Derrida said that to know the name of something is to give you power over that thing, just as Foucault said that knowing something gives pleasure. On either side of the token, knowing is good. Information is good, if it is true. But knowing something, whether true or false is good. Before CMC came into my life, I saw the media and Internet as great things. Each taught me things. Empowered me. Now I see them as lies. Not empowering, but controlling, subjective and manipulating. It is ironic that the general, unknowing public sees knowing any bit of random information as good.
Another thing that I have noticed is that Internet is always squiggly-underlined in word as incorrect if not capitalized. Weren’t we taught that important things are to be capitalized? The internet is as important to our society as food. I feel uneasy when I do not have the inernet, lowercase or capitalized. I feel out of the human information loop. As if my being is not accounted for if I am not logged into some networking site or e-mail service. Is our worth also measured in communication outlets, ways to contact other people without physically being around them? I am unsure where the attitudes of people came from that being around people is lower social status than communicating with people not in the same room, state or country. But I do think that business-centered mindsets created a certain coolness with cell phones, as if the urgency of business could not wait until that man in the suit walked from Chipotle back to his desk. He had to maximize his time while walking back to his desk. My friends cannot wait either. They must be contacted while I am getting dressed in the morning. While I am driving. While I am in the shower (what else are Zip-lock bags for?). Time for anything other than communication is unimportant. But this communication leads to unimportant information being passed around because so much time is dedicated to the sport. When will knowing something require that it is verifiable and a fact of substance? Then again, who decides what is important in the world is unknown to me. Possibly post-modern communication is allowing the human race to see into the brains of the truly stupid and ignorant. This seems the best answer I have come up with thus far.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
post-it note, Foucault
“It is often said that we have been incapable of imagining any new pleasures. We have at least invented a different kind of pleasure: pleasure in the truth of pleasure, the pleasure of knowing that truth, of discovering and exposing it, the fascination of seeing it and telling it, of captivating and capturing others by it, of confiding in it in secret, of luring it out in the open – the specific pleasure of the true discourse on pleasure.” – Foucault (105-6)
This is such a true statement amongst my peers. It seems that there are some people who always have to be right. And in the post-modern era, it seems like no one can be right all the time. The facts of history have all been rewritten by incapable or unaccredited “scholars of the internet” or “scholars of the immediate communication networks of the 21st century.” Those who know first are considered cool and with it. Those who know but don’t tell are empowered. But the things that are “known” are as important as the “facts” that are not due to the immediacy of communication. If anything can be kept a secret from anyone anymore, it is considered a miracle. To make your power of holding a secret known, that secret must be told. It is in this way that my peers and I are being conditioned to the normalization of surveillance. The term facebook stalking is used to describe the researching of people without their knowledge. It is a little weird, although the information available to the world is posted by the person himself or herself. Their choice is for anyone they consider a friend to know the things that are on their profile. Secrets are no more. Private life is no more. But how this is making life safer is still something that we all need to consider. If everyone can know everything about anyone, identities are placed in the wrong hands and secrets are used against people. Not cool. Let’s all go back to the time when we did not know of this pleasure of knowing and telling. Lets go back to the simple pleasures.
This is such a true statement amongst my peers. It seems that there are some people who always have to be right. And in the post-modern era, it seems like no one can be right all the time. The facts of history have all been rewritten by incapable or unaccredited “scholars of the internet” or “scholars of the immediate communication networks of the 21st century.” Those who know first are considered cool and with it. Those who know but don’t tell are empowered. But the things that are “known” are as important as the “facts” that are not due to the immediacy of communication. If anything can be kept a secret from anyone anymore, it is considered a miracle. To make your power of holding a secret known, that secret must be told. It is in this way that my peers and I are being conditioned to the normalization of surveillance. The term facebook stalking is used to describe the researching of people without their knowledge. It is a little weird, although the information available to the world is posted by the person himself or herself. Their choice is for anyone they consider a friend to know the things that are on their profile. Secrets are no more. Private life is no more. But how this is making life safer is still something that we all need to consider. If everyone can know everything about anyone, identities are placed in the wrong hands and secrets are used against people. Not cool. Let’s all go back to the time when we did not know of this pleasure of knowing and telling. Lets go back to the simple pleasures.
post-it note, 4/9
As I see it, Bourdieu claims that the “social capital,” or stuff that one identifies as being excellent, determines that person’s social class. Again, the population is segmented into classifications based upon what they have. The stuff they own. What they can buy. Materialism is at the heart of post-modernism. This is obvious, but Bourdieu brings the nature of nurturing into the equation, explaining his theory in a way that naturalizes materialism by passing on the tastes of one generation onto the next. Is Bourdieu’s theory based upon the evolution of the human being as a materialistic collector of shiny, status-heightening stuff? If this is the way that theorists see the human race going, this means that materialism is slowly going to become an inherent part of being alive. Life will be gauged by the amount of stuff that one has. Another way of looking at this definition would be that those who have nothing are not living at all. By American standards, only about 3% of the population would be living, according to this definition. It is for this reason that I see Bourdieu’s theory as a bit to extreme. He is giving us an excuse to accept materialism, rather than striving for healthy ways to find joy in life. His ideas naturalize excess and extraordinary consumption, which is detrimental to the human race in the near future, rendering his theory anything but natural, unless it is natural for the human race to ignore the consequences of the end. Perhaps I am irrational, but I do feel that those who accept materialism in ways that encourage social classes to perpetuate their actions which have proved ridiculous in the past as being irrational for other reasons.
Friday, April 17, 2009
coolbeans, Foucault
I got confused by fox day and wrote about hooks instead of Foucault after looking at the calendar this past Wednesday. After having read Foucault, many things became much more apparent to me. Our society has become so used to being watched, moderated, monitored and controlled that we do not even realize how often this occurs in our daily lives. We are controlled in many different aspects by many different things. We follow a set of legal guidelines that define what is legal and what is illegal. We do this because we have been told that if we stray from what is legal we will be punished. We fear these punishments and do not want to have to face them so we comply with these set laws. However, not everything is controlled by the law. Each part of our lives has laws, not just the government. For those of us who are enrolled in school, we must follow the rules and regulations set by the school. We follow them for the same reasons that we follow laws set by the government; because we need to follow them in order to continue our education. This is another thing that is controlled by our society. In society it is socially acceptable to go on to further education. If we choose to follow a religion, then we also follow the beliefs of the religion and do our best to comply with those beliefs so as not to upset a greater power. Although there is no proof for us that a higher power exists we follow these belief systems because of a fear that if we go against them we will not live a happy after life. We often even find ourselves being controlled by our peers. What the rest of society chooses to deem socially acceptable is often what controls our decisions.
Dot, 4/16
I found Thursday's discussion of Foucault to be very enlightening, not only did it introduce the class to some amazing concepts, but it greatly clarified his essay and allowed me to see some things which I did not catch in the reading.
I was particularly taken by his quote "our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance" and found it significant not only to understand his greater message, but also in interpreting certain faucets of our culture. Before reading this quote, I had never really thought too much about our culture's obsession with watching and observing other people. I have of course wondered why there are so many reality television shows and why people love to read celebrity gossip magazines, but I have never before considered the underlying meaning of such an infatuation. I believe that our all members in our society like to feel as though they are in some position of power, something that watching others definitely gives. When we view others, we feel as though we have some sort of privileged insight into their private lives and with these "secrets" are convinced that we are more important than others who may not know the "secrets".
We all know, some more consciously than others, that there is a power higher than us that controls us. Because of the ideological and repressive state apparatuses that are at work in our society, we know that we can never fully be in charge of our own lives and because of this seek power in any way we can, usually in the form of inspecting others. We must, however consider that all people are in some way inspecting others and at the same time being inspected themselves... so really there is a never ending circle of surveillance at work in our society. I think that Foucault would agree that this continuous surveillance plays a big role in every aspect of our culture, especially the hierarchical configuration.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Kuloco, 04/16
In class today, we discussed “the gaze.” Foucault said that this gaze is alert everywhere. I think this is true in our society. People have been socialized to behave in accordance to a certain ideology. These ideologies, as we’ve discussed in the past, have been embedded in us, starting at birth and continuing to the present.
I related this idea of “the gaze” to my personal experiences growing up. The first thing that I thought of was the idea of Santa Claus. Children in American society look forward to Christmas for pretty much one reason—they get presents. The idea of Santa Claus, looking back, seems unbelievably ludicrous. A large, old man cannot possibly deliver presents to every home in the world, despite time differences. Also, there is no way that this same large, old man could possibly come down a chimney. However, as children, we don’t ask these questions. We look at the outcome, rather than become critical of the details. Also, with Santa Claus, the gaze is always on us. No child wants to get coal for Christmas… So they behave and follow their parents’ rules so they don’t “call Santa” and risk getting put on the “naughty list.”
