Sunday, December 6, 2009
Ron Burgundy, 12/3
I found our final class to be extremely interesting and also somewhat frustrating. The exercise where only the women were able to talk demonstrating the dominance of masculine qualities of speech, proved to reveal several concerns of our feminist generation. Foremost, the women of the class seemed to be concerned with equality, specifically in the work and academic atmosphere. Several girls in the class felt that women were still often believed to be out of place in a successful business atmosphere, only able to "play with the big boys" but not supersede them. Many girls also thought that independent women were still frowned upon and considered to often be less feminine solely because of their career oriented focus. I found it interesting that as these concerns were brought up none of the men in the class had anything to say about them. Even though it was a bit more difficult for them to "voice" their opinions because they had to write them, I still felt that if they felt compelled at all to speak they would have done so. Therefore, it seems as though these issues that women are raising still may not be getting the attention and recognition that they deserve as represented in this experiment. I'm also concerned though at the effect that these types of exercises are having on women as a whole. I feel that in several of my classes similar types of experiments have taken place where women were the only ones allowed to speak and share their views. This leads to discussion of issues that are concerning them and often reveals alot about what are the leading concerns for females and often can be very helpful and insightful. However, because of the framing of these types of situations I wonder if these exercises are also perpetuating a sort of idea that women are only able to voice these types of concerns in these particular types of environments. Do these exercises discourage women to speak freely all the time? Just a thought.
Nemo, 12/6
I really enjoyed the class discussion on the Cixous article. We started out the class like every other and then we came to this quote: "Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man”, at that point Dr. Rog made all of the women in the class talk and all of the men in the class be silent. It was interesting to hear what all of the women in the class had to say on the subject. We discussed how in Legally Blonde one of the characters wanted to petition the change of the term "semester" to "ovester" because she believed that it would help to equalize the power that women have with the power men have. Some of the other things we talked about in class were how men reject everything womanly for example: I was having a conversation over the phone with my guy friend about the Twilight Saga. It wasn't in detail because he had only seen part of the movie but when I continued to discuss it he told me that he would have to watch porn in order to "offset the gayness of this conversation". I found that interesting because he was using sex - in a media form where men usually dominate a woman - to become more masculine. I think its interesting how men think that sex, alcohol, and muscles defines masculinity. Where as feelings, and a sense of style are considered gay or homosexual. Guys that I know often use the phrase "no homo" in conversations where they are saying that a guy they know is a really good friend and understand certain things they are going through. The want to emphasize the fact that they are masculine and are not in any way womanly. We also discussed how women who are driven to succeed and who can stand up for themselves are either considered feminists or independent women and how we want to change that perception.
The men in this class had to write their thoughts down and hand it to a female. The girl could then choose to ignore what they wrote or read it out loud. The majority of the class was held this way but towards the end the girls in the class decided to allow the men to talk the majority of the time but if a female member of the class wanted to say something they could without writing it out loud. At the end of the class one of the men asked "What do you think men could do in order to change how women are treated or regarded as in society". It seemed as though when the men weren't allowed to talk they did not really listen to what the women had to say. This exercise, I believe, was to swap roles and have the women at the top of the hierarchy instead of the men but instead I think that because Dr. Rog told us we had to it wasn't actually a successful exercise simply because the man in power told us we had to.
The men in this class had to write their thoughts down and hand it to a female. The girl could then choose to ignore what they wrote or read it out loud. The majority of the class was held this way but towards the end the girls in the class decided to allow the men to talk the majority of the time but if a female member of the class wanted to say something they could without writing it out loud. At the end of the class one of the men asked "What do you think men could do in order to change how women are treated or regarded as in society". It seemed as though when the men weren't allowed to talk they did not really listen to what the women had to say. This exercise, I believe, was to swap roles and have the women at the top of the hierarchy instead of the men but instead I think that because Dr. Rog told us we had to it wasn't actually a successful exercise simply because the man in power told us we had to.
Nemo, Cixous and Butler
In this reading the main focus is on our society's ideologies dealing with hierarchy and the author's views on them. The most interesting concept I came across in this reading was Cixous' idea of Bisexuality. She gives two definitions of Bisexuality: “bisexuality as a fantasy of a complete being,” and “bisexuality as the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes.” In Psych classes we had discussed the idea that a woman who is bisexual could have some male like tendencies and a man who is bisexual as having some female like tendencies that have been pronounced due to a possible imbalance in the brain - IM NOT SAYING I AGREE - but i had never thought of bisexual to mean that a man or woman could have the best of both male and female sexes. I enjoyed the question she posed :“why do men fear being a woman?”. My mother always used to say that men are scared that we have the power to create a human - even though it takes a man to start the process. Cixous has answered this question but I cannot wait to hear what my peers have to say. I really think that this reading will be very interesting to discuss in class and I cannot wait to hear what my peers have to say on the subject.
Penny Lane- Bell Hooks
After reviewing Bell Hook’s piece, I find that her thesis is very relevant to the concept of manifest destiny. During the colonial period, this philosophy justified our imperialism in order to conquer the land. However, this narrative could be expanded and applied to the rape and abuse of native women by European settlers. This form of domination and humiliation of the female served to establish authority over the tribe as a whole. ‘We will conquer your land and your women, and there is nothing you can do to stop us.’ The white male fascination with the exotic female remains in the social consciousness of modern society. Differentiation of race is creates a latent desire to penetrate the unknown. White females are safe, familiar, and innocent in comparison to the ‘other.’ By sleeping with an ethnic woman, a sense of power expands beyond the individual over the race as a whole. Hooks elaborates this thought by stating: “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, and sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” This power dynamic was show cased in the point system of the Yale Boys. Fucking the ‘Other’ became more than a game; it is a metaphor of exploitative gender, class, and race relations.
Nemo, Foucault - Make Up
I found this reading to be very different than any we have previously read. He primarily focuses on the concepts of discipline, surveillance and power within a community. He discusses how the people who were sick were secluded and surveyed by others. It is interesting to relate this to our society now because everything we have allows other people to watch us - its almost as if we enjoy it. For example on Facebook you can update your status letting your friends know what is on your mind or what you are doing at the time. Also you can upload pictures so that other people can know what you have been doing. I know people who get upset when their friends don't post pictures up immediately after a night out. It is scary how our society has accepted this as normal. Girls put on make up and dress nice before they go out so people can think they look good. Everything we do can be recorded and watched again. Its a very scary thought that Foucault was able to accurately portray.
October 29th - pre-class Adorno, Serendipity LATE
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” 41
The first thing I thought when I read this quote is that it can be related to Habermas. He believes that nothing can actually ever be different because it gets swallowed up by main stream cultured and copied and reproduced (like Benjamins notion) immediately after. The largest section of music for example is “Alternative”. If it is so alternative and unlike anything else then why is it the biggest section and so many people listen to it thinking that they themselves are so different and alternative? Everything is fake. The way that we perceive a product and the aura it has because of the name brand and because of the image it gives you is the reason it makes you feel so special and different. For example, if you see an eyeliner that is by a Walgreens brand you will see it as just eyeliner. But if you buy one at a specialty store with a well known brand name with an ad next to it of a beautiful model you will feel that you are special and therefore different. When in reality, everything is made out of the same batch, and it is “fake” that you feel it is different just because of the name brand and the whole image associated with it, and therefore with you. You may feel like you are an individual but you are just following everyone else, just like there is no avant gardism anymore, and how much of what be we believe to be concrete is not even reality. He also explains that since everything is the same, we have to realize the hidden codes in them and not buy into it. This is why he says that if are entertained by something, you cant be critical of it.
The first thing I thought when I read this quote is that it can be related to Habermas. He believes that nothing can actually ever be different because it gets swallowed up by main stream cultured and copied and reproduced (like Benjamins notion) immediately after. The largest section of music for example is “Alternative”. If it is so alternative and unlike anything else then why is it the biggest section and so many people listen to it thinking that they themselves are so different and alternative? Everything is fake. The way that we perceive a product and the aura it has because of the name brand and because of the image it gives you is the reason it makes you feel so special and different. For example, if you see an eyeliner that is by a Walgreens brand you will see it as just eyeliner. But if you buy one at a specialty store with a well known brand name with an ad next to it of a beautiful model you will feel that you are special and therefore different. When in reality, everything is made out of the same batch, and it is “fake” that you feel it is different just because of the name brand and the whole image associated with it, and therefore with you. You may feel like you are an individual but you are just following everyone else, just like there is no avant gardism anymore, and how much of what be we believe to be concrete is not even reality. He also explains that since everything is the same, we have to realize the hidden codes in them and not buy into it. This is why he says that if are entertained by something, you cant be critical of it.
Gwatter06, 12/6
We had a very interesting class discussion this week to finish up our semester in 300. We’ve had a little streak of feminist theorists to cover for our past couple of readings and our “class” discussion followed in very well. Professor Casey decided to relinquish the teaching floor to the class, but not just anyone or everyone in the class, but only our female participants in class. In the sense that the men were not able to speak or had to seek permission somewhat to get a thought or point across highlighted what many would believe is a day-to-day situation with women. I think all three of the recent theorists, Hooks, Butler and Cixous would agree. Feminism is a theory topic that has been around for quite sometime now. Similar to masculinity, feminism to me, and many others I would believe, is quite an ambiguous topic. My question is, although I understand that women seek equality and indifference, how can society seek to change it anymore than it already has? I feel as though women have accomplished a lot over the years, almost as much as they can legally, but what more is there to seek socially that doesn’t dell into biological or physical aspects. I believe that men and women are different for a reason and can never be the same, I also believe that in areas of society such as the workforce, education and politics that women should be treated the same as men if they are capable of their work. Oddly I would relate this notion of striving for total equality to Lyotard’s concept of total metanarratives. I think that the ideologies of feminism are conforming individuals to seek or make sense of a world that cannot exist essentially in equating men to women on all levels and aspects. All in all I have gravely enjoyed our time in 300 and think we ended controversially, but definitely with a an enjoyable bang. This is Gwatter06 signing out of blogger indefinitely and saying thank God I don't have to worry about blogging anymore!!!
Pre class on Hooks, Serendipity, LATE
Hooks explains the cultural significance of how white men want to have sex with the “other”. It makes them feel like they are superior to other men because of this experience, and it is exotic and makes them experienced. They also buy into the clichés of how colored women are supposed to be very experienced in bed. This is almost racist because those in lower class countries have to resort to prostitution a lot, and this may be the thought process in why woman of color are “supposed” to be promiscuous, as if it is in their blood. This really bothered me because it made me think of the objectification of women, and how these men are literally “shopping” for women like they are objects. This is part of todays commodity culture. More is better, new is better, and everything can be fixed with money. It also ties into the idea that society and advertisements are creating a very sexual and objectified view of women . For example, in pornography, it is mostly quiet violent and has the white males in charge of the women, whether they be black or white. It teaches men that treating women like this is acceptable, and it also makes them think it is the norm, and that this is the way it has always been and will remain. It also conditions them to act this way and be more violent in their own relationships. For my CMC 200 final paper I wrote about how violent pornography can lead to rape because of all the themes present in it. For example, the characteristics of women are almost not there and the violence and objectification are abominable.
Nemo, Jameson - Make Up
The quote that I understood the most in this reading was "depth is replaced by surface". To me this quote shows how our culture had moved from needing to know every single remote detail to only wanting to know the gist of something. We only see things as they appear, we no longer look for the underlying meaning of something. No one wants to explore what is underneath the surface and enjoy the full experience, instead they want to just take a short cut and get some kind of experience. This is an example of how our society has become so obsessed with bigger is better and the only way you can reach that is by going quickly. Society just wants the best end results with the least amount of work as possible. Another quote if found interesting was "THe end of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal". To me this meant that style is no longer an accurate reflection of ourselves, but rather a refection of the popular style at the time.
September 20th, Post Class Jenkins, Serendipity, LATE
“People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication” 556
This basically is related to how media has converged and how now our culture is almost completely participatory and “do it yourself”. For my theory praxis essay, I used Jenkins as a lens to look at the concept of Facebook. In it I realized how due to the advertisements, the groups, and the “friends” it is a completely relevant participatory cultural gadget. People can now make up their own opinions about something they never would have even known about, and also be bombarded by advertisements tapered to their interests through technology. We can relate this also to Baudrillard and how the media is part of the problem, the reason that things have lost value and are so blown up is because of the media, for example 9/11, if there was no media to show it everywhere, much less people would have known, and maybe the terrorists would never have chosen to do so. Also, the protest signs in a different language, they knew English speakers were watching their protests so they wrote the signs in English and tapped into our culture and our lives. Since we have so much power now about our image, about who we talk to, and about the opinions we have and have created through facebook, we are now the critics and therefore the experts. This relates to high culture vs low culture, the masses have much more say now than they ever did.
