means suspicious object. Immediately people are under the ideology to report this item, and then it is taken to a bomb proof room to blow up, because of how many times people plant bombs in places like airports. I was in the airport there once when the sirens went off and they screamed drop everything and run to the garden. This is because they found a briefcase left and had to blow it up, just. In. case. Our ideology at the airport is to behave passively, and try to blend in and not cause attention to be drawn to yourself, this may not be the ideology everywhere, proving the idea that ideologies are NOT natural, but cultural.
WouldntULike2Know hooks
"Certainly from the standpoint of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the hope is that desires for the "primitive" or fantasies about the Other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribes and maintains the status quo." (367).
bell hooks', "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance," discusses the exoticization of the Other and the forbidden sexual desires that accompany this taboo. Particularly profound was the account of eaves dropping on the "very blonde,very white, jock type boys" discussion about their desires to engage in sexual intercourse with any Other. Analyzing each group of Other, they outlined each race, placing them in a twisted sexual hierarchy. This discussion is not one specific to these boys observed by hooks. Many men have urges to do just as described by these boys. By making women of other races a type of "conquest" this becomes a dominant ideology and becomes a definition of hegemonic masculinity. Thus, many men see it as their obligation to use any Other as means to give rank to themselves, a process that undoubtedly ends in the submission and, in fact, the enforcement of status quo.
This debilitating trend can be described by Marxian theory. "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. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production" (39). Since it is one of the perks of the ruling class to pursue their own interests, they become the understood and accepted ideologies by which we live. Subordinate classes truly have no say in this matter and are continually open to the wills of those who define them.
An ad that I found that shows the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" as well the "exploitations" that "reinscribes and maintains the status quo" is an ad for Sony playstation. I really need not describe the ad, it pretty much speaks for itself. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://uk.gizmodo.com/pspad.JPG&imgrefurl=http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/07/10/&h=318&w=446&sz=68&hl=en&start=3&sig2=74N6xGesgPZmQNmy9QxfFw&tbnid=mXSpv2HIqpz6nM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=127&ei=XBcFSLK9GYm8hAKyzKmaAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dracist%2Bads%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
bell hooks', "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance," discusses the exoticization of the Other and the forbidden sexual desires that accompany this taboo. Particularly profound was the account of eaves dropping on the "very blonde,very white, jock type boys" discussion about their desires to engage in sexual intercourse with any Other. Analyzing each group of Other, they outlined each race, placing them in a twisted sexual hierarchy. This discussion is not one specific to these boys observed by hooks. Many men have urges to do just as described by these boys. By making women of other races a type of "conquest" this becomes a dominant ideology and becomes a definition of hegemonic masculinity. Thus, many men see it as their obligation to use any Other as means to give rank to themselves, a process that undoubtedly ends in the submission and, in fact, the enforcement of status quo.
This debilitating trend can be described by Marxian theory. "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. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production" (39). Since it is one of the perks of the ruling class to pursue their own interests, they become the understood and accepted ideologies by which we live. Subordinate classes truly have no say in this matter and are continually open to the wills of those who define them.