This idea of “the gaze” also sparked another connection in my mind. I relate Foucault’s idea to Eco’s discussion of Disney. Eco said that the visitors of Disney “must agree to behave like robots” to enjoy the parks. He said that it is a place of “total passivity.” Unlike Santa Claus, people at Disney are in fact always watching you. Each “actor,” or employee, is there to maintain the perfection that Disney embodies. People behave accordingly to the guidelines and rules to get the full experience—to live, for a day, in a fantasy world where there are no problems. To not behave passively would compromise the experience, and would have negative consequences.
“The gaze” is a large part of our society. We are constantly evaluating those around us. Even if we behave passively and within the regulations, it is only because we are scared to experience the consequences. Often, what goes on in our mind will never be verbally expressed. However, with the advances in technology and the creation of a cyber-reality, these thoughts are starting to appear more frequently. The “gaze” that has previously existed is starting to become less of a threat.
I related this idea of “the gaze” to my personal experiences growing up. The first thing that I thought of was the idea of Santa Claus. Children in American society look forward to Christmas for pretty much one reason—they get presents. The idea of Santa Claus, looking back, seems unbelievably ludicrous. A large, old man cannot possibly deliver presents to every home in the world, despite time differences. Also, there is no way that this same large, old man could possibly come down a chimney. However, as children, we don’t ask these questions. We look at the outcome, rather than become critical of the details. Also, with Santa Claus, the gaze is always on us. No child wants to get coal for Christmas… So they behave and follow their parents’ rules so they don’t “call Santa” and risk getting put on the “naughty list.”
This idea of “the gaze” also sparked another connection in my mind. I relate Foucault’s idea to Eco’s discussion of Disney. Eco said that the visitors of Disney “must agree to behave like robots” to enjoy the parks. He said that it is a place of “total passivity.” Unlike Santa Claus, people at Disney are in fact always watching you. Each “actor,” or employee, is there to maintain the perfection that Disney embodies. People behave accordingly to the guidelines and rules to get the full experience—to live, for a day, in a fantasy world where there are no problems. To not behave passively would compromise the experience, and would have negative consequences.
“The gaze” is a large part of our society. We are constantly evaluating those around us. Even if we behave passively and within the regulations, it is only because we are scared to experience the consequences. Often, what goes on in our mind will never be verbally expressed. However, with the advances in technology and the creation of a cyber-reality, these thoughts are starting to appear more frequently. The “gaze” that has previously existed is starting to become less of a threat.
JLO63O, 4/16
“Inspection functions ceaselessly” (94). – Foucault.
This was the premises of today’s class. No matter whom we are, what we do, and where we go, we are being watched; and this notion of surveillance happens on both Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses. We took the use of security cameras as an example of RSA. Security cameras are repressive in its nature because we can see the functions of power at work. We know that behind that camera, there is a person watching you, and that person has the ability to assert power over you in the chance you choose to violate any assigned codes of conduct. We used the example of choosing a major at Rollins as a product of ISA. College, an ideological state institution, (further) divides students by having them choose a major. By picking a major, students become subjects of that chosen field by the content of the courses that are required to fulfill before graduation. The function of an institution is to brand you. We are in a constant process of dividing and branding.
The more we talk about binary divisions, the more I have been aware of its works at place. I read a Malcolm Gladwell book this past spring break called Outliers. In his book, Gladwell looks at people and events which have been exceptionally successful, and commonalities linked to the success. His opening example was his research on professional hockey teams in Canada. He studied the rosters and noticed that a majority of the players were born in January, February and March. Why he wondered? It starts at an early age. When kids approach middle school in Canada, hockey teams start dividing into divisions. At this age, young boys are beginning to develop physically, so when tryouts are being held in January, the boys who have January, February and March birthdays have up to 12 months more of development than those who are born in September, October, November. Derrida would say that binary oppositions begin here. The better coaches and equipment go to the favored teams, and conversely the time and qualities being put into the worse ones are declining. Once this separation occurs, it is almost impossible to make your way from being a sub division team to the elite ones, because the skills being taught, the teams that are played against, and the players on the team are none to compare to the top divisions. Here, we see, the separation gap starts to widen.
Little league teams are the Panopticon for the professional league. They oversee entire generations of young athletes, and they label and separate the talented from the untalented. Hockey divisions may be “visible and unverifiable,” but its works are, what Foucault would consider, part of the mechanism.
This was the premises of today’s class. No matter whom we are, what we do, and where we go, we are being watched; and this notion of surveillance happens on both Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses. We took the use of security cameras as an example of RSA. Security cameras are repressive in its nature because we can see the functions of power at work. We know that behind that camera, there is a person watching you, and that person has the ability to assert power over you in the chance you choose to violate any assigned codes of conduct. We used the example of choosing a major at Rollins as a product of ISA. College, an ideological state institution, (further) divides students by having them choose a major. By picking a major, students become subjects of that chosen field by the content of the courses that are required to fulfill before graduation. The function of an institution is to brand you. We are in a constant process of dividing and branding.
The more we talk about binary divisions, the more I have been aware of its works at place. I read a Malcolm Gladwell book this past spring break called Outliers. In his book, Gladwell looks at people and events which have been exceptionally successful, and commonalities linked to the success. His opening example was his research on professional hockey teams in Canada. He studied the rosters and noticed that a majority of the players were born in January, February and March. Why he wondered? It starts at an early age. When kids approach middle school in Canada, hockey teams start dividing into divisions. At this age, young boys are beginning to develop physically, so when tryouts are being held in January, the boys who have January, February and March birthdays have up to 12 months more of development than those who are born in September, October, November. Derrida would say that binary oppositions begin here. The better coaches and equipment go to the favored teams, and conversely the time and qualities being put into the worse ones are declining. Once this separation occurs, it is almost impossible to make your way from being a sub division team to the elite ones, because the skills being taught, the teams that are played against, and the players on the team are none to compare to the top divisions. Here, we see, the separation gap starts to widen.
Little league teams are the Panopticon for the professional league. They oversee entire generations of young athletes, and they label and separate the talented from the untalented. Hockey divisions may be “visible and unverifiable,” but its works are, what Foucault would consider, part of the mechanism.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Trapnest, Foucault
When I first encountered the Panopticon in a previous class it was a source of deep intrigue and focus for myself. But, I will not be hasty, first I shall explain what a panopticon is.
The panopticon was originally designed and developed by the theorist Bentham. Its original design would be that of a prison. One where all the prisoners could be in their respective cells living as peacefully as a prisoner can, and the jailer or person in control would be able to see and watch every prisoner without them knowing. Their lack of knowledge of their constant observation is key to their existence being a calm and happy one.
Foucault initially begins to discuss the panopticon with an example of a village who, in modern terms goes into lockdown due to a plague. The whole village becomes regulated by an ever present force and constant observation. I feel that Foucault begins with this example to establish a point that the panopticon need not be a literal building to exist.
Which brings us to the modern panopticon which is prevelant in our society today. This, like the panopticon in the village is not one where there is a building and a prison imposed upon everyone. However, unlike even this panopticon it is not an official decree. The panopticon we face today is a set of ideals, ideologies, and societal regulations. The reason why this classifies as a panopticon is because people have no other choice than to follow the rules, they are this shadow force which is constantly watching all of us and our actions. It is, for example, media companies which are constantly diligently observing all aspects of a culture. Silent, faceless, enforcers of social norms by pointing out and shaming anyone who may delve from these norms.
The panopticon was originally designed and developed by the theorist Bentham. Its original design would be that of a prison. One where all the prisoners could be in their respective cells living as peacefully as a prisoner can, and the jailer or person in control would be able to see and watch every prisoner without them knowing. Their lack of knowledge of their constant observation is key to their existence being a calm and happy one.
Foucault initially begins to discuss the panopticon with an example of a village who, in modern terms goes into lockdown due to a plague. The whole village becomes regulated by an ever present force and constant observation. I feel that Foucault begins with this example to establish a point that the panopticon need not be a literal building to exist.
Which brings us to the modern panopticon which is prevelant in our society today. This, like the panopticon in the village is not one where there is a building and a prison imposed upon everyone. However, unlike even this panopticon it is not an official decree. The panopticon we face today is a set of ideals, ideologies, and societal regulations. The reason why this classifies as a panopticon is because people have no other choice than to follow the rules, they are this shadow force which is constantly watching all of us and our actions. It is, for example, media companies which are constantly diligently observing all aspects of a culture. Silent, faceless, enforcers of social norms by pointing out and shaming anyone who may delve from these norms.
Marie89, 4/14
Throughout class on Thursday, I could not stop myself from making connections from Derrida to the beginning of class when we discussed semiotics. We are a culture based on language and we gain power from knowing words and names. It is difficult to thing that what we are based on as a culture is actually ambiguous and only functional because of intertextuality, or as Derrida would put it, Traces. Everything that we base our culture on, is then not stable, yet built on a million other things that were constructed by someone one day. I found it interesting when we did the activity in class about the dog where we kept building from its core. There seemed to be thousands of connections to one word, yet we thought we had a pretty good understanding of the word before we entered class. The fact that we can not make sense of one word without finding thousands of other words that we also need to make sense of is a strange concept, yet be base all of our knowledge on the idea of words and names. It is also interesting how different words connote different emotions. For example, the term winter could connote extreme cold for some while in Australia, is connotes warmth. How can we base a culture on such an unstable concept? It is until we question the words and the reliance upon them within our society, that we are assured of our culture. Once we question words we try to demean them and that is when we become more insecure about the stability and coherence of our culture. So, even though we are moving away from absent-minded observers, we are also taking away from the meanings of words and deconstructing what they stand for, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but an endless process.