This basically is related to how media has converged and how now our culture is almost completely participatory and “do it yourself”. For my theory praxis essay, I used Jenkins as a lens to look at the concept of Facebook. In it I realized how due to the advertisements, the groups, and the “friends” it is a completely relevant participatory cultural gadget. People can now make up their own opinions about something they never would have even known about, and also be bombarded by advertisements tapered to their interests through technology. We can relate this also to Baudrillard and how the media is part of the problem, the reason that things have lost value and are so blown up is because of the media, for example 9/11, if there was no media to show it everywhere, much less people would have known, and maybe the terrorists would never have chosen to do so. Also, the protest signs in a different language, they knew English speakers were watching their protests so they wrote the signs in English and tapped into our culture and our lives. Since we have so much power now about our image, about who we talk to, and about the opinions we have and have created through facebook, we are now the critics and therefore the experts. This relates to high culture vs low culture, the masses have much more say now than they ever did.
Penny Lane- Butler and Cixous
After reading Judith Butler and Helene Cixous’ writings, I began to reflect upon the evolution of feminism. In CMC200 we learned that post-feminist theory asserts that the feminist movement is now obsolete because there is no longer inequality between men and women. I believe that our theorists would agree that two dangerous narratives have arisen from this perspective: (1) the commodification of feminism; and (2) liberation from sexual ethics. The first scenario insinuates that financial independence equates to power. A woman’s ability to buy whatever she wants whenever she wants, without answering to a man, denotes autonomous social influence. However this construction is a slippery slope, because it reinforced the hegemonic notions of commodity fetishism. Under a critical lens, one could argue that emphasis on consumption only serves to entrap both the individual and society in this detrimental pattern. The second example of post-feminist philosophy is sexual freedom. Cixous states: “we turn away from our bodies.” I believe that to a certain extent this applies to the loosening of sexual ethics. Following the sexual patterns commonly demonstrated by men, women can be promiscuous, unemotional, and casual about sex without facing certain public criticism. Furthermore, women are free to use and expose their bodies for personal gain or satisfaction. This framework for acceptable social behavior is hazardous to the ambitions of feminism. While such actions are prefaced as being in the control of the woman, external factors may influence sexual liberation to become sexual exploitation
Nemo, Horkheimer and Adorno - Make Up
"Culture today is infecting everything with sameness". I took this to mean that the media is affecting our culture which in turn causes everything to be commercialized and essentially making everything the same. For example when some one wants to go against the norms of society they could start wearing a specific style of clothing and if that person happens to be a celebrity there will probably be photographs that are easily accessible on the Internet and in magazines, there will probably be a segment devoted to that celebrity on E! or another 'gossip' TV station. As a result people will start seeing this 'look' and will say "I want to be different too" and will start wearing the same kinds of clothing as a result they will no longer be different but instead they will be the same - the exact thing that they were trying to get away from to begin with. "The standard forms were originally derived from the needs of the consumers". This quote basically is saying that everything that we currently have, did not exist at one point or another - it was however in demand by the public so it was created and has now been reproduced in so many different ways it is ultimately creating the same thing. Which is related to the previous quote. I agree that our culture has cause us to all like the same things, I feel that people do this in order to create a connection with other people in our society.
September 15th, Serendipity, Pre Class Habermas LATE
The reading on Habermas was once very confusing to me, but reading it over again I understood it so much better since we had the whole semester to talk about it. His two main ideas (avant gardism and Cult of the New) have actually been incorporated with the other theorists from the rest of the semester. He explains that nothing is ever really different or new. Firstly, because of bricolage. We are just taking old things and making them seem new again because we are putting them together in a different way. However, once something is a little different (because of the way it has been put together again and recreated) it automatically becomes normal again, and gets swallowed up by mainstream culture. Example: the urinal in the museum. It becomes not such a big deal once a couple of years go by and people have started putting even stranger things in museum, and the cycle starts up again. This is also similar to fashion. People first think that what they are wearing is so different (for example, punks) but as soon as people start copying them and it becomes just another group, they all start to look the same instead of looking different. These are little subcultures. There is a stereotype with each, but no one thinks “wow punks are so different from anyone else” because there is a whole group of people that are exactly the same and they end up trying to mimic and imitate each other in order to fit in.
Nemo, Marx - Make Up
Marx discusses the concepts of Ideology and hegemony. This is a concept that we have discussed in previous CMC classes so I am somewhat comfortable in discussing the reading but I did have some confusion in some parts. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." It is common knowledge that money rules society, but here I believe that Marx is trying to say what determines our being. This is an example of the world wide debate of nature vs. nurture. Their nature or social determines their awareness of society and the world. The consciousness determines the class that will have the ruling force and vise versa. "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". Here Marx is illustrating how the ruling class develops the 'norm' of society - or the rules that the rest of the society has to follow. He emphasizes that the class that has more economic wealth will be have more of an influence on the rules that society has to follow - they will chose those that will allow them to benefit the most. This was my take on Marx, I could have missed some points but overall I believe that this illustrates what he was discussing in our reading.
Penny Lane- Foucault Late
Foucault asserts that our culture is one of ceaseless inspection. Surveillance has expanded exponential in the last twenty year, eerily paralleling the George Orwell’s premonitions in 1984. Cameras are everywhere in the public sphere. Even when we are not being monitored in the physical sense, we still continue to leave an electronic paper trial. Wherever we travel, spend money, or work, data is left behind telling a mini-story of our life choices. In fact, satellites can even track any cell phone location in off mode, as long as the battery is in place. The patriot act also permits wiretapping with any reasonable cause in order to monitor any illegal activity. Many believe this is related only to terrorism, but it is simply not the case. Anyone and everyone is subject to this invasion and it goes largely unnoticed. “We are neither in the amphitheatre nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism.” Even though these invasive tactics impact us all, we often dismiss the overstepping of boundaries as a means to a protective end. If the bad guys are getting caught, then we should be satisfied, right? Wrong. Basic civil liberties are falling to the wayside, and it seems these measures may only get more severe in the future. Big Brother is watching.
Nemo, 10/4 - Make up
In class we were able to go over Baudrillard's concept of simulacra and simulation. I was able to understand the theory a little bit better after the discussion. We discussed how our society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs. As Dr. Rog said the human experiences are of the simulation of reality rather than reality itself. The media has caused this 'problem' (you could call it) by having TV shows or Movies that explore the fantasy world, an example of this is the movie The Matrix. Our society is obsessed with the idea of an alternate reality. The world we live in is a world of pretending, a world of Simulation. Whether it is simulating a presence or an absence we have completely replaced reality. Baudrillard says that we need to have fear in order to allow our society to get back in touch with reality. I relate this to when I was younger and people would always say "Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming". My belief is that we need pain and fear to keep us in touch with reality.
Capri Sun, All Semester Blogs
CMC300 Blogs (some were late but I also incorporated ones I finished on time)
Capri Sun, Machery
Throughout reading Pierre Macherey’s text I was constantly confused, I had an idea of what he was talking about but I am not completely sure I grasped what he was trying to get across. The article talks mostly silence and its importance. He says that what is not said is more important then what actually is being said. I understand this concept by thinking about the news and media and how we are presented an image coming from a certain perspective. Without thinking we do not question what we are witnessing and instead just take everything we see and subconsciously apply it to our lives. The importance of looking at what is not said and the silence in this case is because it is avoiding what people should know. I think about the news and who is controlling it, they then broadcast the news through their particular lens that protects the audience from knowing what they ought to know. This reminds me of a sociology class I took last spring called The American Dream. In this class we talked about how the media has defined for us what a criminal looks like, we hear about different street and blue collar crimes but we are unaware of certain white collar crimes that are devastating a large number of people. I take what Macherey says about silence and the importance of what is not said and you can apply this directly to the fact that the news paints a picture they want the public to know about society. By looking past what is said, we are challenging and questioning to find out the truths about our culture. I think Macherey’s point he is trying to make is people should look into what is not being said to fully understand what is taking place.
Capri Sun, Benjamin
I found Walter Benjamin’s article to be one of the more interesting theorists we have read thus far. Throughout his piece, he talks about the authenticity of the original and that because it is reproduced it loses its initial identification. This is done by “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (21). Therefore, the more something is replicated and imitated it no longer is what it once was. We see this in our culture constantly throughout the media. By having infinite amount of copies of something it makes it possible for everyone to have similar experiences. When I think about this it reminds me of how paintings can now be replicated to the point where one can have famous pieces of art hanging in their living room. We no longer have to travel to the Louvre to find the Mona Lisa; instead we can just travel to our local poster store and have a plethora of famous art to choose from. Benjamin also talks about how art is no longer being used in a creative aspect for appreciation but instead it is a way to gain money and capital. He also talks about how today; in art we witness motion pictures. This is a very realistic form of art and people are associating what they see as realistic even though its just ones relationship to the camera. We examine what we watch but we do so in a very poor way, he calls us “absent minded.” We are absent minded because we are assuming everything we witness on screen as being a reality when it is really only created to make money. Artists have lost their sense of credibility but they are still making money. This reminds me of the fact that our world is getting more and more filled with trash. YouTube videos are becoming sensations but there is little talent behind them.
Capri Sun, Lyotard
Throughout Lyotard’s article he talks about the concept of realism. One of the major points he makes discusses the difference between different pieces of artwork. He talks about “photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism” (40). I took this as meaning that with the technology of the camera, viewers look at pictures, either photographs or motion pictures and they portray a very realistic view. These types of art, unlike paintings or even cartoons, show the characters and settings within the frame in its exact state. Because the images we see are so realistic it is hard to differentiate the real from the fiction. When going to the movies or watching television shows, we seem to be well aware that the plot and story lines are fictions but subconsciously we assume that what we are watching happened exactly how we are witnessing it on the screen. Lyotard talks about how we portray television and films and need to start looking at it as nostalgia or mockery. People believe they have experienced what they see, so there is no more intent to experience it themselves. One thing that I found most important about what Lyotard was saying, was that artists that create these forms of media need to start evoking more realistic thoughts toward their audience. Those that do in society have lost all credibility. When reading the quote “artists and writers need to be assigned the task of healing the community,” I thought about the Global Peace Film Festival. These filmmakers are artists that sole goal are to spread awareness about the problems within our society. Lyotard explains that this type of media is the fastest and most effective way to achieve the public’s attention. Therefore, if more filmmakers worked to better the global community rather then gaining income and popularity these issues either slowly diminish or at least create a broader awareness. Half the problem is that people no longer challenge what they are told, like what Macherey says what is not said is more important then what is.
Capri Sun, Habermas
Throughout Habermas’ article he talks about modernity and the fact that nothing can stay modern. In today’s society, people are constantly trying to be different and once they achieve that difference it becomes a trend or normal. At first it seems shocking because it is going against the traditional. This concept is called avant-gardism. Because “culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (101). This makes me think about teenagers dressing and going against what their parents tell them because it is the first time they have the freedom to express themselves. They do this by rebelling what they know as normal in their own family homes. This is why modernity is always changing because there is constantly something new. I think if I were to ask someone what their definition of modern was, they would respond with the newest and latest technologies and looks. Habermas talks about the “cult of the new” and how American society is constantly looking for the new trend. I feel like whenever I buy a computer, only months later there is a new and improved one. People will never be satisfied with their old, even if it’s their traditions, therefore they will continue to search for the new and improved. What troubled me about this piece is that he talks about a constant change, however, we rebel against the traditional values of our culture. What I do not understand is where does the traditional start? Is it traditional, as we know it in our lifetimes? And if so, wouldn’t our idea of traditionalism be different then those of our parents. In a way, I find this a natural part of culture and how we progress in society. There are some disadvantages to this in the sense of consumerism, but I also think about it in regards to feminism. Women working and stepping out of the family role, was once considered different. Would those original women been considered avant-garde, because now it is widely accepted for this to take place. Overall, I think that society changing is for the better.
Capri Sun, Boudrillard
Throughout Boudrillard’ article he talks about images and how they portray reality. Within the media, especially photography, scenes are captured within a frame and at times the viewer is unable to differentiate what is really taking place in the photos. Boudrillard talks specifically about photographs and the different levels of danger that they can possess. He explains that an image that depicts the truth is good and the less realism within them causes more and more concern. Boudrillard uses the concept of simulation to rate these images. I think what confuses the public the most about this is we assume what we see visually is also real and telling the truth because we have proof of its existence through the photograph. Throughout the media we see pictures of war and we see symbols of pride, honor, and camaraderie. However, in reality these pictures are telling a false story, because behind war there is death, violence and hatred. We are confused of the realities of war by the images are presented to us. I would relate this to Macherey and Althuser because when we see these images we should look at what is not being shown. The images create a picture from a specific perspective, the hegemonic perspective, therefore we do not see the whole reality of it rather a reality created behind a certain lens. I think the government does this to glorify war. In this sociology class I took last year called The American Dream we talked about the film Born on the Fourth of July directed by Oliver Stone. This film reminds me of what Boudrillard is saying in his article because the beginning talks about how the government would go to high schools and recruit boys into the army. They would do this by praising war and becoming a hero for ones country. By the end of the film, we witness how destructive war can be on individuals both physically and emotionally. However, we would never know this through what we see in the media and news because of the certain images presented. Boudrillard would say Born on the Fourth of July would be considered good because of its realistic portrayal of war even though it is a motion picture.