An ad that I found that shows the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" as well the "exploitations" that "reinscribes and maintains the status quo" is an ad for Sony playstation. I really need not describe the ad, it pretty much speaks for itself. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://uk.gizmodo.com/pspad.JPG&imgrefurl=http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/07/10/&h=318&w=446&sz=68&hl=en&start=3&sig2=74N6xGesgPZmQNmy9QxfFw&tbnid=mXSpv2HIqpz6nM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=127&ei=XBcFSLK9GYm8hAKyzKmaAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dracist%2Bads%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
Bella Post Class 4/15
Today’s class discussion about how people behave when they think an authority is watching really interested me. Foucault’s talk about the Panopticon linked directly to the ethical crises we were talking about in CMC 200 prior to our class. Lisa was explaining several different experiments that had very questionable ethics, namely the Milgram Studies. Stanley Milgram created an experiment that tested how far people would go in order to respect authority. The subject was told to send electric waves through another person (a research confederate that would simulate a response to electric shock) as part of an ‘experiment’. Even though the subject could hear the other person screaming in pain, about heart complications, and ultimately go silent (presumably dead), the subject did not stop the experiment. The subject received little encouragement from the administrator, other than “It’s alright, the experiment must go on. I am under control, the experiment must go on.” The subject had no immediate or harsh consequences for not following directions, but did so anyway. It’s like a blind willingness to obey. Foucault’s example of the Panopticon was very interesting to me, because it seemed very similar. The prisoners could see nothing but each other and the tower in the center, and had no visual evidence that anyone was in the tower unless a window was opened. Still, they didn’t try to break out of the prison for fear of being discovered, shot at, etc. Again, a blind willingness to obey authority. In both examples, neither participant could see the repercussions of their action (the ‘dying’ shock receiver or the armed guards) but neither one had the nerve to dissent. Each blindly followed society’s rules of obeying authority and feared some kind of repercussion if they did not. We talked about how people walk through the airports and stand in line–for what reason? We are told that it is the system developed to protect us, it’s better for our overall safety, but how do we know? How do we know that taking off our shoes and having random red dots put on our tickets will protect us from the next 9/11? It certainly won’t protect us from the real dangers, i.e. bad weather or a plane malfunction causing our flight to crash. Perhaps we should be spending time checking weather patterns and making sure our airlines (cough, Southwest) are following all the protocol for safety.
Cuckoo 4.15
Yesterday in one of my classes we also talked about Foucault and this concept of Panopticon. Bentham theorized the idea of the panopticon when trying to produce a method for a cheaper, more effective prisons and asylums. Foucault says that we should “induce in the inmate a sate of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic function of power” (98). Originally this idea conditioned the prisoner into thinking that they are always being watched. Without having the ability to see if there is someone in the tower they are brought to think that there is someone always there. We deal with the notion that we are always being watched today. Whenever we walk into a store there are cameras, sometimes these cameras are somewhat hidden even though we know they are there. Without having the ability to see the cameras we are forced into thinking that they are being watching even though the camera might be focused on another section of the store. This idea has been lost because through the media everyone is watching everyone. The camera use to have the same power as the guards in the tower, now with the media showing everything the camera has lost that power. Technology as a whole has taken the power away from one clear power, now we all have the capability of sitting and watching. We never know who is watching us as well as when and where they are. We have imprisoned our selves through everyone have the ability to watch everyone else. We have turned into a society of surveillance/ a panopticon.
WouldntULike2Know--4/15
Today in class we discussed Foucoults notion that "inspection functions ceaselessly." I found it so ironic that when discussing how this is applicable to airport security, we could not decipher if this experience is a function of a Repressive or Ideological State Apparatus. We willingly are herded like cattle through long lines and dont think twice about every crevace of our body being violated by a beeping wand. We don't question it. We come prepared with our liquids in ziplock baggies (no more than four ounces of course), we wait patiently as they unzip and dig through our personal belongings. We say "thats just the way it is" when the "suspicious" looking persons are quarentined in the glass cubical for the more thorough searches. We willingly abide by these regulations because these steps are put into place to ensure our safety, or so we think.
This mirrors on Althusser's notion that Ideology is profoundly unconscious. We patiently participate in this greuling process out of the fear that has been created since 9/11. This is just another phase of the "spectacular effect" that Zizek was talking about. And because of this, because of the ever present fear, the aesthetic du jour, I question if this process will ever be challenged. For some reason, and perhaps I am not quite a full-blooded postmodernist yet, but I doubt that it will. I don't forsee any time soon when inspection is not a fundamental structure of our functioning society. Despite all its hassles and violations of privacy, we are more than willing if not relieved to know that everyone is going through the same process, thereby giving the traveler peace of mind as he departs off to his next destination.