Smiley Face - 4/15
Tuesday's class reflected on the fun you can have with language in a postmodern world - it's ironic how you can look up a simple word in the dictionary and find how the definitions of the words describing the original word looked up in fact has nothing to do with it! It is this process that refers to the difference of meaning from one word to another in an attempt to find clarity in the word, while this process inevitably leads to more confusion. DeSaussure was the first theorist to come to mind the moment language came up in class with his fundamental understanding of how differences make up language. As much as differences between words make up the language, what truly makes the language is the individual using it with their intertextuality influencing them. As much as a dictionary holds the 'official' definition of a word, bear in mind there are many dictionaries in the world, people take alternative understandings of words - for example everyone has a different definition of love. Dictionary.com provides 28 different explanations for the meaning of love, and not one definition refers to the physical feeling people have when they fall in love, or the spark young lovers have when they hold hands. A word like love merges to the defining of an individual of their being: their metaphysics. The individual's use of language represents the way they want to make themselves different from other people in order to find not only the origin of language but their own origin.
Overall, logocentrism means that we are interlocked into language and we therefore use it to find our original being. Curiosity holds as a key part of human nature and therefore therefore, being in logocentrism, we use the tools we have (language) to find out the truth (another word that one could have a field-day with when looking up its meaning!)
Overall, logocentrism means that we are interlocked into language and we therefore use it to find our original being. Curiosity holds as a key part of human nature and therefore therefore, being in logocentrism, we use the tools we have (language) to find out the truth (another word that one could have a field-day with when looking up its meaning!)
JLO63O, 4/12 Foucault
“… he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection… It is a perpetual victor that avoids any physical confrontation and which is always decided in advance” (99).
I was exceptionally intrigued by Michel Foucault’s ‘Discipline and Punish.’ He wrote about the discipline modality of power, how it’s infiltrated, and its transformations in history. He starts with the early story about the plague and the lepers, and the practices of Confinement. Under this power, there was around-the-clock surveillance over each and every individual. Power was exercised without division and power was mobilized and visible. It was the perfectly governed society.
The later story Foucault tells is about the ingenious structure of the Panopticon and its generalizable model of functioning.
This structure was made so that it was possible to see and recognize all movement from one major watchtower. This idea of knowing that there is someone watching over you effects your conscious and the fear of being caught outside of your assigned domain. Before you even have the chance of stepping out your assigned unit into the foreseeable eyes of a governing power, you instead inscribe yourself in the power relation and function unconsciously under ideology. Thus without confrontation, you have ‘become the principle of your own subjection’ (99).
This reminds me of a quote from Althusser, “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their existence” (44). Althusser says that Ideological state apparatuses reinforce and assign ideologies of who we are and our functions in society, much like how the lepers knew that they were a diseased people that should be confined. It tells us how to act and behave in your place in society.
To add onto Foucault and throw our modern day apparatus into this mix, we can see power transformations from a direct confrontation of power, to a ‘watchtower’ unit of power, to a repressive state apparatus. Governing powers, no matter how direct or indirect presence, have repeatedly inculturated ideological codes of behavior in its institutional structures.
I was exceptionally intrigued by Michel Foucault’s ‘Discipline and Punish.’ He wrote about the discipline modality of power, how it’s infiltrated, and its transformations in history. He starts with the early story about the plague and the lepers, and the practices of Confinement. Under this power, there was around-the-clock surveillance over each and every individual. Power was exercised without division and power was mobilized and visible. It was the perfectly governed society.
The later story Foucault tells is about the ingenious structure of the Panopticon and its generalizable model of functioning.
This structure was made so that it was possible to see and recognize all movement from one major watchtower. This idea of knowing that there is someone watching over you effects your conscious and the fear of being caught outside of your assigned domain. Before you even have the chance of stepping out your assigned unit into the foreseeable eyes of a governing power, you instead inscribe yourself in the power relation and function unconsciously under ideology. Thus without confrontation, you have ‘become the principle of your own subjection’ (99).
This reminds me of a quote from Althusser, “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their existence” (44). Althusser says that Ideological state apparatuses reinforce and assign ideologies of who we are and our functions in society, much like how the lepers knew that they were a diseased people that should be confined. It tells us how to act and behave in your place in society.
To add onto Foucault and throw our modern day apparatus into this mix, we can see power transformations from a direct confrontation of power, to a ‘watchtower’ unit of power, to a repressive state apparatus. Governing powers, no matter how direct or indirect presence, have repeatedly inculturated ideological codes of behavior in its institutional structures.
Marie89, Foucault
I had to read the same text, The History of Sexuality, previously this year for my English class where we study Gender Adaptations. In the class, we discuss the different ways in which gender and sexuality are socially constructed ideas rather than natural aspects of males and females. We often study how gender is an ideology rather than a natural aspect of males and females, as there are certain gender roles and norms that we associate with the sexes, yet, we rarely consider sexuality to be a working ideology as well. After reading Foucault, I discovered that the society in which we live is naïve about sexuality despite the hype about the topic. It seems to engulf our beings as every aspect of our culture is somehow tied into sex and sexuality. It is interesting to think that there has been an evolution about the topic as its discussion and prevalence within culture has forever been changing. The idea that different cultural aspects have forever changed and therefore have great history, differing prevalence, and varying purposes depending on the year is an interesting concept. Depending on the ruling class at the time, different ideas are permeated, proving that ideology plays a large role in the functioning of society. If there was no ideology, then it is likely that concepts of culture would remain the same rather than varying. When the ruling class varies throughout the world and at various times, then so do ideologies. It is also an interesting concept that we live in a society do engulfed in the present that we regret to search for hidden meanings and purposes of cultural ideas. We need to continue to challenge socially constructed ideas in order to acknowledge that we are in fact within ideology rather than truth.
dmariel, 4/15
I would like to say that I understand Derrida much better after class today but unfortunately I still find myself confused with most of his concepts. Even if Derrida taught me himself I would probably still be stumped! The one thing that did interest me (aka what I could understand :)) was the idea that “no transcendent truth is present outside the sphere of writing”. I have been in a jewish religion class all semester and I often find myself referring aspects of religion to the critical theorists we are learning about. I feel as if both of them are very abstract, therefore relatable. The purpose of most religion is to find truth in the existence of their people. Most religions, like Judaism and Christianity, use meta narratives to explain their presence in the world. Christianity believes that the word is God and God is everything. The constructed bible is the word of god, unquestionable and permanent within the religion. Above all, beyond all religion, language is created in order to get back to the beginning of the creation of humanity.
I also liked the idea of the inability to capture presence at its exact moment. This reminded me of the idea that Television is no longer the best medium for news, whereas blogging has become to fastest and most facilitated form of communication among people. But according to Derrida, even the best bloggers could never capture reality, because once the word is typed, the now is already over! Derrida’s concept of the “metaphysics of presence” is the way in which we search for our individual meaning in the world and language is our struggle to try and give us a presence. But ultimately, words cannot give actual meaning to presence because the second it is conceptualized it has already passed us.
I definitely agree with Dr. Casey’s prediction about our new signature transforming into a DNA swab. What is the essence of a signature anyway!? Anyone can write your name if they practice it well enough! Although, I do believe that our names are extremely powerful and give use some sense of identity and belonging. Behind our signature there is a ‘trace’ to our approval of whatever it is that is being signed. Our signature becomes much more than written words when used for documentation. I believe that the idea that we have to sign things for approval shows humanity is locked into logocentrism.
I also liked the idea of the inability to capture presence at its exact moment. This reminded me of the idea that Television is no longer the best medium for news, whereas blogging has become to fastest and most facilitated form of communication among people. But according to Derrida, even the best bloggers could never capture reality, because once the word is typed, the now is already over! Derrida’s concept of the “metaphysics of presence” is the way in which we search for our individual meaning in the world and language is our struggle to try and give us a presence. But ultimately, words cannot give actual meaning to presence because the second it is conceptualized it has already passed us.
I definitely agree with Dr. Casey’s prediction about our new signature transforming into a DNA swab. What is the essence of a signature anyway!? Anyone can write your name if they practice it well enough! Although, I do believe that our names are extremely powerful and give use some sense of identity and belonging. Behind our signature there is a ‘trace’ to our approval of whatever it is that is being signed. Our signature becomes much more than written words when used for documentation. I believe that the idea that we have to sign things for approval shows humanity is locked into logocentrism.