Capri Sun, Zizek
What I found most interesting about Zizek’s talk and article was when he said “on today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties” (231). This means that when there are so many things in society that we know are not healthy for us or the environment so companies create products that are without or with less of their bad qualities. They make “diet” Coca-Colas or “hybrid” cars and market the fact that they are not as bad as the original. We as a society are concerned about the problems but we are unwilling to give them up completely.
Another concept that Zizek explained was the fact that throughout our history of media we are told about the global problems. We see starving children in Africa and war in third world countries but they are always issues that take place far away, as if it is as distant as what we see in the movies. He related this to September 11th and the fact that the damage we witnessed was something we are entertained by when we witness them on screen in the media. It was a shock that something that devastating could actually happen even though it was something that we would watch daily through fiction. Zizek’s understanding of September 11th tells us that we got what we deserved and “he ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). The images that we saw on the news during that period were the same images we have seen in action films. I think it poses the question: how can we as mankind be so accepting of this devastation through fiction when in reality it would be a horrible experience? It is as if we are entertained by drama that we assume will never take place.
Capri Sun, Eco
Throughout Eco’s article he talks about the imitation of cities within the United States. I know that I have witnessed this throughout my different travels across the country. Especially places like Disney World and Las Vegas. These places create replicas of different places across the globe. When you go to Disney World and visit Epcot people will even believe that they have experienced different cultures and countries. The fact that you can go “around the world” and not even leave one city shows the damage this can cause. Children dream about going to these places and how can we expect them to differentiate the fact that this is only an imitation. Everyone has a certain image of nations across the world and where do these images come from? Places like Epcot and Las Vegas filter our portrayal. People could never travel to Paris, France or London, England and they have an idea of what these places look like, what type of food is served and how people dress. Eco talks about how technology can give us more reality than nature. I took this quote as meaning with the advancement in technology we can now create a representation of something that would not exist in its natural state. At Disney World’s Animal Kingdom, there is an imitation Mount Everest. For starters, Disney is located in Central Florida, where the climate and overall environment is naturally extremely different, and if not opposite, of Nepal where Mt. Everest is located. With today’s, technology we can now create something that could never exist naturally but gives those that visit an experience as if they were really there. Eco could be related to many different of the theorist we have read in class but I think most primarily has to do with Benjamin and his ideas on reproduction. Disney World reproduces the original and therefore loses its authenticity. People are witnessing representations that they assume to be identical to the original.
Capri Sun, Dorfman
Dorfman throughout his article talks about the “common cultural heritage” within our society. I took this as meaning even though we as people are all very different with various backgrounds we all still share similar beliefs and ideas about the culture we are living in. He talks about Disney and its effect on people and how it would be difficult to meet someone that is unaware of Disney and its attributes. When you are flying to Orlando, you are surrounded by children and families that are making there exciting journey to Disney world. It has become a cultural phenomenon that few people have not experienced. You could turn to just about anyone and bring up this topic and they would have knowledge and response toward it. I think that having this sort of place in the United States brings the community as a whole together and this has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that people are connected through this theme. There is a public understanding but it is based off a false reality. So the majority of the public is affected by something that exists purely off of fiction. You can relate this to Horkheimer and Adorno and the fact that there is a cultural “sameness.” Everyone is the same because the media and places like Disney are “the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other” (123). Communication has become so easy, even if one has nothing in common with the other, because we all know and are aware of the same things. We unconsciously are assigned to believe and think in a certain way so that all people are the same. I think that the problem with this is we lose our own personal identities and culture becomes one with the same because we have all witnessed or experienced life similarly.
Capri Sun, Marx and Althusser
This week we read about Marx and Althusser’s thoughts on ideologies within society. Marx believes in two types of classes that make up a whole, the class with more material is the intellectual class. This class makes the rules and dominates society by creating ideologies. Because these ideologies are in their interest and work to their advantage they can also be considered hegemonic. Marx says that there are two different groups but each are apart of a whole. Therefore the “lower” class abides these rules that are enforced on them and are taught not to question.
Althusser, however, is interested in two different types of societies. One is the ISA (ideological state apparatus) where the people in the community are not to question or challenge the current system. The second is a RSA (repressive state apparatus) society, where ideologies should be questioned. Marx and Althusser’s theories go hand in hand because either way certain ideas are enforced on society as a whole, its whether that society is open to challenging or not that differentiates the two. Ever since becoming a CMC major, I feel like I have focused on figuring out if America is an ISA or RSA society. I think, the average person would say an RSA because of the very first Amendment within the American Constitution. However, I personally would say an ISA because I have been taught in my classes to question every idea that is presented to me from institutions. These beliefs are actually hegemonic because they are coming from the “ruling” class that Marx talks about in his article. It is interesting because ideologies are controlling people, but the people in charge of that society control the ideologies of that society. It is a never-ending cycle because we are taught we can question but we don’t because we believe the ideas and laws imposed on us are for the greater good of the society as a whole.
Capri Sun, 10/25/09
So this weekend, my sisters came in town and we decided to go to Disney World, so I figured it was an appropriate topic for today’s blog. Let me premise, that my eldest sister had not been to the most ‘magical’ place on Earth in 10 years and lets just say, she was more than looking forward to this trip. I, on the other hand, have spent the past two years studying Disney World and its effect on society so there were quite clashing perspectives. On Thursday, we talked about education and whether or not it is an ISA or RSA and it was really hard for me to come up with a definite answer, especially after this past weekend. Education is a perfect way to liberate people from ideologies because we are taught to question the “ruling force” but aren’t the teachers within our classrooms the “ruling force.” So with that being said, how do I know to believe everything I learn in a classroom as the truth? This did not really come to me until I tried to explain the negative effects of Disney World to my sister. She had a very different view point because of her education and passion toward the beauty and happiness within the park. So, who was right? Weren’t we both just following what we had learned? Education makes us question but we still follow what we are taught. I still do not know if education is an ISA or RSA, but what I do know is that in order to become closer to an RSA, we as students should question what we are even being told to question!
My second connection with Disney World and Thursday’s class was when I was walking through Epcot experiencing “Around the World.” In class we were shown an image of a Guinness and asked to explain what it represented to us. Our answers were fairly stereotypical: “Irishness,” clovers and St. Patrick’s Day. These came from the associations we had with that image. So, when I went to Ireland at Disney World, I ordered a Guinness…
Capri Sun, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Arorno talk about the mass media within American society, primarily Television, Film and radio, and its effect of the public. Although, only a select few individuals control the Media, their way of production has created certain images that society, as a whole believes as normal. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call “sameness” which is the belief that even though America is made up of people with many different backgrounds they all have an identical idea of how something should be or what something should look like. Media alone is an easy way to spread ideologies and when the media becomes such a monopoly that it is controlled by only a few major corporations it becomes even easier to perpetuate these hegemonic ideologies. I felt that this article was a lot like other theorist we have read about in CMC 300. For starters, I thought about Walter Benjamin and his theories regarding images and reality. Everything we see, we assume is real for the most part, especially the more realistic the image. “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. The familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production.” (45) People are unable to differentiate the real from the fake even though the movie is an imitation because of how realistic it is perceived. Because movies have such an influence on people, the people filtering their ideas are creating hegemony. Another issue that came to my attention while reading this article was the principle of “sameness.” Last semester I took a sociology class and we talked about how America has this belief in the middle class, that we are a middle class nation. However, this is a false interpretation because there really is no such thing as the middle class. The economic disparities within the United States show that there is a huge division between rich and poor and barely any people living in the middle. Why would we believe in the middle class if it were not realistic? One of the major factors in this preconceived notion is the fact that most movies and television shows are based around the idea of a middle class lifestyle. If we assume everyone is middle class, we all are living in “sameness.” Movies that demonstrate this idea is another way of creating a public belief of the way life is and how it should be
Capri Sun, 11/1/09
Today in class we reviewed the Horkheimer and Adorno article and a few things came to mind that I did not think about when reading it the day before. For starters, I began to connect the idea of “sameness” to Jenkins. In Jenkins’ article he explains: “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication.” (556). This means that you could randomly meet someone on the street and you will most likely share similar knowledge. In class that day, we talked about how people who follow sports could talk about it to anyone even if they had never met before. Jenkins, Horkheimer and Adorno, all share similar beliefs in the idea of “sameness.” Culture today is heavily influenced by the media and pop culture and because of this the majority of the people feel the same way. Even mindless pieces of media like YouTube have become sensations, however we all share an interest in it.
In class today I was suppose to define pseudo-individuality reigns and I decided to break up the term and define it. “Pseudo” meant pretending or trying to be followed by individuality, I took this as meaning a made up identity. “Reigns” is defined as the dominative force. So without even reading its context within the Horkheimer and Adorno article, I felt that this meant people create fake identities based off the dominant images seen within society. A famous musician has a sleeve full of tattoos so people take this image and base their own false identity from it. I feel like identities have become a commodities, even when people try to be different they actually just reproducing an already before seen image. Which further perpetuates the idea of sameness within the identities of the mass culture.
Capri Sun, Herman and Chomsky
Throughout reading the Herman and Chomsky article, many of their ideas reminded me of previous theorists we have talked about in class. The article talks about how the media is constructed and who is constructing it. I think the most important part of understanding media and its influence on society is realizing who is controlling it. Because it is only a small minority of wealthy individuals everything the public views is being filtered through their eyes. We assume that the various forms of media, especially the news, are unbiased however this is impossible. Marx talks about how the dominating class is created through money therefore money controls the media. The media provides the mass public with images of what life is supposed to be like and what is “normal.” What the average American does not realize is that what we see on television or listen to on the radio are actually hegemonic ideologies that are produced to advance the people in the ruling class. Last semester, I wrote my CMC200 paper on advertisements and the effect is has on its viewers. After researching I learned that the more an advertisement has to do with ones lifestyle or if it succeeds the image one is looking for the more effective the advertisement has on production sales. This made me realize, that we are living in an on going cycle. People buy what they see on advertisements because of the pre-existing ideologies that Americans believe and trust. So, when a man sees an ad regarding Nike running shoes, where the male in the image looks strong and masculine they will be more likely to buy the shoes because society has told him his whole life that in order to be a man one must be strong. Advertisements sell products because they are selling the images we see in the media. And because the media is controlled by an elite group of people these images are only ideologies not reality. If you turn to someone and ask them if they think advertisements work most likely the person will say no but they also most likely will be wearing Nikes. Benjamin would agree with Herman and Chomsky by explaining that the American public is absent-minded viewers, even when we do not think its effecting us, it actually is and in order to stop this cycle we must start questioning and challenging where our media comes from and what are its motives.
Capri Sun, Foucault
Throughout reading Foucault’s article, it reminded me of Althusser and the belief in the structural issues created by authorities. Throughout this semester we have talked about the public being submissive to the people in power. We witness in class, students obeying our teachers and taking everything we learn as the truth. Culture is made up of different levels of superiority ranging from within the family to the government. There are various systems that create rules, laws, and just everyday social constructions. We follow because as a whole we are a passive society; he explains that we are unwillingly and unconsciously caged. Foucault says, “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). As a public, we are aware of the authority around us but we do not fully know why or what we are being told to do. This relates to Marx because he talks about how those in charge are ruling in a certain way that keeps them in advantage. In America, we have this belief in the American Dream that tells the public that we live in a meritocracy. The average person believes this because they are ruled in a way where they assume it’s for the greater good of the public. However, the inequality in the United States does not represent this dream. Part of the population is born into an advantaged lifestyle where they will always be ahead of others with fewer opportunities at birth. However, our government is based off democratic ideals that trick people into believing a myth about the American lifestyle. I think that Foucault’s article does a good job describing the public but it should pose more answers to the problems. Answers that we have read about it in class that is to challenge authority either through questioning or evaluating what is not being said.
Capri Sun, Derrida
Jacques Derrida’s piece on language and communication was very difficult to understand and fully grasp the concepts he was saying. I realize he is trying to explain that language is created around differences. One speaking can interpret what they are saying in a completely different way then those that are listening. Even changing words around in sentences or even letters within a word can create a new meaning. Different languages cannot be completely translated with identical meanings because of the cultural significance of language. This concept can be related to both de Saussure and Macherey because they discuss language and its importance in communication. I think because everyone is different and have all experienced life differently through their family background, education and just all around lifestyle everything we read, write, and listen to is interpreted differently. I have even noticed with my peers at school their major even changes their opinion on social issues today. There will be times, I will be watching television or reading a magazine and my perception of what is being portrayed will be very dissimilar to those that are Political Science or Economic majors. I believe this is what Derrida is saying about how everyone is different therefore they interpret things differently. We can also look at this in an opposite way, by thinking about Horkheimer and Adorno and their belief that as a culture we have all become the same. That is why for the most part we believe the same things that are presented to us by the government. Our overall interpretation is similar until we start learning about the problems within them. A lot of things I see now after being a CMC major, I witness the issues within what is being said or framed. However, before I would not like the majority of the people that were never taught to challenge.