This mirrors on Althusser's notion that Ideology is profoundly unconscious. We patiently participate in this greuling process out of the fear that has been created since 9/11. This is just another phase of the "spectacular effect" that Zizek was talking about. And because of this, because of the ever present fear, the aesthetic du jour, I question if this process will ever be challenged. For some reason, and perhaps I am not quite a full-blooded postmodernist yet, but I doubt that it will. I don't forsee any time soon when inspection is not a fundamental structure of our functioning society. Despite all its hassles and violations of privacy, we are more than willing if not relieved to know that everyone is going through the same process, thereby giving the traveler peace of mind as he departs off to his next destination.
Nichole Hooks
I feel as though this article hits fashion photography and runway fashion on the button. Hooks writes “the’real fun’ is to be had by bringing to the suface all those ‘nasty’ unconscious fantasies and longings about contact with the Other embedded in the deep structure of white supremacy” (366).
ttp://nymag.com/fashion/fashionshows/2008/spring/main/newyork/womenrunway/dianevonfurstenberg/index1.html
This is a picture of well known fashion designer Diane Von Furstenburg. Many of her runway looks use an African model like the one seen here. This is the perfect use of The Other longing that Americans have that Hooks describes. I also feel that much of his argument could and would be refuted by Lyotard. As he argued against modernist and expressionism art, like my favorite artist Dali, it is only appreciated because it is new and there is nothing that has been done like it before. The Other is not necessarily a fantasy like what Hooks would say but instead a means for a cheap art form simply because it has never been done before.
However, Hooks writes that the reader often “becomes vulnerable to the seduction of difference” (368). I think this is an important idea to keep in mind especially when we are trying to learn to free ourselves from control mechanisms like the fashion and advertising industry. Perhaps the reason that African women are suddenly becoming popular on the runway is because people like Diane are finding that people are buying more because they have been seduced by this “other” concept. Capitalism, as we are studying and learning, takes control over all other purposes in today’s society and as Hooks and Diane are discovering, using “the Other” is just one of the means of gaining more capital.
ttp://nymag.com/fashion/fashionshows/2008/spring/main/newyork/womenrunway/dianevonfurstenberg/index1.html
This is a picture of well known fashion designer Diane Von Furstenburg. Many of her runway looks use an African model like the one seen here. This is the perfect use of The Other longing that Americans have that Hooks describes. I also feel that much of his argument could and would be refuted by Lyotard. As he argued against modernist and expressionism art, like my favorite artist Dali, it is only appreciated because it is new and there is nothing that has been done like it before. The Other is not necessarily a fantasy like what Hooks would say but instead a means for a cheap art form simply because it has never been done before.
However, Hooks writes that the reader often “becomes vulnerable to the seduction of difference” (368). I think this is an important idea to keep in mind especially when we are trying to learn to free ourselves from control mechanisms like the fashion and advertising industry. Perhaps the reason that African women are suddenly becoming popular on the runway is because people like Diane are finding that people are buying more because they have been seduced by this “other” concept. Capitalism, as we are studying and learning, takes control over all other purposes in today’s society and as Hooks and Diane are discovering, using “the Other” is just one of the means of gaining more capital.