DBA123, Foucault
“The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three functions- to enclose, to deprive light and to hide- it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two. Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap.” 97
Although I found Foucault’s reading to be rather difficult, this particular quote stood out to me. When it is referred to the rest of the context on the article, which discusses ideas such as discipline, surveillance, and power relations, I found that the panoptic mechanism is the ultimate invasion of privacy. In today’s times we are fortunate enough to have the use of the internet, cell phones, and GPS systems. Poster makes many arguments saying how technology is beginning to define us, whereas I do not believe Foucault is saying the same thing, all of these items can help those in charge, the ones who hold all the power, keep tabs on the public. Most of these items keep us in contact with other important people in our lives. Take for example a facebook account; we are knowingly putting our information out there. We are shedding light on our lives, making ourselves more visible in the public eye. Most of us look as these technologies as a way of keeping in touch with those we do not see on a day to day basis, but what if we turned it around and looked at it as a panoptic mechanism. We are ultimately trapping ourselves. We are allowing “the eye of a supervisor” or a future employer, a mother, almost anyone have access to us. We are making ourselves constantly visible. Although we are not necessarily “enclosing” ourselves, we are significantly decreasing our privacy.
Although I found Foucault’s reading to be rather difficult, this particular quote stood out to me. When it is referred to the rest of the context on the article, which discusses ideas such as discipline, surveillance, and power relations, I found that the panoptic mechanism is the ultimate invasion of privacy. In today’s times we are fortunate enough to have the use of the internet, cell phones, and GPS systems. Poster makes many arguments saying how technology is beginning to define us, whereas I do not believe Foucault is saying the same thing, all of these items can help those in charge, the ones who hold all the power, keep tabs on the public. Most of these items keep us in contact with other important people in our lives. Take for example a facebook account; we are knowingly putting our information out there. We are shedding light on our lives, making ourselves more visible in the public eye. Most of us look as these technologies as a way of keeping in touch with those we do not see on a day to day basis, but what if we turned it around and looked at it as a panoptic mechanism. We are ultimately trapping ourselves. We are allowing “the eye of a supervisor” or a future employer, a mother, almost anyone have access to us. We are making ourselves constantly visible. Although we are not necessarily “enclosing” ourselves, we are significantly decreasing our privacy.
Killacam32 4/15 derrida
Its too bad that deridda died because i feel like he was a genuis. His perspective that humans were locked into words told us alot about the society we live in today. I feel that he made a connection to baudrillard and jenkins with the private and public. I think that when he talked about private and public names since we live in a computerized world that he was tlaking maybe our blogger,twitter, facebook, myspace, email, aim, etc screen names because now you have to make those names seperate from the names that you use wiht family freinds. For the fact that anyone can see your screen name on these public sites people change their names keeping people form seeing their last names or even just making a new name completely. The funny thing about that is people end up using those names of being claled by those names and so i think relates to baudrillards quote about "fiction outstripping reality". Another connection i made wiht derrida and the public names versus private names was jenkins quote, "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 ". That quote has alot to do wiht public and private names because people can facilate what others know about them and by limiting the names to a screen name or made up name people can have a full conversation or play a game witout letting everybody know who they really are. His idea about public and private names was genuis and really connected witht he two other thoerist well.
Murphy, Foucault
Foucault caught me off guard with his style of writing and his perpetual use of reasoning through the happenings and results of the plague on society of the time. Immediately Foucault introduces the reader to phrases such as "Inspection functions ceaselessly" and "The gaze alert is everywhere". While reading this excerpt from, Discipline and Punish (1977) I was reminded of a time of war, where the captives were being punished. It felt like a Nazi regime over an innocent people. When in reality this was supposedly not a political movement, it was in the best interest of everyone's health of the area and era. It is hard to see the good intentions of those in charge when Foucault writes, "Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked--it is the great review of the living and the dead."
The people begin to sound like cattle, " This enclosed segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which power is exercised whiteout division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead-- all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism" (95). With few in power, rules and regulations, ideologies and constructions are left in the hands of those with self-interest to continue to be in power, and to continue to accumulate wealth. This relates to Karl Marx's ideas on class separation and the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. Foucault also connects with Marx when he begins to discuss the ideas of "binary division and branding": mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal. Foucault goes on to discuss how, even today, the power structure is set up around the abnormal individual and trying to label him and then change him into the norm.
The people begin to sound like cattle, " This enclosed segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which power is exercised whiteout division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead-- all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism" (95). With few in power, rules and regulations, ideologies and constructions are left in the hands of those with self-interest to continue to be in power, and to continue to accumulate wealth. This relates to Karl Marx's ideas on class separation and the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. Foucault also connects with Marx when he begins to discuss the ideas of "binary division and branding": mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal. Foucault goes on to discuss how, even today, the power structure is set up around the abnormal individual and trying to label him and then change him into the norm.
MerryChristmas!, Foucault
Foucault's notion of the "plague" and reading others' posts got me thinking about what exactly our plague is in the postmodern world. It seems as though we are cleared from any potential aspect of a plague. We have new technologies and vaccinations that prevent us from getting sick, we are constantly developing technology to make our lives easier, and we live in a democratic society where we believe that we are individuals and our voice can be heard. When thinking about this, one songs lyrics stuck out to me. This song is by a band called the Verve. The song is called "Bittersweet Symphony". I am sure all of you are familiar with this song and the other day I was listening to it and I never considered how insightful the lyrics were. Here is the bulk of the lyrics:
"Cause its a bittersweet symphony, thats life. Trying to make ends meet, you're a slave to money then you die...But I'm a million different people from one day to the next, I can't change my mold...We've got ya sex and violence, melody and silence."
It hit me that our present day "plague" could be greed. Could it be money? I then began to think about the similarities between this song and our notion of the "American Dream". Just like Nazism was capable of molding Germans citizen's thoughts through forms of media, money and the american dream are molding peoples everyday lives. I especially liked how in the song, the singer begins by saying he can't change his mold and that you are a slave to money but, then the song transitions to him saying that he can change and that he is finding money and then he dies. The Verve is absolutely right, our entire lives are shaped around money and the american dream. We are constantly told through media outlets on a daily basis that our lives are for the soul purpose of getting rich and achieving the american dream. This idea is impounded in our minds so much so that we become "slaves" to money. People go to great lengths to get money and it is at this point that money itself can even be considered a plague. By using the word "mold" in describing us, The Verve is reinforcing the idea that we no longer think for ourselves and that money becomes our main purpose for why we work and do what we do. We go to college so that we can get an education. We get an education so that we can get a good-paying job. One of the major setbacks in the United States right now is the economy. We fear that our economy will no longer be the best in the world, with China coming in close second. The plague of our nation is the "american dream". Celebrities constantly wear t-shirts saying the words "I am the American Dream". What does this mean? Does this imply that everyone should strive to become rich and famous based off of talent that is usually fabricated and molded if there is even talent at all. Foucault's image of the plague and The Verve's song has certainly got me thinking about the plague we are dealing with today.
"Cause its a bittersweet symphony, thats life. Trying to make ends meet, you're a slave to money then you die...But I'm a million different people from one day to the next, I can't change my mold...We've got ya sex and violence, melody and silence."
It hit me that our present day "plague" could be greed. Could it be money? I then began to think about the similarities between this song and our notion of the "American Dream". Just like Nazism was capable of molding Germans citizen's thoughts through forms of media, money and the american dream are molding peoples everyday lives. I especially liked how in the song, the singer begins by saying he can't change his mold and that you are a slave to money but, then the song transitions to him saying that he can change and that he is finding money and then he dies. The Verve is absolutely right, our entire lives are shaped around money and the american dream. We are constantly told through media outlets on a daily basis that our lives are for the soul purpose of getting rich and achieving the american dream. This idea is impounded in our minds so much so that we become "slaves" to money. People go to great lengths to get money and it is at this point that money itself can even be considered a plague. By using the word "mold" in describing us, The Verve is reinforcing the idea that we no longer think for ourselves and that money becomes our main purpose for why we work and do what we do. We go to college so that we can get an education. We get an education so that we can get a good-paying job. One of the major setbacks in the United States right now is the economy. We fear that our economy will no longer be the best in the world, with China coming in close second. The plague of our nation is the "american dream". Celebrities constantly wear t-shirts saying the words "I am the American Dream". What does this mean? Does this imply that everyone should strive to become rich and famous based off of talent that is usually fabricated and molded if there is even talent at all. Foucault's image of the plague and The Verve's song has certainly got me thinking about the plague we are dealing with today.
DBA123, post class 4/14
From Tuesday’s class we learned that Derrida believed that “As human beings, we are locked into words, they absolutely control us, they define us.” We continued on to say how all people have a private name and a public name, and that most choose to only give their private name to those who are very close with them. As I thought about they more, especially in a school setting, I began to see how this could relate to our culture.
Many look at their name as a definition of themselves. I would consider our last name to be our public name and our first name would be our private name. When we are part of a larger group of people, last names are used to address one anther because they usually vary more, whereas, first names are used in intimate settings to address a person directly. Last names help identify a person, but a first name is usually more associated with who the person actually is, meaning their personality and other defining characteristics. Comparing us to those at a larger school, who are sometimes not evern referred to by last name, but by numbers, at a smaller school, we have automatically placed ourselves in a more intimate atmosphere, where we allow our private name to be known among more people.