Capri Sun, Cixous
Cixous’ article talks about how society has created gender roles and why men are the superior sex. She says that men are considered the providers and breadwinners in most American families. In our head we have an image of what a typical family would look like and the men are the successful workers. While reading this article it reminded me a lot of my CMC 200 paper, which talked about the concept of masculinity. In society, the fact that there are certain ways men and women should act is the reasons there are gender roles. Men are told to be men by being masculine and masculinity is defined in many different aspects of our life. When studying masculinity, I learned that being successful was a major part of being a man. Cixous explains in her article that men are suppose to be the providers and they fear when women achieve more success then them. This is because of the already preconceived notions that take place today. Certain words that describe masculinity are successful, strong, wealthy, and dominant. Words that would explain femininity would also be considered an insult if called that to a male. This is what Cixous described as oppositions. The male is opposite of female. When doing my paper for CMC 200, I realized that in order for a man to feel like a man he needed be masculine. Masculinity can change depended on the culture being studied, therefore masculinity is not apart of the biology that make up males rather it is what society makes of it. The media and other systems create the gender roles, which are usually hegemonic ideologies. Advertisements, television shows, and films are a huge factor that shapes our perspective of the male and female. Boys grow up witnessing these forms of media and it becomes an expectation for them to portray masculinity because there whole lives they see men as the dominant gender. I think that this is something that is more difficult for boys to break away from then girls, because a girl can be successful and work outside of the home and at times may be looked down upon; but when men become the “stay at home” dad, he is observed negatively by society.
Capri Sun, Machery
Throughout reading Pierre Macherey’s text I was constantly confused, I had an idea of what he was talking about but I am not completely sure I grasped what he was trying to get across. The article talks mostly silence and its importance. He says that what is not said is more important then what actually is being said. I understand this concept by thinking about the news and media and how we are presented an image coming from a certain perspective. Without thinking we do not question what we are witnessing and instead just take everything we see and subconsciously apply it to our lives. The importance of looking at what is not said and the silence in this case is because it is avoiding what people should know. I think about the news and who is controlling it, they then broadcast the news through their particular lens that protects the audience from knowing what they ought to know. This reminds me of a sociology class I took last spring called The American Dream. In this class we talked about how the media has defined for us what a criminal looks like, we hear about different street and blue collar crimes but we are unaware of certain white collar crimes that are devastating a large number of people. I take what Macherey says about silence and the importance of what is not said and you can apply this directly to the fact that the news paints a picture they want the public to know about society. By looking past what is said, we are challenging and questioning to find out the truths about our culture. I think Macherey’s point he is trying to make is people should look into what is not being said to fully understand what is taking place.
Capri Sun, Benjamin
I found Walter Benjamin’s article to be one of the more interesting theorists we have read thus far. Throughout his piece, he talks about the authenticity of the original and that because it is reproduced it loses its initial identification. This is done by “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (21). Therefore, the more something is replicated and imitated it no longer is what it once was. We see this in our culture constantly throughout the media. By having infinite amount of copies of something it makes it possible for everyone to have similar experiences. When I think about this it reminds me of how paintings can now be replicated to the point where one can have famous pieces of art hanging in their living room. We no longer have to travel to the Louvre to find the Mona Lisa; instead we can just travel to our local poster store and have a plethora of famous art to choose from. Benjamin also talks about how art is no longer being used in a creative aspect for appreciation but instead it is a way to gain money and capital. He also talks about how today; in art we witness motion pictures. This is a very realistic form of art and people are associating what they see as realistic even though its just ones relationship to the camera. We examine what we watch but we do so in a very poor way, he calls us “absent minded.” We are absent minded because we are assuming everything we witness on screen as being a reality when it is really only created to make money. Artists have lost their sense of credibility but they are still making money. This reminds me of the fact that our world is getting more and more filled with trash. YouTube videos are becoming sensations but there is little talent behind them.
Capri Sun, Lyotard
Throughout Lyotard’s article he talks about the concept of realism. One of the major points he makes discusses the difference between different pieces of artwork. He talks about “photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism” (40). I took this as meaning that with the technology of the camera, viewers look at pictures, either photographs or motion pictures and they portray a very realistic view. These types of art, unlike paintings or even cartoons, show the characters and settings within the frame in its exact state. Because the images we see are so realistic it is hard to differentiate the real from the fiction. When going to the movies or watching television shows, we seem to be well aware that the plot and story lines are fictions but subconsciously we assume that what we are watching happened exactly how we are witnessing it on the screen. Lyotard talks about how we portray television and films and need to start looking at it as nostalgia or mockery. People believe they have experienced what they see, so there is no more intent to experience it themselves. One thing that I found most important about what Lyotard was saying, was that artists that create these forms of media need to start evoking more realistic thoughts toward their audience. Those that do in society have lost all credibility. When reading the quote “artists and writers need to be assigned the task of healing the community,” I thought about the Global Peace Film Festival. These filmmakers are artists that sole goal are to spread awareness about the problems within our society. Lyotard explains that this type of media is the fastest and most effective way to achieve the public’s attention. Therefore, if more filmmakers worked to better the global community rather then gaining income and popularity these issues either slowly diminish or at least create a broader awareness. Half the problem is that people no longer challenge what they are told, like what Macherey says what is not said is more important then what is.
Capri Sun, Habermas
Throughout Habermas’ article he talks about modernity and the fact that nothing can stay modern. In today’s society, people are constantly trying to be different and once they achieve that difference it becomes a trend or normal. At first it seems shocking because it is going against the traditional. This concept is called avant-gardism. Because “culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (101). This makes me think about teenagers dressing and going against what their parents tell them because it is the first time they have the freedom to express themselves. They do this by rebelling what they know as normal in their own family homes. This is why modernity is always changing because there is constantly something new. I think if I were to ask someone what their definition of modern was, they would respond with the newest and latest technologies and looks. Habermas talks about the “cult of the new” and how American society is constantly looking for the new trend. I feel like whenever I buy a computer, only months later there is a new and improved one. People will never be satisfied with their old, even if it’s their traditions, therefore they will continue to search for the new and improved. What troubled me about this piece is that he talks about a constant change, however, we rebel against the traditional values of our culture. What I do not understand is where does the traditional start? Is it traditional, as we know it in our lifetimes? And if so, wouldn’t our idea of traditionalism be different then those of our parents. In a way, I find this a natural part of culture and how we progress in society. There are some disadvantages to this in the sense of consumerism, but I also think about it in regards to feminism. Women working and stepping out of the family role, was once considered different. Would those original women been considered avant-garde, because now it is widely accepted for this to take place. Overall, I think that society changing is for the better.
Capri Sun, Boudrillard
Throughout Boudrillard’ article he talks about images and how they portray reality. Within the media, especially photography, scenes are captured within a frame and at times the viewer is unable to differentiate what is really taking place in the photos. Boudrillard talks specifically about photographs and the different levels of danger that they can possess. He explains that an image that depicts the truth is good and the less realism within them causes more and more concern. Boudrillard uses the concept of simulation to rate these images. I think what confuses the public the most about this is we assume what we see visually is also real and telling the truth because we have proof of its existence through the photograph. Throughout the media we see pictures of war and we see symbols of pride, honor, and camaraderie. However, in reality these pictures are telling a false story, because behind war there is death, violence and hatred. We are confused of the realities of war by the images are presented to us. I would relate this to Macherey and Althuser because when we see these images we should look at what is not being shown. The images create a picture from a specific perspective, the hegemonic perspective, therefore we do not see the whole reality of it rather a reality created behind a certain lens. I think the government does this to glorify war. In this sociology class I took last year called The American Dream we talked about the film Born on the Fourth of July directed by Oliver Stone. This film reminds me of what Boudrillard is saying in his article because the beginning talks about how the government would go to high schools and recruit boys into the army. They would do this by praising war and becoming a hero for ones country. By the end of the film, we witness how destructive war can be on individuals both physically and emotionally. However, we would never know this through what we see in the media and news because of the certain images presented. Boudrillard would say Born on the Fourth of July would be considered good because of its realistic portrayal of war even though it is a motion picture.
Capri Sun, Zizek
What I found most interesting about Zizek’s talk and article was when he said “on today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties” (231). This means that when there are so many things in society that we know are not healthy for us or the environment so companies create products that are without or with less of their bad qualities. They make “diet” Coca-Colas or “hybrid” cars and market the fact that they are not as bad as the original. We as a society are concerned about the problems but we are unwilling to give them up completely.
Another concept that Zizek explained was the fact that throughout our history of media we are told about the global problems. We see starving children in Africa and war in third world countries but they are always issues that take place far away, as if it is as distant as what we see in the movies. He related this to September 11th and the fact that the damage we witnessed was something we are entertained by when we witness them on screen in the media. It was a shock that something that devastating could actually happen even though it was something that we would watch daily through fiction. Zizek’s understanding of September 11th tells us that we got what we deserved and “he ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). The images that we saw on the news during that period were the same images we have seen in action films. I think it poses the question: how can we as mankind be so accepting of this devastation through fiction when in reality it would be a horrible experience? It is as if we are entertained by drama that we assume will never take place.
Capri Sun, Eco
Throughout Eco’s article he talks about the imitation of cities within the United States. I know that I have witnessed this throughout my different travels across the country. Especially places like Disney World and Las Vegas. These places create replicas of different places across the globe. When you go to Disney World and visit Epcot people will even believe that they have experienced different cultures and countries. The fact that you can go “around the world” and not even leave one city shows the damage this can cause. Children dream about going to these places and how can we expect them to differentiate the fact that this is only an imitation. Everyone has a certain image of nations across the world and where do these images come from? Places like Epcot and Las Vegas filter our portrayal. People could never travel to Paris, France or London, England and they have an idea of what these places look like, what type of food is served and how people dress. Eco talks about how technology can give us more reality than nature. I took this quote as meaning with the advancement in technology we can now create a representation of something that would not exist in its natural state. At Disney World’s Animal Kingdom, there is an imitation Mount Everest. For starters, Disney is located in Central Florida, where the climate and overall environment is naturally extremely different, and if not opposite, of Nepal where Mt. Everest is located. With today’s, technology we can now create something that could never exist naturally but gives those that visit an experience as if they were really there. Eco could be related to many different of the theorist we have read in class but I think most primarily has to do with Benjamin and his ideas on reproduction. Disney World reproduces the original and therefore loses its authenticity. People are witnessing representations that they assume to be identical to the original.
Capri Sun, Dorfman
Dorfman throughout his article talks about the “common cultural heritage” within our society. I took this as meaning even though we as people are all very different with various backgrounds we all still share similar beliefs and ideas about the culture we are living in. He talks about Disney and its effect on people and how it would be difficult to meet someone that is unaware of Disney and its attributes. When you are flying to Orlando, you are surrounded by children and families that are making there exciting journey to Disney world. It has become a cultural phenomenon that few people have not experienced. You could turn to just about anyone and bring up this topic and they would have knowledge and response toward it. I think that having this sort of place in the United States brings the community as a whole together and this has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that people are connected through this theme. There is a public understanding but it is based off a false reality. So the majority of the public is affected by something that exists purely off of fiction. You can relate this to Horkheimer and Adorno and the fact that there is a cultural “sameness.” Everyone is the same because the media and places like Disney are “the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other” (123). Communication has become so easy, even if one has nothing in common with the other, because we all know and are aware of the same things. We unconsciously are assigned to believe and think in a certain way so that all people are the same. I think that the problem with this is we lose our own personal identities and culture becomes one with the same because we have all witnessed or experienced life similarly.
Capri Sun, Marx and Althusser
This week we read about Marx and Althusser’s thoughts on ideologies within society. Marx believes in two types of classes that make up a whole, the class with more material is the intellectual class. This class makes the rules and dominates society by creating ideologies. Because these ideologies are in their interest and work to their advantage they can also be considered hegemonic. Marx says that there are two different groups but each are apart of a whole. Therefore the “lower” class abides these rules that are enforced on them and are taught not to question.
Althusser, however, is interested in two different types of societies. One is the ISA (ideological state apparatus) where the people in the community are not to question or challenge the current system. The second is a RSA (repressive state apparatus) society, where ideologies should be questioned. Marx and Althusser’s theories go hand in hand because either way certain ideas are enforced on society as a whole, its whether that society is open to challenging or not that differentiates the two. Ever since becoming a CMC major, I feel like I have focused on figuring out if America is an ISA or RSA society. I think, the average person would say an RSA because of the very first Amendment within the American Constitution. However, I personally would say an ISA because I have been taught in my classes to question every idea that is presented to me from institutions. These beliefs are actually hegemonic because they are coming from the “ruling” class that Marx talks about in his article. It is interesting because ideologies are controlling people, but the people in charge of that society control the ideologies of that society. It is a never-ending cycle because we are taught we can question but we don’t because we believe the ideas and laws imposed on us are for the greater good of the society as a whole.