Nichole 4-15
We opened class today with Foucalut’s quotation “inspect functions ceasely”. Before we got a better explanation, I thought that this was similar to what I had learned my senior year in high school AP statistics class. We were pressed to understand that just because there was a relationship didn’t mean that there was a correlation between the two (for example, just because kids that eat ice cream have proven statistics to not be as sick as those that don’t consume ice cream regularly, that doesn’t mean that ice cream cures the common cold, instead people are more likely to eat ice cream in the summer and are also less prone to sickness in the summer). However wrong that may have seemed for me to think at the time, it is sort of relevant to the meaning we discussed in class. We talked about the dependence on a constant inspection (using the example of a census during times like the Black Plague). My stat class example works here though too because we were taught always to put the data under constant investigation and not accept what was simply 2-d but to investigate deeper and find possible other relationships or correlations that the graph might show.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that I guessed immediately what Doc Rog was referring to when ETA scans the airport which is for stereotypes of people that have committed crimes (most likely people of middle-eastern decent or people who are dirty and not pulled together properly). The constant assumption on society is that there is binary opposition to everything (winner vs. loser, American vs. terrorist) as well as branding, which the tagged terrorist aforementioned fall under the category of. Stereotypes exist for a reason, often times they are true which is why I don’t foresee branding or binary division disappearing any time soon, especially when it comes to safety like in our public transportation systems.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that I guessed immediately what Doc Rog was referring to when ETA scans the airport which is for stereotypes of people that have committed crimes (most likely people of middle-eastern decent or people who are dirty and not pulled together properly). The constant assumption on society is that there is binary opposition to everything (winner vs. loser, American vs. terrorist) as well as branding, which the tagged terrorist aforementioned fall under the category of. Stereotypes exist for a reason, often times they are true which is why I don’t foresee branding or binary division disappearing any time soon, especially when it comes to safety like in our public transportation systems.
Monday, April 14, 2008
BubbaNub : Foucault
As I read Foucault I can't help but utter the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, however, our chicken is the Repressive State Apparatus and our egg is the Ideological State Apparatus that Althusser spoke of. Foucault raises this question by showing us a progression from the end of the seventeenth century and the methods used to contain the plague to the Panopticon tower of a modern prison. His analysis is not one of mere buildings and customs, but extends to civilization and freedoms of privacy in the world. But just what makes the community listen? Is it a fear of death that unites and drives the community to leave their hands in an omnipresent power to rule in their "best interests" or is it the physical Repressive State Apparatus that tells them to hide themselves away for fear of punishment?
Foucault points out that similar to the leper community, these observed "plagues" showed considerable political promise in obtaining a more extensive permeating rule with stricter divisions. Does this opportune ideology reinforce the already present repressive state apparatus, or was it formed subconsciously around the ideological constructs to begin with? This circular question is never quite answered by Foucault, instead he chooses to reflect on its evolution and the direction in which such apparatuses are headed. As he discusses the Panopticon he describes a concept that is not as foreign as George Orwells 1984 used to be. With networks and organizations such as CCTV our society, not just our jails or community buildings, is being watched everyday. It is the ideology of this fear of our every move being watched that becomes the driving principle for the Panopticon's functionality. If we think we are constantly being watched, then they rarely have to watch us....right? That is the idea behind such a structure, one that if we look closely certain exists in America today to make us all domestic and complacent cattle.
Foucault points out that similar to the leper community, these observed "plagues" showed considerable political promise in obtaining a more extensive permeating rule with stricter divisions. Does this opportune ideology reinforce the already present repressive state apparatus, or was it formed subconsciously around the ideological constructs to begin with? This circular question is never quite answered by Foucault, instead he chooses to reflect on its evolution and the direction in which such apparatuses are headed. As he discusses the Panopticon he describes a concept that is not as foreign as George Orwells 1984 used to be. With networks and organizations such as CCTV our society, not just our jails or community buildings, is being watched everyday. It is the ideology of this fear of our every move being watched that becomes the driving principle for the Panopticon's functionality. If we think we are constantly being watched, then they rarely have to watch us....right? That is the idea behind such a structure, one that if we look closely certain exists in America today to make us all domestic and complacent cattle.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Starfish 4/10
Thursdays class we covered a lot of material. We finished up Bordieu, and I kept making connections between his quotes and things we have discussed in CMC 200 this year. In researching media, we discussed how the news constantly says it is giving us what we want, but I as well as Bordieu do not agree with this. Who cares about Brittney Spears? When it comes to the news, the important things are not which celebrity is currently in rehab, but the things that affect us all. “The effect is censorship, which journalists practice without even being aware of it. They retain only things capable of interesting them and keeping their attention…and they reject as insignificant or remain indifferent to symbolic expressions that ought to reach the population as a whole” (330).