Derrida also says that the words, word and name, are interchangable. If we go back to the paragraphs above and look at our name, especially our first, as defining ones self, then Derrida argument that “we are locked into words, they absolutely control us, they define us,” makes complete sense. In class we also discussed how our signature is our most personal reference to ourself. Noone can copy another’s signature perfectly (well maybe), making it more letters, that make up a word or words, that completely define us.
Many look at their name as a definition of themselves. I would consider our last name to be our public name and our first name would be our private name. When we are part of a larger group of people, last names are used to address one anther because they usually vary more, whereas, first names are used in intimate settings to address a person directly. Last names help identify a person, but a first name is usually more associated with who the person actually is, meaning their personality and other defining characteristics. Comparing us to those at a larger school, who are sometimes not evern referred to by last name, but by numbers, at a smaller school, we have automatically placed ourselves in a more intimate atmosphere, where we allow our private name to be known among more people.
Derrida also says that the words, word and name, are interchangable. If we go back to the paragraphs above and look at our name, especially our first, as defining ones self, then Derrida argument that “we are locked into words, they absolutely control us, they define us,” makes complete sense. In class we also discussed how our signature is our most personal reference to ourself. Noone can copy another’s signature perfectly (well maybe), making it more letters, that make up a word or words, that completely define us.
ashlayla, Foucault (w/ reference to Happy Birthday!'s post)
The Foucault reading was a difficult read and hard for me to understand what Foucault was discussing. One part that I found interesting was how Foucault included the description of how order was established during the plague in the 17th century. But I understand the importance of the order that the 17th century people needed because if there had been no order, chaos would have occurred and more people would have died from the plague.
Although I have never heard of panopticon, I have unconsciously used it. Foucault describes panopticon as a “…mechanism [that] arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately.” (97) I realized after reading this quote that I have used the panopticon technique before and I have used it a lot, especially at the mall. When I am eating at the mall in the food court I like to “people watch.” I people watch because I think it’s interesting to see what bags shoppers are carrying and I think it’s interesting to watch their reactions to the people around them. Panopticon is also something that celebrities and high profile politicians deal with almost on a daily basis. Like what Happy Birthday! said in their post, people who are constantly in the spotlight are being watched like hawks. The media always hovers around their homes and the places that the frequently visit. Whenever I get on the internet and go to the Yahoo! homepage, I almost always see a new story about some celebrity and what happened to them that day or that week. The media uses panopticon to put the daily lives of celebrities and high profile politicians and on display for the larger public to read or watch. If Lindsay Lohan gets into the face of the paparazzi or if Avril Lavinge gives the finger to another photographer we are bound to hear about it because the media is going to publish it for all to see. Panopticon was easier for me to understand than most of the concepts that Foucault discussed because I have used the technique before…I just never realized it.
Although I have never heard of panopticon, I have unconsciously used it. Foucault describes panopticon as a “…mechanism [that] arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately.” (97) I realized after reading this quote that I have used the panopticon technique before and I have used it a lot, especially at the mall. When I am eating at the mall in the food court I like to “people watch.” I people watch because I think it’s interesting to see what bags shoppers are carrying and I think it’s interesting to watch their reactions to the people around them. Panopticon is also something that celebrities and high profile politicians deal with almost on a daily basis. Like what Happy Birthday! said in their post, people who are constantly in the spotlight are being watched like hawks. The media always hovers around their homes and the places that the frequently visit. Whenever I get on the internet and go to the Yahoo! homepage, I almost always see a new story about some celebrity and what happened to them that day or that week. The media uses panopticon to put the daily lives of celebrities and high profile politicians and on display for the larger public to read or watch. If Lindsay Lohan gets into the face of the paparazzi or if Avril Lavinge gives the finger to another photographer we are bound to hear about it because the media is going to publish it for all to see. Panopticon was easier for me to understand than most of the concepts that Foucault discussed because I have used the technique before…I just never realized it.
WoolyBully7, Foucault
Foucault’s first writing about the plague and the quarantine remind me of today’s cops. Surveillance, authority, control are words that pop into mind when I hear about cops. They have traffic cameras, undercover cops, hierarchy, observations, wire taps/bugs, records, files, information, basically things they use to exert power over us. Althusser argue that all of those elements are a part of either Repressive or Ideological State Apparatuses. Now, many people argue cops do that stuff to help protect people, and I guess that is what happened to plague victims back in the day, to help keep people safe from the plague virus. Foucault says that the plague stands for confusion and disorder. By utilizing our word definition tools from last class, what would the plague be in our society today? What is confusing and disorderly in our society? One could argue politics, or economics sure, but I believe many of us believe it could also be the media.
Now the media may not physically plague or infect people in the same ways as the real plague as far as the immune system and our health are concerned but it definitely plays a role. Our media is disorderly and confusing, which is why we all have chose this as our major, to try and make some kind of sense of it all. A study recently said that the average human sees approx 5,000 media products each day. That’s a pretty significant number and it can be overbearing which is why, our class/major, is trying to overcome this quazi-plague and our professors especially are trying to keep us safe from it in a way. I know a lot of this is a stretch of the imagination but I think it relates at least enough to be important to mention. Nazism was a plague that affected virtually all of Europe if not the world. The Red Scare about communism could have been considered a plague. We can look at many significant events throughout history and relate them to a plague based on Foucault’s definition that a plague stands for confusion and disorder.
Now the media may not physically plague or infect people in the same ways as the real plague as far as the immune system and our health are concerned but it definitely plays a role. Our media is disorderly and confusing, which is why we all have chose this as our major, to try and make some kind of sense of it all. A study recently said that the average human sees approx 5,000 media products each day. That’s a pretty significant number and it can be overbearing which is why, our class/major, is trying to overcome this quazi-plague and our professors especially are trying to keep us safe from it in a way. I know a lot of this is a stretch of the imagination but I think it relates at least enough to be important to mention. Nazism was a plague that affected virtually all of Europe if not the world. The Red Scare about communism could have been considered a plague. We can look at many significant events throughout history and relate them to a plague based on Foucault’s definition that a plague stands for confusion and disorder.
Petite Etoile, Foucault
I think this concept of ‘divide and subdue’ that is seen in the way the Plague was handled is still used in our society today. It is of course a much more subtle and ‘natural’ approach, but then again we are told to fight against what we are told is the norm and to deconstruct what we have been conditioned to see as natural. I see this method of subduing in our country today in the way that everyone is divided into categories. All of our jobs are very separate, so it is easy to keep people apart and to keep them living in the hegemony. Most people go to their jobs every day, usually one they don’t like, get paid a salary that is not enough, pay taxes, pay fees, are constantly paying off debts, and go to the same grocery stores and pay prices which they do not dispute. They obey the laws, like speeding and wearing clothing and not hitting people, and for the most part live very cookie-cutter lives in which the government controls them at almost every turn, whether they realize it or not. They know that there are people out there with millions and millions of dollars who do absolutely nothing and thrive off of their hard work through corruption, but continue to grind through their daily routine anyway. And I think this submissiveness is due in part to the fact that we are all compartmentalized. Everyone goes to different jobs in different buildings, most sit in a solitary cubicle all day ( a direct representation of the houses during the plague) of which they are only allowed to leave at a certain time and for a certain reason on penalty of losing money, which because of the paycheck to paycheck life they are kept at is almost the equivalence of death in our society. They are checked on by bosses, who are kept in check by even higher bosses, and so on and so forth. Each level having more freedom and more wealth and less and less work they have to actually do. I think if the guy who works from 8 to 5 in a tiny cubicle and is stressed to pay bills and to not get fired and to get all his work done, was sitting right next to the guy who had millions and sat around by a pool drinking martinis or playing golf or whatever his hobby may be, that 8 ton 5 guy would not be so submissive. He would get even angrier and realize the unfairness and maybe even stand up and say something. And lets say we removed all the walls and barriers and different kinds of jobs and just had all of the hard workers working hard right next to each other. And lets say that right across the street they could see all of the moochers lazing around doing nothing and profiting off of their hard work. Why I think not only would they get mad, and not only would they say something, but they would get together and organize and we might even have a revolution! This categorizing and dividing of people also goes further than the career field and into people’s homes. Everyone knows that neighborhoods are divided by financial status. There are certain neighborhoods you don’t go in ‘unless you want to get shot’. And then there are the ritzy neighborhoods with mansions and personal gates. And the middle class gated communities. I bet if all the hardworkers, who could barely even afford the house they are in, lived right next door to the mansions, and could see that their hard work was paying for their luxury, they wouldn’t stand for it then either. And lets push our imaginations a little further. What if those middle class and high class houses were mixed in with the cardboard shacks and mud huts of those dying of starvation in third world countries? I would like to think, that as the family made dinner and saw the hungry eyes of little children, maybe they would shared the abundance that they have, that we have here in America. And maybe, if we all were not so compartmentalized and categorized and kept apart from each other, we would see first hand each other’s struggles and better understand each other’s differences. And maybe then we would be more willing to help one another.