Capri Sun, 10/25/09
So this weekend, my sisters came in town and we decided to go to Disney World, so I figured it was an appropriate topic for today’s blog. Let me premise, that my eldest sister had not been to the most ‘magical’ place on Earth in 10 years and lets just say, she was more than looking forward to this trip. I, on the other hand, have spent the past two years studying Disney World and its effect on society so there were quite clashing perspectives. On Thursday, we talked about education and whether or not it is an ISA or RSA and it was really hard for me to come up with a definite answer, especially after this past weekend. Education is a perfect way to liberate people from ideologies because we are taught to question the “ruling force” but aren’t the teachers within our classrooms the “ruling force.” So with that being said, how do I know to believe everything I learn in a classroom as the truth? This did not really come to me until I tried to explain the negative effects of Disney World to my sister. She had a very different view point because of her education and passion toward the beauty and happiness within the park. So, who was right? Weren’t we both just following what we had learned? Education makes us question but we still follow what we are taught. I still do not know if education is an ISA or RSA, but what I do know is that in order to become closer to an RSA, we as students should question what we are even being told to question!
My second connection with Disney World and Thursday’s class was when I was walking through Epcot experiencing “Around the World.” In class we were shown an image of a Guinness and asked to explain what it represented to us. Our answers were fairly stereotypical: “Irishness,” clovers and St. Patrick’s Day. These came from the associations we had with that image. So, when I went to Ireland at Disney World, I ordered a Guinness…
Capri Sun, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Arorno talk about the mass media within American society, primarily Television, Film and radio, and its effect of the public. Although, only a select few individuals control the Media, their way of production has created certain images that society, as a whole believes as normal. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call “sameness” which is the belief that even though America is made up of people with many different backgrounds they all have an identical idea of how something should be or what something should look like. Media alone is an easy way to spread ideologies and when the media becomes such a monopoly that it is controlled by only a few major corporations it becomes even easier to perpetuate these hegemonic ideologies. I felt that this article was a lot like other theorist we have read about in CMC 300. For starters, I thought about Walter Benjamin and his theories regarding images and reality. Everything we see, we assume is real for the most part, especially the more realistic the image. “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. The familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production.” (45) People are unable to differentiate the real from the fake even though the movie is an imitation because of how realistic it is perceived. Because movies have such an influence on people, the people filtering their ideas are creating hegemony. Another issue that came to my attention while reading this article was the principle of “sameness.” Last semester I took a sociology class and we talked about how America has this belief in the middle class, that we are a middle class nation. However, this is a false interpretation because there really is no such thing as the middle class. The economic disparities within the United States show that there is a huge division between rich and poor and barely any people living in the middle. Why would we believe in the middle class if it were not realistic? One of the major factors in this preconceived notion is the fact that most movies and television shows are based around the idea of a middle class lifestyle. If we assume everyone is middle class, we all are living in “sameness.” Movies that demonstrate this idea is another way of creating a public belief of the way life is and how it should be
Capri Sun, 11/1/09
Today in class we reviewed the Horkheimer and Adorno article and a few things came to mind that I did not think about when reading it the day before. For starters, I began to connect the idea of “sameness” to Jenkins. In Jenkins’ article he explains: “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication.” (556). This means that you could randomly meet someone on the street and you will most likely share similar knowledge. In class that day, we talked about how people who follow sports could talk about it to anyone even if they had never met before. Jenkins, Horkheimer and Adorno, all share similar beliefs in the idea of “sameness.” Culture today is heavily influenced by the media and pop culture and because of this the majority of the people feel the same way. Even mindless pieces of media like YouTube have become sensations, however we all share an interest in it.
In class today I was suppose to define pseudo-individuality reigns and I decided to break up the term and define it. “Pseudo” meant pretending or trying to be followed by individuality, I took this as meaning a made up identity. “Reigns” is defined as the dominative force. So without even reading its context within the Horkheimer and Adorno article, I felt that this meant people create fake identities based off the dominant images seen within society. A famous musician has a sleeve full of tattoos so people take this image and base their own false identity from it. I feel like identities have become a commodities, even when people try to be different they actually just reproducing an already before seen image. Which further perpetuates the idea of sameness within the identities of the mass culture.
Capri Sun, Herman and Chomsky
Throughout reading the Herman and Chomsky article, many of their ideas reminded me of previous theorists we have talked about in class. The article talks about how the media is constructed and who is constructing it. I think the most important part of understanding media and its influence on society is realizing who is controlling it. Because it is only a small minority of wealthy individuals everything the public views is being filtered through their eyes. We assume that the various forms of media, especially the news, are unbiased however this is impossible. Marx talks about how the dominating class is created through money therefore money controls the media. The media provides the mass public with images of what life is supposed to be like and what is “normal.” What the average American does not realize is that what we see on television or listen to on the radio are actually hegemonic ideologies that are produced to advance the people in the ruling class. Last semester, I wrote my CMC200 paper on advertisements and the effect is has on its viewers. After researching I learned that the more an advertisement has to do with ones lifestyle or if it succeeds the image one is looking for the more effective the advertisement has on production sales. This made me realize, that we are living in an on going cycle. People buy what they see on advertisements because of the pre-existing ideologies that Americans believe and trust. So, when a man sees an ad regarding Nike running shoes, where the male in the image looks strong and masculine they will be more likely to buy the shoes because society has told him his whole life that in order to be a man one must be strong. Advertisements sell products because they are selling the images we see in the media. And because the media is controlled by an elite group of people these images are only ideologies not reality. If you turn to someone and ask them if they think advertisements work most likely the person will say no but they also most likely will be wearing Nikes. Benjamin would agree with Herman and Chomsky by explaining that the American public is absent-minded viewers, even when we do not think its effecting us, it actually is and in order to stop this cycle we must start questioning and challenging where our media comes from and what are its motives.
Capri Sun, Foucault
Throughout reading Foucault’s article, it reminded me of Althusser and the belief in the structural issues created by authorities. Throughout this semester we have talked about the public being submissive to the people in power. We witness in class, students obeying our teachers and taking everything we learn as the truth. Culture is made up of different levels of superiority ranging from within the family to the government. There are various systems that create rules, laws, and just everyday social constructions. We follow because as a whole we are a passive society; he explains that we are unwillingly and unconsciously caged. Foucault says, “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). As a public, we are aware of the authority around us but we do not fully know why or what we are being told to do. This relates to Marx because he talks about how those in charge are ruling in a certain way that keeps them in advantage. In America, we have this belief in the American Dream that tells the public that we live in a meritocracy. The average person believes this because they are ruled in a way where they assume it’s for the greater good of the public. However, the inequality in the United States does not represent this dream. Part of the population is born into an advantaged lifestyle where they will always be ahead of others with fewer opportunities at birth. However, our government is based off democratic ideals that trick people into believing a myth about the American lifestyle. I think that Foucault’s article does a good job describing the public but it should pose more answers to the problems. Answers that we have read about it in class that is to challenge authority either through questioning or evaluating what is not being said.
Capri Sun, Derrida
Jacques Derrida’s piece on language and communication was very difficult to understand and fully grasp the concepts he was saying. I realize he is trying to explain that language is created around differences. One speaking can interpret what they are saying in a completely different way then those that are listening. Even changing words around in sentences or even letters within a word can create a new meaning. Different languages cannot be completely translated with identical meanings because of the cultural significance of language. This concept can be related to both de Saussure and Macherey because they discuss language and its importance in communication. I think because everyone is different and have all experienced life differently through their family background, education and just all around lifestyle everything we read, write, and listen to is interpreted differently. I have even noticed with my peers at school their major even changes their opinion on social issues today. There will be times, I will be watching television or reading a magazine and my perception of what is being portrayed will be very dissimilar to those that are Political Science or Economic majors. I believe this is what Derrida is saying about how everyone is different therefore they interpret things differently. We can also look at this in an opposite way, by thinking about Horkheimer and Adorno and their belief that as a culture we have all become the same. That is why for the most part we believe the same things that are presented to us by the government. Our overall interpretation is similar until we start learning about the problems within them. A lot of things I see now after being a CMC major, I witness the issues within what is being said or framed. However, before I would not like the majority of the people that were never taught to challenge.
Capri Sun, Cixous
Cixous’ article talks about how society has created gender roles and why men are the superior sex. She says that men are considered the providers and breadwinners in most American families. In our head we have an image of what a typical family would look like and the men are the successful workers. While reading this article it reminded me a lot of my CMC 200 paper, which talked about the concept of masculinity. In society, the fact that there are certain ways men and women should act is the reasons there are gender roles. Men are told to be men by being masculine and masculinity is defined in many different aspects of our life. When studying masculinity, I learned that being successful was a major part of being a man. Cixous explains in her article that men are suppose to be the providers and they fear when women achieve more success then them. This is because of the already preconceived notions that take place today. Certain words that describe masculinity are successful, strong, wealthy, and dominant. Words that would explain femininity would also be considered an insult if called that to a male. This is what Cixous described as oppositions. The male is opposite of female. When doing my paper for CMC 200, I realized that in order for a man to feel like a man he needed be masculine. Masculinity can change depended on the culture being studied, therefore masculinity is not apart of the biology that make up males rather it is what society makes of it. The media and other systems create the gender roles, which are usually hegemonic ideologies. Advertisements, television shows, and films are a huge factor that shapes our perspective of the male and female. Boys grow up witnessing these forms of media and it becomes an expectation for them to portray masculinity because there whole lives they see men as the dominant gender. I think that this is something that is more difficult for boys to break away from then girls, because a girl can be successful and work outside of the home and at times may be looked down upon; but when men become the “stay at home” dad, he is observed negatively by society.
Nemo, Baudrillard -Make Up
In this reading Baudrillard discusses the effect that images have on our society. I do not know if I was the only person but I found this reading to be somewhat difficult. I especially had difficulty with his theory of Simulacra. Baudrillard discusses his theory of Simulacra, which I interpreted as replacing reality with signs or symbols that simulate reality. Baudrillard believes that our society has become dependent on simulacra and can no longer relate to the real world. “To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. One implies a presence, the other an absence.” I think that here Baudrillard is saying that in our society we live in a world of pretending, or a fantasy world. He believes that the media (TV, movies, internet, etc.) is responsible for blurring the line between reality and fiction. I agree with this argument because when people watch specific reality TV shows they think that what they are seeing is ‘real’ and they can associate with the situations the people are in. However what the masses do not know is that reality TV shows can often be scripted or edited in certain ways to make things seem more important or dramatic than they actually are. I had great difficulty understanding this article but I feel as though I was able to get somewhat of a grasp on his theory of Simulacra.
September 6th, Serendipity, Post Class DeSaussure, LATE
Language is only difference. DeSaussure explains how completely arbitrary a slice of sound given to a specific concept is. This alone makes everyone think of something different since we all are subjective creatures that are molded by our environment and experiences. When someone says something, it is not only what they DO say, but it is also what they don’t say, like Barthes and Macherey explains “The Gap”. The fact that someone is saying mean things to someone else, it is also important to realize, that due to the way language works, it is also the fact that they are NOT saying nice things. This is the way I interpreted the reading, but I am not sure if this is completely the idea he had. There is the signifier, and the signified. A whole theoretical basis behind every word. The word dog. D-O-G. Signifies a living breathing creature, and not a cat. But if the word cat was always connected to the concept “dog” we would find that normal and not understand how it could be called something else. This portrays the concept of how the environment and society completely molds us into not thinking how anything is created by man. This is the whole point of CMC I realize, to criticize the media and things that seem so normal to us but actually have a whole system behind them.
Penny Lane- Bourdieu Late
Bourdieu constantly reiterates his concern with media responsibility. Our news coverage is limited and prevents exposure of larger unexplored problems in society. Programming is primarily concerned with inconsequential stories rather than the issues that actually impact viewers and the world on a global scale. He claims that “the farther a paper extends its circulation, the more it favors such topics that interest ‘everybody’ and don’t raise the problems. The object-news-is constructed in accordance with the perceptual categories of the receiver.” This excerpt brings to mind the coverage of both Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson. The media claims to give us ‘what we want’ and the consequence is a vicious cycle of shallow dramatic storytelling, prompting us to look at a spectacle rather than reality. Channels also try to one up each other with frivolous sensationalism, which only lengthens the amount of time and attention designated to the relatively insignificant subject matter. “TV networks have greater and greater recourse to the tried and true formulas of tabloid journalism…The focus is on those things which are apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis, especially in the political sphere.” This distraction is intentional; we are blind to our own conditions of poverty, class struggle, internal corruption, and misconduct abroad. Marx would agree with Bourdieus conclusions because it is how our system prevents social reform. “Ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” Ownership of ideology insure ownership of the mass perspective.