After going over Derrida in class, I finally could grasp what I had read the previous day and his ideas and theories make a lot of sense to me. In language and with signs or words, there is always something missing, “the gap.” We sometimes are able to see the gap, and sometimes we see it subconsciously. Derrida says we must look at what is behind the text or what is not being said. I link this to Machery, who said, “What is important in the work is what it does not say.” “It is the rupture (or the gap) which must be studied
After going over Derrida in class, I finally could grasp what I had read the previous day and his ideas and theories make a lot of sense to me. In language and with signs or words, there is always something missing, “the gap.” We sometimes are able to see the gap, and sometimes we see it subconsciously. Derrida says we must look at what is behind the text or what is not being said. I link this to Machery, who said, “What is important in the work is what it does not say.” “It is the rupture (or the gap) which must be studied
Jiggy 4/13
The world as we see it is a construction of the human mind. Every image, word and thought is processed through a conditioning of the brain to except words as absoulte truths. The only truth is that there is no truth to the process of language. We see the world around us through the words we learn in different languages, seeing the words in direct relation to given image. Imagine if we stripped the world of all preconceived assumptions of "reality" through language. How would our clean slate of a brain react the millions of images seen daily. Imagine not knowing what the blue was, how would you describe the sky? If you didnt know how to say words and relate them to different things what would the world be? It is amazing the billions are able to communicate on this planet. With all the disagreements and world problems the issue of understanding one another has never really came up. We have translations for almost every language and there seems to be no people left on earth who cannot communicate through a learned and shared system of language. Think about if we had to come up with language today, in our day in age. If six billion people were dropped on earth the chances that we could all come together to understand and agree would be amazingly slim. The truth to our world lies in the miracle of communication. Without it we are just as primitive as the apes before us, its what seperates our species from all others. The world as we know it is a product of widespred knowledge build on a foundation of shared communication. Knowing the facts, that language is just made up like a puzzle, is a key component on understanding the facets of everyday life and the meaning to life.
BubbaNub 4/10
I believe, after Thursday's class, that Derrida would view the dictionary as the pinnacle of differance. The only way we give things meaning is by describing them in relation to what they are not. This example, carried over from De Saussure and Barthes, was executed in class as we searched through a number of dictionaries in an attempt to define Cookie. From cookie, we immidiately went to dough, and then went on from there to flour/flower. I found this particularly interesting as we incorporated the previous notion of ghoti and the problems that arise phonetically within the trivial association of words and sound.
Not only does Derrida tie together a bunch of older readings/concepts, he also goes farther into a theory he describes as the metaphysics of presence. "We want desperately to believe in presence, that we can lock down the meaning of something, but that is an illusion" (127). Derrida believes that we cannot cement the concept of presence, because contrary to Saussure and Barthes, he believes that the gap is not only found in the center but also borders every word and association that goes along with it. These tometic intrusions all begin with a gap, an outline, a mere trace of context. However, it seems as though this is where Derrida runs out of answers as he questions how we are able to see the outside of the text (139). Being as the very nature of its being is to "threaten the authority of the as such" it becomes itself, unnamable.
romulus 4.10
I planned on doing nothing but going to bed early Friday, that was not my reality. A crush of mine that hates speaking on the phone and never calls, called me at approximately 8:30 p.m. We made a plan to hang out, however that was not my reality either. I had cleaned up the apartment and more importantly myself. I had snapped out of the lazy mood that I was in. At 10 p.m. the crush sends a text with his usual 'I'm tired and going to bed please don't be mad'. I replied 'you a**hole, stop pretending that you even want to hang out ever'. This got misinterpreted as 'I'm done with you'.
The power of words and language can affect bonds formed through emotions. Language although universal, reflects the uniqueness of each individual. In this scenario, I see nothing wrong in the way in which I expressed myself. My disappointment and frustration with him and the situation was evident. I did not understand why his reply to my last text was, 'don't bother trying to make this up tomorrow, if u say ur done with me I'm done with u'. I immediately apologized assuming that calling him a name was the reason behind his anger but it was not. Carefully reading into what he said, I can see that his he is upset. Personally I don't take language seriously enough to ruin a relationship. Actions are supposed to be stronger than words, especially words sent through a text message. This has actually been an eye opening experience.