Weezy27/ Derrida
"There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name." This quote from Derrida really sums up the reading well in my opinion. Derrida talks a lot about the meaning of words which he defines as names. He says that names carry much power because of the meanings underlying each word. He says that all words have something called “the trace” which means that behind all words there is a strong meaning. He then says that with this trace comes multiple meanings and each meaning leaves a trace on the word which helps define it. He then compares it to Benjamin’s idea of authenticity which I found very interesting. He says that since words can carry so many meanings is the word still “authentic.” At first, this concept was pretty hard for me to wrap my brain around but I stepped back and really thought about it, it all began to make sense. If a word has multiple meaning, what, then, is the original meanings of words? Or are their original meanings within words?
I also really liked the idea that language gives us structure, sign, and play. This is so interesting because its very true. With language, there is meaning, and it is easy to play with meaning in a word. Since, class I’ve caught myself thinking of Derrida a lot. It’s kind of annoying but I have begun to analyze meanings within certain words. I feel as if I am learning more and more each day to avoid becoming a passive consumer.
I also really liked the idea that language gives us structure, sign, and play. This is so interesting because its very true. With language, there is meaning, and it is easy to play with meaning in a word. Since, class I’ve caught myself thinking of Derrida a lot. It’s kind of annoying but I have begun to analyze meanings within certain words. I feel as if I am learning more and more each day to avoid becoming a passive consumer.
CMCstudent, Foucault
This reading was really interesting. It was great to learn the history and organization of the dominant elite during the time of the plague in the 17th century. I suppose they had to have such strict rules to keep the death toll down as much as possible. This article shows that order can be made even out of the most difficult of times. I also was able to see the connection of those dominant in 17th century and those dominant today. When taking a step back, and examining, one can see that after these few centuries some RSA’s are still functioning on the exclusive power of visibility and unverifibility. Bentham describes “visible” as “the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon” (98). Today we can compare this to cameras in a prison which detect every movement an inmate makes. He describes “unverifiable” as “the inmate must never know he is being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so” (98). This can be exemplified when a jail inmate appears in court. No one directly eyes him down the entire time, but he knows that all eyes are on him and does not need to see them to know they are on him.
The Panopticon reminds me of the notion of “the man.” We the people are totally seen but “the man” never shows himself. It is like a one way mirror. Although we do not exactly know who “the man” is, we are subjected to his and the dominant elite’s ideologies everyday. If someone was asked to draw “the man” could they? Who is “the man” that controls the world we live in and is there only one, or many? Bentham says that “any individual can operate the machine,” the Panopticon. Does this mean if “the man” gets sick “the man’s” assistant steps in to take his place for the day? By simply calling the government or dominant ideologies “the man” the power ultimately becomes unverifiable.
The Panopticon reminds me of the notion of “the man.” We the people are totally seen but “the man” never shows himself. It is like a one way mirror. Although we do not exactly know who “the man” is, we are subjected to his and the dominant elite’s ideologies everyday. If someone was asked to draw “the man” could they? Who is “the man” that controls the world we live in and is there only one, or many? Bentham says that “any individual can operate the machine,” the Panopticon. Does this mean if “the man” gets sick “the man’s” assistant steps in to take his place for the day? By simply calling the government or dominant ideologies “the man” the power ultimately becomes unverifiable.
coolbeans, hooks
In “Eating the Other”, bell hooks discusses the ways in which our culture and society makes use of the Other. One thing that bell hooks discusses that interested me was that the Other is often used in advertising and marketing. Hooks cites the example that market surveys revealed that black people buy more Pepsi than other soft drinks so suddenly more Pepsi commercials featured black people in them. He also states that fashion is another industry in which selling products involves exploiting otherness. After thinking about this, I have come to the realization that this is true. Every marketing campaign is targeted towards a certain target audience. Dolce & Gabbana ads usually speak to a more European audience because generally European people like to wear Dolce & Gabbana, whereas Ralph Lauren ads are usually more all-American because the target audience is the American public. In advertising, the Other or the image of the Other becomes commodified in order to sell something. Executives of media contribute to much of the exploitation of the Other in order to sell things. The phrase “sell out” has been coined to denote a person who has given in to the commodification process; one who has agreed to change his/her image in order to sell movies, records, books, etc… It is often common to hear people say something like “Ludacris is such a sell-out” in reference to rappers who have turned their music into “pop” music. The culture of rap started as an Other movement. It was a new a different form of music that was underground and not popular. Much of original rap spoke about topics such as racism, poverty, real issues, etc… Executive record labels want the artists that they pick up to make money for them and therefore the music has changed from its original intent into meaningless catchy rhymes that discuss how awesome the artist is, how many unique “whips” an artist has in his garage, how much money the artist has accumulated, etc…
yellowdaisy 4, Foucault
Foucault’s reading was difficult to understand because it was hard to comprehend what he was actually getting at. When he explained the effect of panopticon which is “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”, I thought of the novel Brave New World. In this book, the people are almost like robotic, all following the same orders, doing the same things and set up in castes which already determine who they are. The World State which is their form of government is constantly watching them making sure no one acts differently. When someone is vocally or visibly going against the norm and has a different state of conscious, like the main character Bernard, then there are huge problems. I think Foucault was trying to explain how we are constantly being watched so we are afraid to do something different than the ideologies set for us because we think that the hegemonic group will catch us, usually leading to punishment.
This quote also made me think of how there are cameras in places like 7/11 so whether or not potential shoplifters are aware they are being watched through surveillance cameras, it will give the store power in either stopping them from stealing or catching them doing it. Most people today are more afraid to shoplift then in the past. This is because similar to what Foucault said, they “never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment” but the fact that they may be scares most people away from doing anything wrong.
Another quote that got my attention stated how “our society is one not of spectacle but of surveillance” which made me think of a certain reality show. While watching Cops for example, most people rather watch someone create a spectacle then actually do something themselves. This can even connect to panopticon in how the cops are the more powerful group that keep everything in line partly through inducing fear into people that they are watching. Society today rather be on the side viewing then creating the spectacle so watching Cops can make people feel more powerful and in control then if they were the ones being watched.
This quote also made me think of how there are cameras in places like 7/11 so whether or not potential shoplifters are aware they are being watched through surveillance cameras, it will give the store power in either stopping them from stealing or catching them doing it. Most people today are more afraid to shoplift then in the past. This is because similar to what Foucault said, they “never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment” but the fact that they may be scares most people away from doing anything wrong.
Another quote that got my attention stated how “our society is one not of spectacle but of surveillance” which made me think of a certain reality show. While watching Cops for example, most people rather watch someone create a spectacle then actually do something themselves. This can even connect to panopticon in how the cops are the more powerful group that keep everything in line partly through inducing fear into people that they are watching. Society today rather be on the side viewing then creating the spectacle so watching Cops can make people feel more powerful and in control then if they were the ones being watched.
Happy Birthday!, Foucault
“Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance…a centralization of knowledge…that the individual is carefully fabricated in” (Foucalt 101).
This piece, “Discipline and Punish”, was extremely hard to grasp for me. I understood some quotes throughout the reading but I had trouble connecting the main ideas. I researched Foucault a little bit and came across a meaning of the writing, which helped me piece together the reading.
I learned that Michel Foucault is writing about the power structures and struggles that developed in Western societies. He uses the panopticon to show how individuals in society are subjected to the powerful ideological state apparatus (ISA). This idea can be related back to Althusser when he talks about the ISA and RSA. Foucault states, “The panopticon mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately”. This idea of the panopticon is one that I had never heard of previous to this reading. It’s actually pretty startling to learn about this type of prison…it sounds dreadful. Yet, in a strange way it is relatable. We are all observers constantly beings observed. For instance celebrities may encounter this feeling more so than any group of people. They are constantly under medias eyes and are scrutinized 24/7 for every action he or she does or doesn’t do.
Another connection I found through this reading is when Foucault is speaking about the different classes in the society. This represents social power, which Marx talked about when discussing the ruling class. Foucault talks about how the ruling class is the “healthy class” and the lower class is the “unhealthy class”.
This piece, “Discipline and Punish”, was extremely hard to grasp for me. I understood some quotes throughout the reading but I had trouble connecting the main ideas. I researched Foucault a little bit and came across a meaning of the writing, which helped me piece together the reading.
I learned that Michel Foucault is writing about the power structures and struggles that developed in Western societies. He uses the panopticon to show how individuals in society are subjected to the powerful ideological state apparatus (ISA). This idea can be related back to Althusser when he talks about the ISA and RSA. Foucault states, “The panopticon mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately”. This idea of the panopticon is one that I had never heard of previous to this reading. It’s actually pretty startling to learn about this type of prison…it sounds dreadful. Yet, in a strange way it is relatable. We are all observers constantly beings observed. For instance celebrities may encounter this feeling more so than any group of people. They are constantly under medias eyes and are scrutinized 24/7 for every action he or she does or doesn’t do.