Serendipity, Pre Class Lyotard Sep 8th LATE
Serendipity, Pre Class Lyotard Sep 8th
In the Lyotard reading, he tries to ask what is Postmodernism really, and what Realism is. Is it reality? Turns out that, probably not. Art that is reproduced (like Benjamin is interested in) in tweaks reality. Not only does it tweak our perception of it, but it makes us think that it is really that way and we start to compare our real lives to it, therefore skewing reality. But if something feels real to us, isn’t that what reality is? This is what my dilemma was the entire time I was reading the article. I think that it is very closely related to what Benjamin says about reproduction and film. It takes you out of the situation and creates false feelings of “knowing” an actor or being in a situation, when in reality, since the movie was fake and you were not there, you will never truly know, since you are sitting in a movie theater. This relates to Lyotard because he claims that nothing is really real and especially this is the case with entertainment. We count on critics to tell us who is the best actor, what movie was the highest rated, what restaurants are the highest rated. This makes us feel that we should be educated in certain subjects in a certain way, for example “art appreciation” classes, and “music appreciation” classes. A person should be able to create their own reality without the societal normative and expectations.
In the Lyotard reading, he tries to ask what is Postmodernism really, and what Realism is. Is it reality? Turns out that, probably not. Art that is reproduced (like Benjamin is interested in) in tweaks reality. Not only does it tweak our perception of it, but it makes us think that it is really that way and we start to compare our real lives to it, therefore skewing reality. But if something feels real to us, isn’t that what reality is? This is what my dilemma was the entire time I was reading the article. I think that it is very closely related to what Benjamin says about reproduction and film. It takes you out of the situation and creates false feelings of “knowing” an actor or being in a situation, when in reality, since the movie was fake and you were not there, you will never truly know, since you are sitting in a movie theater. This relates to Lyotard because he claims that nothing is really real and especially this is the case with entertainment. We count on critics to tell us who is the best actor, what movie was the highest rated, what restaurants are the highest rated. This makes us feel that we should be educated in certain subjects in a certain way, for example “art appreciation” classes, and “music appreciation” classes. A person should be able to create their own reality without the societal normative and expectations.
Nemo, 9/29 – Make Up
Nemo, 9/29
In class this week we went to the Cornell Museum on campus where we saw many different exhibits including: Andre Kertesz’s On Reading and Andy Warhol’s Personalite, among others. I found this class trip to be very interesting and helpful in understanding post modernism. We have read many works by different theorists but we had yet to experience and generate our own opinions on what they were talking about until this week. I found Andre Kertesz’s On Reading exhibit very fascinating and an appropriate topic for this class. Each photograph displayed people reading or a reference to reading and literature. The subjects were not all reading the same thing and they were not all in the same setting. There were books, magazines, newspapers, street signs, etc. So of the subjects were in their homes, but the majority were outside reading. Each person seemed to be in their own comfort zone where they can escape their reality and get lost in the written word. As an observer we are not able to personally know what the subjects were feeling at the time the photographs were taken but we are able to imagine. I am going to attempt to relate this to a quote by Barthes, it may or may not be a correct fit but I believe it is relevant. “It is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes?” (108). We are attracted to the mystery of what is hidden behind something – in this case we as observers were engrossed in what could have been going on at the time the photographs were taking. How was the subject feeling? Why had they chosen that specific place to read? Why did Kertesz choose to photograph this specific scene? We were yearning to find out more about the circumstances that enabled the photographs to be taken.
In Andy Warhol’s exhibit Personalitie consisted of Polaroid’s that pictured both ordinary people as well as celebrities dressed and styled in the same manner as if to make it difficult to determine the subject’s significance. It seemed as if Warhol was trying to make the subjects in the photographs seem like ‘ordinary’ people or as close to ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ as possible. This exhibit could be related to the ideas expressed by Lyotard such as verisimilitude. Verisimilitude something that has the appearance of being real, in this case it is artwork. In class we said the goal of the artist is to capture as much ‘real life’ as he or she possibly can in their art. I believe that Warhol’s exhibit exemplifies this idea as perfectly as possible.
In class this week we went to the Cornell Museum on campus where we saw many different exhibits including: Andre Kertesz’s On Reading and Andy Warhol’s Personalite, among others. I found this class trip to be very interesting and helpful in understanding post modernism. We have read many works by different theorists but we had yet to experience and generate our own opinions on what they were talking about until this week. I found Andre Kertesz’s On Reading exhibit very fascinating and an appropriate topic for this class. Each photograph displayed people reading or a reference to reading and literature. The subjects were not all reading the same thing and they were not all in the same setting. There were books, magazines, newspapers, street signs, etc. So of the subjects were in their homes, but the majority were outside reading. Each person seemed to be in their own comfort zone where they can escape their reality and get lost in the written word. As an observer we are not able to personally know what the subjects were feeling at the time the photographs were taken but we are able to imagine. I am going to attempt to relate this to a quote by Barthes, it may or may not be a correct fit but I believe it is relevant. “It is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes?” (108). We are attracted to the mystery of what is hidden behind something – in this case we as observers were engrossed in what could have been going on at the time the photographs were taking. How was the subject feeling? Why had they chosen that specific place to read? Why did Kertesz choose to photograph this specific scene? We were yearning to find out more about the circumstances that enabled the photographs to be taken.
In Andy Warhol’s exhibit Personalitie consisted of Polaroid’s that pictured both ordinary people as well as celebrities dressed and styled in the same manner as if to make it difficult to determine the subject’s significance. It seemed as if Warhol was trying to make the subjects in the photographs seem like ‘ordinary’ people or as close to ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ as possible. This exhibit could be related to the ideas expressed by Lyotard such as verisimilitude. Verisimilitude something that has the appearance of being real, in this case it is artwork. In class we said the goal of the artist is to capture as much ‘real life’ as he or she possibly can in their art. I believe that Warhol’s exhibit exemplifies this idea as perfectly as possible.
Nemo, Zizek – Make Up
This reading was somewhat confusing but I believe that I understand the main ideas that were discussed. “We find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties…” (231). Zizek starts this article by discussing how in our culture we are given the option of consuming the real product removed of its core – making the product a simulation of the real thing – which gives us this pretense that we are experiencing the real product. He then relates this idea to the idea that as a culture we believe that we have experienced certain things because we have seen them in TV shows or Movies. It is this sense of a Virtual Reality. “Virtual reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance…Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being so…What happens at the end of this process of virtualization, however, is that we begin to experience ‘real reality’ itself as a virtual entity” (231). I interpreted this passage to mean that as a society we are sheltered from what is really going on. We see events in history happen through the screen of a television. For example when someone talks about 9/11 and the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center I immediately play the image that I saw on TV – the smoke and the buildings crumbling to the ground. At the same time, however, TV has the ability to force us to “experience what the ‘compulsion to repeat’ and jouissance beyond the pleasure principle are: we wanted to see it again, and again…” (231). Once we experienced such a tragedy be became transfixed with those images and could not help looking at them – a guilty pleasure you could say. Before 9/11 I believe that Americans lived in a bubble where they believed that nothing remotely close to that kind of catastrophe could ever happen in this country. However Americans had seen catastrophes of different sorts for decades. “The authentic twentieth-century passion for penetrating the Real Thing through the cobweb of semblances which constitutes our reality thus culminates in the thrill of the Real as the ultimate ‘effect’, sought after from digitalized special affects, through reality TV…” (232). We had all seen movies and TV shows that simulated such events but we did not perceive them to be real.
Zizek, from what I understood, believes that our culture is sheltered from the horrific images of the horrible events that are taking place currently around the world. He believes that we should be shown the horrific images from the wars, the genocides, and the fight against poverty and deadly infections, so that we understand that those things are actually happening and they are real. But he fears, as do I, that Americans will continue to believe that nothing like that could ever happen in the United States – even poverty which affects about 12 to 13% of the nation. I believe that 9/11 was a wake up call for Americans, it was a horrible tragedy I do not disagree with that, but in a way I unfortunately feel like something of that magnitude had to happen in order to show Americans that we are a country that can be vulnerable at times.
Zizek, from what I understood, believes that our culture is sheltered from the horrific images of the horrible events that are taking place currently around the world. He believes that we should be shown the horrific images from the wars, the genocides, and the fight against poverty and deadly infections, so that we understand that those things are actually happening and they are real. But he fears, as do I, that Americans will continue to believe that nothing like that could ever happen in the United States – even poverty which affects about 12 to 13% of the nation. I believe that 9/11 was a wake up call for Americans, it was a horrible tragedy I do not disagree with that, but in a way I unfortunately feel like something of that magnitude had to happen in order to show Americans that we are a country that can be vulnerable at times.
Penny Lane- Zizek Late
In Zizek’s analysis of the 9-11 aftermath, he states: “America finally got what it had always fantasized about, and that was the most shocking part.” Our culture has long been obsessed with the idea of destruction and catastrophe in entertainment, but designated it as part of a fictional alternate universe. The scene of the twin towers was similar to that of an epic disaster film, but it was actually occurring with real world consequences. However, Zizek argues that our understanding of real devastation and suffering is absent from the social consciousness. “It is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see…in clear contrast to reporting on third world catastrophes…the real horror happens there not here.” The third world and impacts of war are out of sight and out of mind, so we rarely think of their existence. The idea of suffering abroad is so far removed and infrequently covered in our media, it is as if it does not even exist. DeSaussure’s descriptions of meaning and understanding are relevant to our blissful ignorance because our reality is socially constructed. My concept of hunger and suffering is vastly differentiated from an individual living in the squalor of a third world slum. The concept of intertextuality asserts that what I already know through personal experience and education defined my subjective reality. My world has been vastly sheltered from the tragic nature of humanity, so my perspective is stunted in comparison to reality.
The first 3 links are destruction scenes from Independence Day, Armageddon, and Knowing. The fourth clip is footage of the 9-11 attack:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK75ZqUtDns
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8nuUVByrU
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8yZf5IJtw0
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8
The first 3 links are destruction scenes from Independence Day, Armageddon, and Knowing. The fourth clip is footage of the 9-11 attack:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK75ZqUtDns
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8nuUVByrU
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8yZf5IJtw0
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8
Penny Lane- Hebdige/Jameson Late
Ideology is a mechanism used to subdue or dilute oppositional expression. Differentiation defines subcultures. A subculture is a sect of people that vary from the dominant behavior to a noticeable degree. Furthermore, there is always a motive inspiring said action, which is the desire for change. The mainstream stops these initiatives by assimilating the subcultural-identity with the popular. Hebdige believes that “as soon as the original innovations which signify ‘subculture’ are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen.’” By incorporating aspects of the subversive into the common ground, the potential of counter culture movements is halted before any real damage is done to the dominant perspective. The exotic is found, rejected, adapted, accepted, and eventually diminished. According to Jameson, commodities are now defined by surface: how they look; how much they cost; what company produces them; and where they are sold. You can create a façade of a particular image you want to project through attire, but the social connection remains vacant. Commodities sell an idea as well as a product. They can range from products on a self to the ideas enforced by media outlets. If you look much deeper you will find one of two things, both of which are oppositional to the goal of capitalism. First if you look passed the external presentation of an object, it becomes generic. The extra value allocated to a high-end brand is usually related less to the cost of production, and more related to the cost of advertising initiatives. Without the packaging and label, it is culturally insignificant. Second, if you look beneath the surface, you might find something you don’t want to see. Injustice, corruption, and abuse of power are frequently ignored to prevent a shift in the hegemonic order. For this reason, journalism no longer tackles difficult issues with far reaching implications. We are provided with an idea of justice, but this shallow representation only serves to pacify the public. Constructive cultural criticism falls to the wayside with the groups that aim to challenge the mainstream.
Nemo, 9/20 – Make Up
I decided to write about the class discussion on Habermas because I would like to see how I have begun to understand the article a little more now that I have heard what Dr. Rog and my peers had to say about it. We discussed how Habermas is discussing traditionalism vs. avant-gardism. Traditionalism is when things have value because they have always had value. The Avant-gard is what is ‘in’ for a short period of time. I believe that our society is in a constant struggle with the balance between traditionalism and avant-gardism. Habermas nails it perfectly with the quote - “the cult of the new” (99). We believe in our culture that if it is new it is better and we have to have it because it must be better simply because it is new. We feel as though because of the advances in scientific research and technology everything that is new has to be better than the previous model. I do not know where we got this notion, probably through advertisements, but the majority of society believes this to be true. One of my friends is obsessed with the advances in technology and whenever he sees that a new type of TV, or computer is coming out he immediately starts researching everything about it and constantly talks about how he needs the new TV or computer. Even if it is a type of software for his iPhone he immediately downloads it when the new version comes out. It is sad to think that our society is just throwing away everything symbolizes our journey to this point in history. This class discussion made me more appreciative for what my generation has had the opportunity to have.