I realize that things said in text hold as much legitimacy as what is said face to face. It is also difficult to judge the seriousness of what is being said through this once unconventional medium. Texting requires bypassing body language in order to get the message across. As conversations take place they are saved. Technology has become central in maintaining relationships, keeping people subconsciously connected. At least once a month I would send or receive a text from a crush in Switzerland. Although it will be months before we can physically see each other, texting has kept us close. I coin this ear the age of digital dialogue.
kaymac 4.10.08
I think I'm even more confused after Thursday's class. I thought I had an idea of what Derrida was about walking into class but that was pretty much shattered. Through our discussion I became really intrigued with the concept of The Trace (sounds like a bad TV show). Everything in our society leads to clues about what everything else in our world is. So then what about love? Or emotions? How do we define those through what we don't know? Because we don't feel mad are we automatically happy? Or if we don't feel mad are we a multitude of other things that cannot be defined directly except by what we don't know about it?
This leads to our exercise concerning the cookie and how the definitions of the dictionary did not add up to a cookie at all, at least I think it does. The poor cookie was demolished, is that what we do to objects that are not tangible? And maybe that is why everything gets screwed up in our society.
Moving along, I’m still confused about logocentrism. I think I understand some of it, that we are subconsciously filling the gap with other things that make us aware of its meaning, but that’s about it. Do you need to get to the absolute center of a word to know what it means? But if you get to the absolute center of an object, which is represented by a word, then you get the nucleus of an atom, and is that what Derrida is trying to do with our language? And is that what logocentrism is?
Sgt. Pepper, 4/10
I'm still not cured of my confusion from Derrida's reading, but I have taken a few steps since my pre-class post on Monday. Derrida's perspective on 'the word' and his concept of differance look to me like de Saussure on steroids. Perhaps the most important quotation from our Saussure reading was, "In language, there are only differences." Saussure's thesis here is identical to part of Derrida's thesis--that words can only be defined by everything they're not. The other part of Derrida's thesis is that because of things like erasure and differance, there is no concrete definition of a word. As a word gets used over and over, it loses its meaning more every time. Therefore, when determining a word's meaning, we must consider its context, its history, and everything to do with the word. This is where the dictionary activity came in. By looking up the definition of a word, then looking up the words in its definition, we were illustrating how easily we've become so far removed from words' true definitions.
Now that I've hopefully proven that I understand the basic concepts of Derrida, I will share my criticism. (that's how it works, right?) What I do not like about Derrida's ideas is that he refuses to attribute any certainty to our language. While I do recognize the undeniable "differences" in our language, I feel like I'm aware of a certainty that Derrida seems to be missing. I recognize that we as people share so many of the same feelings. While language is obviously an abstract concept, with time and evolution, it seems to be getting more and more concrete. de Saussure said, "The community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage and general acceptance are to be set up; by himself the individual is incapable of fixing a single value." And I think we've fixated many solid values within the words of our language.
Perhaps the same criticism of uncertainty could be given to each theorist we've discussed, but Derrida is definitely guilty.
Now that I've hopefully proven that I understand the basic concepts of Derrida, I will share my criticism. (that's how it works, right?) What I do not like about Derrida's ideas is that he refuses to attribute any certainty to our language. While I do recognize the undeniable "differences" in our language, I feel like I'm aware of a certainty that Derrida seems to be missing. I recognize that we as people share so many of the same feelings. While language is obviously an abstract concept, with time and evolution, it seems to be getting more and more concrete. de Saussure said, "The community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage and general acceptance are to be set up; by himself the individual is incapable of fixing a single value." And I think we've fixated many solid values within the words of our language.
Perhaps the same criticism of uncertainty could be given to each theorist we've discussed, but Derrida is definitely guilty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)