Another connection I found through this reading is when Foucault is speaking about the different classes in the society. This represents social power, which Marx talked about when discussing the ruling class. Foucault talks about how the ruling class is the “healthy class” and the lower class is the “unhealthy class”.
ginger griffin, Foucault
"This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded...in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located..." (95)
Although this was a very tough read, once I got to this quote I immediately thought of one movie, "The Truman Show." This movie is about one man on a reality TV show where everything is fixed and where everyone is watching his every move, only this guy doesn't know any of this. Truman has hidden cameras set up all around him, the people in his life are all fake, everything he does is seen on TV and recorded, just like my quote. After I thought about this I thought about the panopticon, which is mentioned just a few pages later, and realized that these lepers and plague victims feel as if they are constantly being watched, which they are most of the time, but that is the exact use of the panopticon. It is to make you feel as if someone is watching you all the time and you will not know the difference.
This also kind of relates to Horkheimer and Adorno in the sense of "sameness". The lepers and plague victims fell victim to being treated the same and therefore fell into the same category as each other. This also represents power, which Marx talks about with his ruling class. Here, power is represented in a way that the ruling class is the healthy class and the lower class is the infected victims.
Foucault is extremely hard to read, but I hope that I made the right connections with the "Truman Show" and Horheimer and Adorno. I guess I will have to see in class tomorrow.
Although this was a very tough read, once I got to this quote I immediately thought of one movie, "The Truman Show." This movie is about one man on a reality TV show where everything is fixed and where everyone is watching his every move, only this guy doesn't know any of this. Truman has hidden cameras set up all around him, the people in his life are all fake, everything he does is seen on TV and recorded, just like my quote. After I thought about this I thought about the panopticon, which is mentioned just a few pages later, and realized that these lepers and plague victims feel as if they are constantly being watched, which they are most of the time, but that is the exact use of the panopticon. It is to make you feel as if someone is watching you all the time and you will not know the difference.
This also kind of relates to Horkheimer and Adorno in the sense of "sameness". The lepers and plague victims fell victim to being treated the same and therefore fell into the same category as each other. This also represents power, which Marx talks about with his ruling class. Here, power is represented in a way that the ruling class is the healthy class and the lower class is the infected victims.
Foucault is extremely hard to read, but I hope that I made the right connections with the "Truman Show" and Horheimer and Adorno. I guess I will have to see in class tomorrow.
spaghetti, Focault
I found this particular assignment difficult to understand and very different in nature from the other readings we have done in CMC300. From what I could gather from it, however, I was reminded of Horkheimer & Adorno's notion of sameness. When thinking about this concept, I remember a scene from the book A Wrinkle in Time where the characters visit a community where everyone does the same thing at the exact same time. Little children play outside and all bounce their balls on the ground simultaneously. Mothers come out side of the house and call the children in for dinner at the same time. This particular scene had a kind of eeriness about it which has stuck with me (or has made an.....impression, if you will......) since i read it. I was reminded of this in light of the image that Focault presents of the people having everything determined for them. It's representative of how we do as well even in today's society, as Horkheimer and Adorno would point out. We merely have the illusion of choice, and we attempt to identify ourselves through those choices we make, but the reality of it is the choices we make are between essentially the same options which are determined by a higher being. Therefore, everything really is, in Horkehimer and Adorno's opinion, already determined for us by a higher power, bye the ruling elite, by the few all-powerful super conglomerates. therefore, there is not much discrepancy between this picture Focault paints and the view of today's society that Horkheimer and Adorno write about in their essay we studied last unit. The arguments are very similar, and yet the approaches and writing styles differ greatly. i think perhaps that is why I had trouble understanding this reading more than other--simply because I am not used to the style Focault employs in a CMC context.
Dot, Foucault
While I found Foucault's essay to be very challenging to fully comprehend, I thought that it was very interesting, that is if I actually understood him correctly. I have always enjoyed history and think that many rituals of the past are incredibly fascinating. While reading Foucault's essay, I found his descriptions and interpretations of plague 'management' very captivating. He was able to paint a picture in my head of the happenings of the seventeenth century and I felt as though I got a very accurate account of the activity of the time. In reading the beginning of his essay, I almost forgot I was reading for CMC class and got caught up in the vivid descriptions as if it was a novel.
When the story aspect ended and I was brought back to the world of CMC, I found his relations between the plague control and present day to be very interesting as well. During the plague, people where told how to behave by the ruling class, i.e the mayor, and where kept in line by his magistrates. The lower class citizens, whom Foucalt called the crows where the "the people of little substance who carry the sick, bury the dead clean and do many vile and abject office" (94). It is easy to see how this model has translated in to the hierarchical society that we live in today. Foucault goes on to point out some of these similarities later in his essay. It is also easy to recognize the hegemony held by the ruling classes in the seventeenth century and to see how the same type of entity is still in place today.
I found it very fascinating to see such connections. Although I have always assumed that some form of hierarchy and hegemony have always existed, I really liked the connection Foucalt made. I hope in class to be able to understand more of his points and to hopefully make more interesting connections.
thestig, foucalt
“Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance…a centralization of knowledge…that the individual is carefully fabricated in” (Foucalt 101).
Michel Foucault uses the Panopticon to show how individuals in society are drones, subject to the powerful ideological state apparatus. This is an essential feature of critical theory. After World War II, the Frankfurt school realized that it had to revisit the reasons to why individuals assimilated in society so fluently. What several theorists discovered was that humans lost their ability to ‘question authority.’ Thus, we are passive, and unresponsive. We are like puppets. We are free only to consume, and are sold on ideas that make us feel like we are individuals.
In addition to being so manipulative, this highly constructed process is ensured by the socialization effects it has on society. This is where the panopticon comes into play: we feel as if we’re always being monitored, making us even more obedient and less willing to challenge the puppeteers. The panopticon is the infrastructure used to maintain this power relationship with individuals.
This makes such a deep impact on society because it creates the notion that there is no alternative (TINA). You obey, or you are in trouble. The panopticon is the symbolic figure that keeps people in line, concluding that there is no alterative. TINA is an important concept because it compliments the “affirmative character of culture.” We have no choice but to live vicariously through a character on the screen, and individuals are given choices, but they are choices based on what to consume. In other words, we are free to make choices, but our choices are controlled. Automobile manufactures will market their cars based on optional, rather rudimentary features because it “sells:” it makes the consumer feel like he is “customizing” his new car. As individuality becomes a product, individual autonomy continues to deteriorate. Individuals no longer live the leisure filled lives they imagine themselves to be living, but are now ignorant consumers creating profits for the ideological state apparatus leadership. There is no alternative represents the extension from production to consumption, enhancing the power of the ideological state apparatus and the notion of the panopticon.
Michel Foucault uses the Panopticon to show how individuals in society are drones, subject to the powerful ideological state apparatus. This is an essential feature of critical theory. After World War II, the Frankfurt school realized that it had to revisit the reasons to why individuals assimilated in society so fluently. What several theorists discovered was that humans lost their ability to ‘question authority.’ Thus, we are passive, and unresponsive. We are like puppets. We are free only to consume, and are sold on ideas that make us feel like we are individuals.
In addition to being so manipulative, this highly constructed process is ensured by the socialization effects it has on society. This is where the panopticon comes into play: we feel as if we’re always being monitored, making us even more obedient and less willing to challenge the puppeteers. The panopticon is the infrastructure used to maintain this power relationship with individuals.
This makes such a deep impact on society because it creates the notion that there is no alternative (TINA). You obey, or you are in trouble. The panopticon is the symbolic figure that keeps people in line, concluding that there is no alterative. TINA is an important concept because it compliments the “affirmative character of culture.” We have no choice but to live vicariously through a character on the screen, and individuals are given choices, but they are choices based on what to consume. In other words, we are free to make choices, but our choices are controlled. Automobile manufactures will market their cars based on optional, rather rudimentary features because it “sells:” it makes the consumer feel like he is “customizing” his new car. As individuality becomes a product, individual autonomy continues to deteriorate. Individuals no longer live the leisure filled lives they imagine themselves to be living, but are now ignorant consumers creating profits for the ideological state apparatus leadership. There is no alternative represents the extension from production to consumption, enhancing the power of the ideological state apparatus and the notion of the panopticon.
brookes77, 4/14/09
In class on Tuesday we talked about how human beings are controlled by words. They construct everything we do, say, and who we are individually. For example a signature, these letters put together defines who we are to the rest of the world. No one can have the same to signatures, it makes us different from the rest. A signature allows us legally to exist, and they are just words.
Another notion we discussed in class was how we can play with language. This reminded me of Barthes notion of jouissance, and how we should take what we comprehend from a text and do what we want with it. This also relates to Macherey’s explanation of intertextuality and how we view text/words/language. This is where binary oppositions come in when certain words mean one thing to someone and different definitions to another, allowing people to work with different words how they interpret them. When people interpret words a different way this allows the words to leave a trace, and someone will hold on to the idea they grasped from what they understand which causes difference. This notions allows names and words to have different meanings everywhere, it is a cycle. Jaques Derrida’s quote “ Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences”; allows us to see that it is not the written word that is important it is the spoken word which perpetuates intertexuality to which the word never is stabilized and the meaning of the word continues to change. It is really interesting that Derrida speaks of language as a sand box, showing that people can make what they want of words, for they are always changing with no fixed meaning. He states: “ There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name.”. This allows people to no longer be absent minded observers in our culture but participate in culture from ones own intertexuality. There is no right or wrong meaning, noting is black and white only shades of grey.