Nemo, Habermas – Make Up
I found this reading to be extremely difficult which is why I did not post on it, but I am determined to figure him out so that’s why I am now writing about this reading. The main focus of Habermas’ article is the subject of Modernity and how it affects culture and the difference in its previous meaning and its current meaning. “The idea of being ‘modern’…changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge…” (99). The definition of what is ‘modern’ has changed with the increase of knowledge with the help of the advances in science. People now believe that things are better because we are making progress and are beginning to understand more things. They feel as though it is not important to know what has previously gone on in a society but to instead look forward and see how they can advance the society. This notion is more appropriately and accurately said by Habermas “the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical reference” (99). As I said before I believe this quote to mean that the vast majority of our society do not feel as though it is important to know anything about the history of the culture. We have some how come to believe that new is better and old is, not necessarily bad but unimportant. I know that when I see an advertisement for a new computer or cell phone I immediately want one of the advertised products. I do not care about who invented the first computer or cell phone, and it does not matter if my computer or cell phone is working perfectly they are still ‘old’. This is what I took from the reading my interpretation of the text could be completely off but this is what I understood.
Nemo, 9/13 - Late
In class this week we discussed the theorists Benjamin and his thoughts on the waning affect as well as authenticity. “What happens to the work of art when it is constantly reproduced” was a question Benjamin asked, in class we were asked the same and were shown a picture of a McDonalds sign. When we were show the signs we were asked what we thought of or felt when we saw it. Immediately everyone said either McDonalds hamburgers, chicken McNuggets or some type of food on the menu. We discussed how we no longer appreciate the sign as a piece of art, but instead a symbol for the fast food chain we often frequent when hungry. Dr. Rog explained that the impact of the picture has lessened because we have seen it so many times in our life – the waning affect. Since we have seen the replica of the golden arches everywhere the authenticity of the McDonalds Arches is gone. We discussed mechanical reproduction, which is what happens to a work of art when it is constantly reproduced making the original extremely expensive.
We were then shown an advertisement for Harvey’s that displayed multiple pictures of hamburgers and read “Free original hamburger”. Which one is the original hamburger? Is it an authentic hamburger? We understood that this advertisement is a sign conflict because it is saying that everyone will get an original hamburger but is showing multiple and making it difficult to figure out which one is the original hamburger. We discussed that there could only be one ‘original’ hamburger and that would be the very first hamburger that was every made at and for Harvey’s. Thus making it impossible for everyone to have an original hamburger. In our society we have more trouble trying to decipher what is the original and what is merely a replica. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). The presence implies that I am physically here and the object is physically here with me. The quote can simply be interpreted, as unless a person can have the original, unless it is physically in front of the person, the object is not authentic. I related this to seeing posters of the Mona Lisa compared to seeing the actual painting by Leonardo DaVinci. The sensation that you have when you are physically in front of the original authentic artwork is incomparable to the sensation you have when you are looking at the replica.
We were then shown an advertisement for Harvey’s that displayed multiple pictures of hamburgers and read “Free original hamburger”. Which one is the original hamburger? Is it an authentic hamburger? We understood that this advertisement is a sign conflict because it is saying that everyone will get an original hamburger but is showing multiple and making it difficult to figure out which one is the original hamburger. We discussed that there could only be one ‘original’ hamburger and that would be the very first hamburger that was every made at and for Harvey’s. Thus making it impossible for everyone to have an original hamburger. In our society we have more trouble trying to decipher what is the original and what is merely a replica. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). The presence implies that I am physically here and the object is physically here with me. The quote can simply be interpreted, as unless a person can have the original, unless it is physically in front of the person, the object is not authentic. I related this to seeing posters of the Mona Lisa compared to seeing the actual painting by Leonardo DaVinci. The sensation that you have when you are physically in front of the original authentic artwork is incomparable to the sensation you have when you are looking at the replica.
Teets, 12/6
Reflecting back on Thursday’s class makes me laugh a little bit. I know the point of the exercise was to give women the chance to speak up,, but that is a pretty ridiculous notion in itself. I normally don’t talk that much in class, but there were so many points during the discussion I wanted to interject, but I “couldn’t.” I think the women did a great job of flushing out some ideas that Cixous and Butler had, but I think the topic of feminism is something that is discussed far too much in theory. Women have achieved so much in the last century and I believe they won’t achieve that much more in terms of being equal with men. Somebody made the point in class that society has constructed male dominance since essentially the beginning of time, therefore it would take extremely long for things to even out.
As I was silently sitting there, laughing hysterically on the inside, I couldn’t help but relate the exercise to Macherey. The body language and facial expressions on the male students said more than their words could. The men, including myself, looked eager to talk and interject, but didn’t have the license to, which is I guess how some women feel. I think feminism created the ideology that women’s voices are silenced amongst the general population. I think that that claim is simply false, as women are equal in most facets of society. Maybe women will never be viewed as completely equal, but you just have to play the hand you are dealt. Women and men are different creatures for a reason, in my opinion. Without difference neither gender would have any benefit to the other. I think the idea of trying to be both is not entirely worth it, because that defeats the purpose of getting married, which is one of life’s biggest and most sought after ideologies. Women need to just carry on and not partake in feminist meetings and protests, because they are pretty much wasting their time in my opinion.
As I was silently sitting there, laughing hysterically on the inside, I couldn’t help but relate the exercise to Macherey. The body language and facial expressions on the male students said more than their words could. The men, including myself, looked eager to talk and interject, but didn’t have the license to, which is I guess how some women feel. I think feminism created the ideology that women’s voices are silenced amongst the general population. I think that that claim is simply false, as women are equal in most facets of society. Maybe women will never be viewed as completely equal, but you just have to play the hand you are dealt. Women and men are different creatures for a reason, in my opinion. Without difference neither gender would have any benefit to the other. I think the idea of trying to be both is not entirely worth it, because that defeats the purpose of getting married, which is one of life’s biggest and most sought after ideologies. Women need to just carry on and not partake in feminist meetings and protests, because they are pretty much wasting their time in my opinion.
Daisy, 12/6
During class this week the main topic was “the other.” On Tuesday, we discussed bell hooks, and “the others” were ethnic individuals. Hooks particularly explained the need for many white men to spice up their lives with women of a different cultural background. Sleeping with an African American woman for white men gives them experience, a sense of power and pleasure. Hebdige told us that a way we deal with the other is to exoticize them, and this is exactly what has happened to individuals of another cultural background. We discussed the idea of “sluming,” where individuals invade the territory of another socio-economic group. This occurs when white males look to women of a different cultural background for pleasure. In class we were able to see how googling the phrase “exotic women,” brought up many sites where women were featured as exotic. The ability to google exotic women further perpetuates the lost history of cultural backgrounds. The commodification of “the other” is problematic, especially when it is so present in the media. Lyotard would agree that there is a loss of avant-garde, exoticized women in many forms of the media have caused cultures to no longer appear different. It seems ironic that the reason cultures became exoticized was due to the fact that western cultures wanted to create different aspects of themselves and move away from sameness, and now the exoticized cultures can be lumped into a category as normal. As individuals trying to be different, we are ultimately hurting another culture for our own benefit.
On Thursday we talked about another type of “other,” women. Women appear as the other in comparison to men. It was really eye-opening to have only the girls in the class discuss the readings. Cixous and Butler are women who are trying to create herstory! In a phallologocentric world, it is hard for women to get recognized. “Writing is woman’s,” is a quote discussed in class, which is a way for women to gain voice. In a world where masculinity has dominated for centuries, and I believe it is still that way in some ways, women have had trouble gaining respect and being viewed as equal to men. How can we change this? Well I think everyday we are a step closer to being equal to men, during class we agreed that women just want to be given respect and treated as equals. Men and women are different, and I want it to stay that way to a certain extent. After studying Adorno and sameness I learned we need to embrace our differences and at the same time respect one another, because men and women being depicted as the same would lose aspects of themselves. Being considered “the other” in my point of view is good as long as we are all treated like equals.
On Thursday we talked about another type of “other,” women. Women appear as the other in comparison to men. It was really eye-opening to have only the girls in the class discuss the readings. Cixous and Butler are women who are trying to create herstory! In a phallologocentric world, it is hard for women to get recognized. “Writing is woman’s,” is a quote discussed in class, which is a way for women to gain voice. In a world where masculinity has dominated for centuries, and I believe it is still that way in some ways, women have had trouble gaining respect and being viewed as equal to men. How can we change this? Well I think everyday we are a step closer to being equal to men, during class we agreed that women just want to be given respect and treated as equals. Men and women are different, and I want it to stay that way to a certain extent. After studying Adorno and sameness I learned we need to embrace our differences and at the same time respect one another, because men and women being depicted as the same would lose aspects of themselves. Being considered “the other” in my point of view is good as long as we are all treated like equals.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Kiwi, 12/6
Our last class of the semester was probably on of my favorite classes we have had this year. Class was very informative and engaging. It was unlike any other class we have had this year, it was very different from a “normal” class. Both readings by Cixous and Butler had to do with the feminist’s idea of “Herstory”.
We started class off first by discussing the term logocentrism that Derrida talks about and how it is everything that is revolved around words. Then we briefly talked about phallologocentrism and how it is the language itself that is somehow or another driven by the masculine. It is dominated by the masculine gender chief argument behind feminists.
Dr. Casey asked the class, “ How can we reframe history and make it, “herstory”? Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty—“you cant conduct the experiment without influencing the experiment yourself, because you become part of it. It is impossible for a male teacher to teach, because it could be suspect, he has a masculine voice.”
Dr. Casey handed over the class to the females as the guys were silenced in class in relation to woman’s equality. At first I thought that it was really awkward and I was a little timid of speaking up. Thanks to Louisa for speaking up and getting things started I started to feel more comfortable and after a while wasnt scared to speak up and say my opinion. I actually really enjoyed speaking in front of the class and for the first time felt like whatever I said was going to be heard. I thought that there were many interesting things that were brought up in class and one thing I thought was most interesting was when the quote, “writing is woman’s” came up. We talked about how we tend to assume that what we read is written by man. I think that we just assume this because males are the ones that have most of the voice in our society, so when we are reading an article or something we tend to fall under the hegemonic ideology of male domination, assuming that it is a male providing us with the information.
I also thought a good point that was brought up of how men don’t really ever write novels because of their fear of becoming emotional, which is related to women. They fear of not living up to their “manhood” and falling under the lines of being gay. Everything that defines the masculine identity is in opposition to women. For example, you many be good enough to play with the boys, but you cannot be better then them.
So how do we (females) want this to be different? Feminism wouldn’t even be an issue; there wouldn’t be binary oppositions. It would just be normal for women to be dominant like males .It is a privilege to be one of the “guys,” but the guys never want to be one of the girls. No matter what, people are still going to find something to complain about. Our society gives the males authority, we feel more comfortable with a male walking down a dark alley… these are things that I believe are never going to change and are always going to be the same. However after an hour and fifteen minutes of females being able to have the authority to talk and not be interrupted may have reinsured ten people on what we believe and although that is not many it still is an extra ten people that are now more aware of our opinion and who know maybe they will spread the word to another ten other people.
I really enjoyed CMC 300 this semester with Dr. Casey, and I would have to say that this class is by far the best CMC class I have taken as well as, one of the most interesting classes I have taken here at Rollins. As I continue on my journey through the rest of my college years I hope to use the information that I have learned about all of these theorists and their ideas daily studies.
Thank you Dr. Casey and Louisa for everything!!!
We started class off first by discussing the term logocentrism that Derrida talks about and how it is everything that is revolved around words. Then we briefly talked about phallologocentrism and how it is the language itself that is somehow or another driven by the masculine. It is dominated by the masculine gender chief argument behind feminists.
Dr. Casey asked the class, “ How can we reframe history and make it, “herstory”? Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty—“you cant conduct the experiment without influencing the experiment yourself, because you become part of it. It is impossible for a male teacher to teach, because it could be suspect, he has a masculine voice.”
Dr. Casey handed over the class to the females as the guys were silenced in class in relation to woman’s equality. At first I thought that it was really awkward and I was a little timid of speaking up. Thanks to Louisa for speaking up and getting things started I started to feel more comfortable and after a while wasnt scared to speak up and say my opinion. I actually really enjoyed speaking in front of the class and for the first time felt like whatever I said was going to be heard. I thought that there were many interesting things that were brought up in class and one thing I thought was most interesting was when the quote, “writing is woman’s” came up. We talked about how we tend to assume that what we read is written by man. I think that we just assume this because males are the ones that have most of the voice in our society, so when we are reading an article or something we tend to fall under the hegemonic ideology of male domination, assuming that it is a male providing us with the information.
I also thought a good point that was brought up of how men don’t really ever write novels because of their fear of becoming emotional, which is related to women. They fear of not living up to their “manhood” and falling under the lines of being gay. Everything that defines the masculine identity is in opposition to women. For example, you many be good enough to play with the boys, but you cannot be better then them.
So how do we (females) want this to be different? Feminism wouldn’t even be an issue; there wouldn’t be binary oppositions. It would just be normal for women to be dominant like males .It is a privilege to be one of the “guys,” but the guys never want to be one of the girls. No matter what, people are still going to find something to complain about. Our society gives the males authority, we feel more comfortable with a male walking down a dark alley… these are things that I believe are never going to change and are always going to be the same. However after an hour and fifteen minutes of females being able to have the authority to talk and not be interrupted may have reinsured ten people on what we believe and although that is not many it still is an extra ten people that are now more aware of our opinion and who know maybe they will spread the word to another ten other people.
I really enjoyed CMC 300 this semester with Dr. Casey, and I would have to say that this class is by far the best CMC class I have taken as well as, one of the most interesting classes I have taken here at Rollins. As I continue on my journey through the rest of my college years I hope to use the information that I have learned about all of these theorists and their ideas daily studies.
Thank you Dr. Casey and Louisa for everything!!!
Penny Lane-Adorno Late
Advertising impacts opinion at both a conscious and unconscious level. Most people recognize that a product is no substitute for natural ability. Higher value is assigned to objects that promise us something more than the ordinary. Brands often perpetuate this divergence of prescribed worth. Adorno states: “That is the triumph of advertising in the culture industry: the compulsive imitation by consumers of cultural commodities which, at the same time, they recognize as false.” For instance, it is logical to assert that two prescription drugs (one brand name and the other generic) are made from the same chemical compounds and produce the same effect. Despite this conclusion, society still designates more worth to the first producer. We hold them to be more knowledgeable or reliable when buying drugs. I was recently at the grocery store with a friend and we began talking about this exact subject. Coincidentally, her brother works for Unilever and she was able to provide me with some much needed clarity on the subject. If you have ever been to Publix or Walgreens, than you have probably noticed that they frequently sell their own brand of products that compare those produced by large brands. This practice is applied to everything from cough medicine to saltine cracker. What I did not realize is that these distributors are selling literally the exact same product. Companies often over produce their own product, leaving them at a loss if they cannot sell it in the marketplace due to over saturation. In a situation like that, they would sell the excess at bottom barrel prices to the same sellers that buy their name brand product. So next time you are trying to decide whether you should buy Nyquil or Publix nighttime (the exact situation I was in when our conversation arose)…remember that it is all Nyquil regardless of the packaging. Differentiation through branding is an excepted ideological fallacy due to the vast influence of advertising.
Penny Lane- Dorfman Late
Disney is a destination unlike any place in the world. It attracts all walks of life, making it a cultural unifier. According to Dorfman: “Disney has been exalted as the inviolable common heritage of contemporary man;…Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other.” It suspends all notions of history and natural limitations, creating an unbound alternate universe. Modernism and technology aided in making fantasy a reality. The contemporary man lacks a solid cultural identity, so he is quick to accept ideology and fallacies. The post-modern era is defined by imitation and reproduction, so Disney is the perfect representation of this construction. This forum is ideal for communication because we seem less threatened by hegemonic influence, despite its latent presence. Dominant discourse is embedded in the experience, reaching out to visitors in a vulnerable state of ease. The narratives portrayed in ‘Disney-terms’ often negate history in order to tell a more commodifiable version. In our previous reading of Macherey, we learned that it is often most important to focus on what is missing from the text. Disney represents an ideal destination of escape that ignores the conflicts and suffering of our world by sprinkling a little sugar and magic on top of everything. It praises imagination and innovation, leaving out the exploitative nature of development. For example, Disney’s Pocahontas was a romanticized tale that neglects to show the horrors of genocide, rape, and disease that impacted the Powhatan Nation upon the arrival of European settlers. Furthermore, filmmakers took a poetic license when writing a romantic relationship between the protagonist and John Smith into the script. Historical records indicate that Pocahontas was merely ten or eleven when the two first crossed paths. The storyline implemented a complete distortion of history in order to produce a marketable franchise. Sadly enough, even though the plot is almost entirely fictionalized, many people hold it to be true because it is their only reference on the subject.
Penny Lane- Benjamin Late
Today we live in a culture of mass production and reproduction. This influx of copies and merchandise makes distinguishing the original/authentic version of anything almost impossible. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of the authenticity. According to Benjamin, we must be in the presence of the first in its original condition to have an ‘authentic’ experience. His statements on the topic focused almost entirely on art, but the idea translates to many other aspects of the modern world. Fashion, music, movies, and texts are almost always inspired by an outside source, whether it be another artist, plot, or time-period. We frequently see forms of reproduction in the media, blending various styles and ideas to create a new adaptation from the past. Lyotard stated: “Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture.” Post modernity is almost oppositional to the idea of modernity. Modernity was founded in the enlightenment when art, music, literature, and architecture were all inspired by new ideas from freethinkers. Post-modernity is simply a rethinking or combination of old ideas. Bricolage is an eclectic style defined by Lyotard as a Post-Modern method of artificial creation. This technique takes mismatched sources and juxtaposes them to deliver a new sentiment. Nothing is new, just recycled or imitated. The Daily Show has used this Post-Modern technique to reevaluate American media and politics. When news sources are isolated in delivery, it is difficult to pick out the hypocrisy from the mix. John Stewart relies on simple comparison to make his points. The footage is not altered, but it exposes what goes unnoticed by an inconsistent viewer. He shows us the ironic truth that lies beneath the surface of our media coverage, redefining perspective through enlightened humor.
The following link is a D.S. review of the past week:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-december-4-2009/recap---week-of-11-30-09
The following link is a D.S. review of the past week:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-december-4-2009/recap---week-of-11-30-09
Captain Outrageous, Hooks
Hooks and Derrida are a great team, talking about difference and such. As well as Hebdige and commodifying the subculture.
Hooks makes very valid points. I our relatively dull culture anything to spice it up is an instant commodity dream and we most certainly buy into it. For example, the "taboo" world of sexuality is definitely an Other. Secret practices of the bedroom are things that other people do. Its regarded as a subculture and makes a ton of money. Pornography, for instance, makes more money than the NFL a year combined with other companies I can't remember so don't quote me on it. And why do people tip toe into these Other antics? Why it is exactly what Cosmo magazine covers read all the time : Spice up your Sex life!
Complacency is a horrid thing and that is just about all there is to contemporary white culture, horrid complacency. We Other what we can't have and call it what we don't want. We put Those things Over there in a tiny little marketable package then bring them home and display Them...Oh that? Oh no I don't believe in that, or oh no I didn't buy it for that or Oh no this that and the other excuse.
It is the very essence of these practices of experience Bordieu was talking about. We don't believe in that here or that would never happen under this roof so on and so forth. Practices of experience equals practices of lies. We lie to ourselves we enjoy this Other thing. We lie to the consumer world that it is different. I have those sex toys but that doesn't mean I'm, you know, a freak, the modest middle class housewife might say. Or she might admit over lunch some of her practices of experiences, we did this or we tried that, and still even in the very dialogue it will remain a practice of experience existent somewhere else other than here. Oh thats so scandalous her friends may say. Maybe she'll blush about it for a minute but she'll most certainly end by saying well we were only trying to spice things up but now it is fine. And end scene with a fade out to complacency again. But wait, roll the secret clip at the end of the credits. There she is with her hubby practicing experience again, and liking it. Why? We crave what we Other, for whatever reason, Freudian or not.
Who wouldn't want the tastes of the Orient, the primitivity of Tribal cultures, the liberty of a Dominatrix? Othering is liberating. It is an escape to something different without having to admit or commit to it entirely. And why should we as long as we can say we payed a price for it?
Hooks makes very valid points. I our relatively dull culture anything to spice it up is an instant commodity dream and we most certainly buy into it. For example, the "taboo" world of sexuality is definitely an Other. Secret practices of the bedroom are things that other people do. Its regarded as a subculture and makes a ton of money. Pornography, for instance, makes more money than the NFL a year combined with other companies I can't remember so don't quote me on it. And why do people tip toe into these Other antics? Why it is exactly what Cosmo magazine covers read all the time : Spice up your Sex life!
Complacency is a horrid thing and that is just about all there is to contemporary white culture, horrid complacency. We Other what we can't have and call it what we don't want. We put Those things Over there in a tiny little marketable package then bring them home and display Them...Oh that? Oh no I don't believe in that, or oh no I didn't buy it for that or Oh no this that and the other excuse.
It is the very essence of these practices of experience Bordieu was talking about. We don't believe in that here or that would never happen under this roof so on and so forth. Practices of experience equals practices of lies. We lie to ourselves we enjoy this Other thing. We lie to the consumer world that it is different. I have those sex toys but that doesn't mean I'm, you know, a freak, the modest middle class housewife might say. Or she might admit over lunch some of her practices of experiences, we did this or we tried that, and still even in the very dialogue it will remain a practice of experience existent somewhere else other than here. Oh thats so scandalous her friends may say. Maybe she'll blush about it for a minute but she'll most certainly end by saying well we were only trying to spice things up but now it is fine. And end scene with a fade out to complacency again. But wait, roll the secret clip at the end of the credits. There she is with her hubby practicing experience again, and liking it. Why? We crave what we Other, for whatever reason, Freudian or not.
Who wouldn't want the tastes of the Orient, the primitivity of Tribal cultures, the liberty of a Dominatrix? Othering is liberating. It is an escape to something different without having to admit or commit to it entirely. And why should we as long as we can say we payed a price for it?
Penny Lane- Baudrillard Late
Baudrillard’s text makes many observations about modern media. He asserts: “the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.” This remark ties into his fascination with the blurred distinction between fiction and reality. The media offers images through a filtered lens, so no one can ever be entirely sure whether the ideas they are reproducing actually depict life and nature in an unbiased light. Furthermore, the industry of news has become sensationalized. Even programming of this sort is now subject to producing content primarily on the basis of entertainment value. Local news has suffered as a consequence, but what remains are tales of rape, murder, tragic accidents, and crime. This narrative is only expanded on a national scale, but the subject matter remains consistently morbid. News, like any other show, needs to garner ratings. This competition often breeds perpetuation of salacious and shallow stories that do little to improve social consciousness of the American public about significant global issues. Our media system is a fear factory. They sell panic on a massive scale, and we willingly consume the product. During 9-11 everyone in America saw the images of the twin towers collapse on repeat. But the footage could never capture the reality of the event. Afterward, the saturation of coverage on the attack and terrorism kept us glued to the screens in fear of repeat. This method was used strategically for several reasons: 1) to keep us focused on the attacker 2) to keep us preoccupied with the thought of an impending threat 3) gain support for an offensive reaction 4) keep an active audience. In Benjamin’s writings, he claims that while the viewer may feel a connection to the actor on screen, the real connection exists between the audience and the camera. This is relevant to news media because we see the images they choose for us, nothing more nothing less. The angles and perspectives of a captured event only address a fraction of the full occurrence. The question I am left with is who. Who controls our knowledge?
Penny Lane- DeSaussure Late
In our reading by DeSaussure, he emphasized that language is arbitrary. Sounds that designate meaning are culturally assigned. In order to make an observation, one must use comparison to separate it as an independently differentiated notion from another. “In language, there are only differences.” You cannot understand the concept of please without experiencing pain. DeSaussure’s statement is similar to the message of the ying-yang. Positive defines negative and vice versa. In contemporary culture we often utilize the concept of branding to prescribe difference to identical objects. Under this construction, variation is conceptual not meta-physical. Creating divergence is an industry in and of itself. Without advertising and logos, objects would only be worth their utility. Why does Chanel make-up evoke a reaction distinct from the generic? The answer is found in the signifier and the signified. Simple objects can denotes luxury or quality without any real justification for its understood value. Macherey often discusses the notion of varying interpretation between every individual. The meaning of a text to the Author is entirely separate from that of his/her readers. Understanding is based on perspective, which is vastly dependent on life experience. Differences in people, much like language and commodities, generate meaning through contrast.
Penny Lane- Jencks Late
Jencks commentary on post-modern architecture is extremely relevant to several of our readings. Neo-classicalism follows Benjamin’s conception of the original vs. the copy. Benjamin asserts that nothing is authentic anymore because reproduction is so pervasive throughout our mass communicated society. Everywhere we look, something familiar can be identified and critiqued. This is especially relevant in architecture. Neo-classicism is a stylistic rethinking of Greek and Roman aesthetics. Large columns, white wash exterior, statues, and even artificial aging of the structure is often applied to achieve a more realistic look. American culture is especially guilty of this perpetual duplication and dilution of foreign culture. The United States is such a relatively new nation that we tend to adopt other influences as our own. Another one of the structural patterns Jencks discussed was the absent center. This term defines a building that is missing a large segment from of the structure in order to create a focal point from the exterior. I find that this stylistic choice is closely paralleled by the writings of Macherey. He asserts that what is absent from the text is more important that what is present. This same notion applies to the absent center form because the missing portion ultimately becomes the most prominent feature of the structure. These connections indicate that the ideas found in post-modern theory are relevant to anything and everything. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, and even the food you eat has all been defined and constructed through some type of ideological force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)