LightningBolt, 4/15
As I sat down to write this post I looked around the room and attempted to find the opposite word for everything. The first thing that I looked at was a lamp. Alterity would suggest that the word lamp has an opposite. In class it seemed rather simple to find apposing words for things such as spring or dog, but lamp seems to pose a problem for me. The example of cat and dog suggests that the words do not need to be opposites. To me the opposite of a small domesticated animal would be a large, wild animal, perhaps a dinosaur? Instead cats and dogs are very similar to each other. Both are small domesticated pets. This example leads me to believe that alterity would suggest the obverse of a lamp would be a candle. Both can serve the same purpose; just as cats and dogs both serve the purpose of being house pets, and they often have the same basic long and skinny shape, just as cats and dogs have the same basic structure. As Derrida suggests, communities value inverses in different ways. This seems fairly obvious in the example of a lamp: a community that always has overcast, dark, rainy weather and electricity will value a lamp much more than a community that does not have electricity, or a community that does not have heat and needs the warmth of a candle.
As De Saussure discusses, community is necessary in order to form meaning to words. The fact that a community values candles more than lamps will change the meaning of candles as well as lamps to everyone in the community. The importance of something or the value that it holds is part of a words meaning. However, something I do not understand about this, what if there is discrepancy within a community? Communities can be rather large and be made up of a large variety of people. If half of a community has electricity they will value the lamp while the portion of the community without electricity will value the candle. Attempting to answer my own question I would look at the definition of community: a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage (dictionary.com). Instead of looking at the entire town or area as a community, the portion with the electricity and the one without could be considered different communities.
Rubbersoul, Foucault
"This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the centre and periphery, in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead--all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism." (95) Foucault describes what it was like at the end of the 17th century when the plague entered a town and the process by which the town dealt with ridding it. Essentially, people were forced to stay in their houses and if they left the town limits they were sentenced to death. Those in charge make all the decisions for the citizens, from what they can own to what characterizes them and even to deciding the circumstances in which they die. "The relation of each individual to his disease and to his death passes through the representatives of power, the registration they make of it, the decisions they take on it." Foucault describes the surveyer of the disciplinary mechanism as an omnipresent and omnicient power. He goes on to explain a structure called a Panopticon. It is a tall tower positioned in the middle of a concentrated area. The tower has large windows on all sides and the corresponding cells around the tower have windows facing the tower as well. The light crosses the cells so the watchmen in the tower can see if the captives in their cages are being obedient. "The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately." The abnormal is separated from the normal and kept under control through a method of constant supervision. Punishment results when actions aren't approved by the watching eye.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
000ooo000ooo 4/14
I definitely feel that I have a better grasp of Derrida after discussing his ideas in class today. However, I still have to question some of his thoughts and their practicality in the real world. It is mostly his idea of "playing" with a text that confuses me. In many cases this idea makes sense, there are a lot of BS texts out there that it would be fun to mess around with. Especially the rhetoric of politicians and other talking heads on TV that occupy the "moral guidance" role that Bordieu discusses. Jon Stewart plays with the words of these people every night and it is very funny and, surprisingly, very enlightening. You can actually learn a lot by watching his show, it just shouldn't be trusted as a primary news source because it's not news, its commentary and comedy. However, if we approach texts with the belief that they should be messed around with, at what point do we begin to take things seriously and make progress?
There are a lot of problems in the world that need to be addressed. In order to address these problems, people are going to have to throw out reasoning and rhetoric and fight for the rights of others. There will always be some opposition and if we all follow Derrida's advice, every text will just be messed around with. I think this could lead to a severe shortage of action. We need to identify problems and act on them. Yes, some discussion of texts is necessary and some texts are not deserving of anything more than playing around with, but where is the distinction drawn? and who has the right to draw it?
Perhaps what Derrida is getting at is a total upheaval of our current consciousness and ideology. He suggests this in his revised ideal of the critic as someone who doesn't "critique" the text, but plays with it. Our minds work in a way where we see everything as right and wrong instead of exploring the options and meanings of a situation. By marking everything as right or wrong we create divisions within ourselves that make communication and action difficult. Derrida is another theorist whose ideas I would like to see put in action to make a real difference in the world, instead of just throwing out ambiguous suggestions that are difficult to connect to the real world.
There are a lot of problems in the world that need to be addressed. In order to address these problems, people are going to have to throw out reasoning and rhetoric and fight for the rights of others. There will always be some opposition and if we all follow Derrida's advice, every text will just be messed around with. I think this could lead to a severe shortage of action. We need to identify problems and act on them. Yes, some discussion of texts is necessary and some texts are not deserving of anything more than playing around with, but where is the distinction drawn? and who has the right to draw it?
Perhaps what Derrida is getting at is a total upheaval of our current consciousness and ideology. He suggests this in his revised ideal of the critic as someone who doesn't "critique" the text, but plays with it. Our minds work in a way where we see everything as right and wrong instead of exploring the options and meanings of a situation. By marking everything as right or wrong we create divisions within ourselves that make communication and action difficult. Derrida is another theorist whose ideas I would like to see put in action to make a real difference in the world, instead of just throwing out ambiguous suggestions that are difficult to connect to the real world.
ginger griffin, 4/14
Today's class was very interesting to say the least. It still has me second guessing what it is I am or was trying to say. Derrida uses his words in a way that will make any person scratch their head in confusion. His terms, which w learned about in class today, helped me to realize that I really have no idea what is being said, or do I? Logocentrism is one term I did understand, especially the way Dr. Casey explained it today, "As human beings, we are LOCKED into words or names." We simply can not look at something without thinking of another thing it is similar to or thinking about what that object is not, like DeSaussure. Also, Dr. Casey holds the power over the entire class because he is the only one who knows all of the alias' for our blogs, therefore he has the power to give that information out, or to keep it to himself. He knows who writes what and when, but the entire class has no idea who everybody else is. We can not live without these signs of words or names because for our entire existence we have been wrapped around these meanings of words and meanings of meanings, and so on and so forth.
I thought the "dog" example in class was really helpful to understand the term "differance". It also helped me to realize all of the meanings behind one word. When you think of dog you think of a four legged animal living in a house, but we connected to weed and a non herbivour. If I was to try this all day I think I would simply go crazy, but I do find it very interesting to look up one word and then find the meanings of all those words combined. You would be able to write for days, actually I don't think the writing would ever stop because the words would never end.
I think it is safe to say that I was not the only confused about Derrida but after class I had a little bit of a better understanding of the words we use and the words we choose not to use. Derrida was a very confusing man, and I hate to end it on a negative note but I would be happy to never have to study him again. The only thing is, is now I will never be able to escape him, or words, or names, or meanings.
I thought the "dog" example in class was really helpful to understand the term "differance". It also helped me to realize all of the meanings behind one word. When you think of dog you think of a four legged animal living in a house, but we connected to weed and a non herbivour. If I was to try this all day I think I would simply go crazy, but I do find it very interesting to look up one word and then find the meanings of all those words combined. You would be able to write for days, actually I don't think the writing would ever stop because the words would never end.
I think it is safe to say that I was not the only confused about Derrida but after class I had a little bit of a better understanding of the words we use and the words we choose not to use. Derrida was a very confusing man, and I hate to end it on a negative note but I would be happy to never have to study him again. The only thing is, is now I will never be able to escape him, or words, or names, or meanings.
Happy Birthday!, 4/14
“ Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences” (127)
Class today was extremely thought provoking. I now find myself re-reading everything I’m writing just to make sure that I’m saying what I’m trying to say…none the less I’m so confused when I write!! I kind of always knew that there were words in our culture that had multiple meanings. For example, “fag”, “gay”, “retarded”, “sick”, “bro”, the list can go on. It’s crazy that this is what our language has turned into. As days go on I’m afraid language is getting more and more butchered. It seems as though pop culture is developing more quickly by the second…which leads to language being morphed/twisted/construed to fit the pop culture. It only makes sense that this language is being cut up because it makes it shorter…faster to read…because we are a generation fixed on instant gratification and receiving information immediately.
This makes me wonder if ten years from now will there be papers published in “text speak”? Will professors start teaching in this sort of fashion? Will this become a new language?!?! Bourdieu states, “ The farther a paper extends its circulation, the more it favors such topics that interest ‘everybody’ and don’t raise problems. The object-news- is constructed in accordance with perceptual categories of the receiver”. I know that majority of people do not use this sort of “text speak” but it is rising fairly fast amongst the younger generation. I wonder if this has an effect on their learning capabilities and attention span. My younger sister just turned sixteen and literally cannot sit down and read a book. She says it’s not interesting and she jut cannot stay focused. Yet, I wonder if it was written in this new sort of language “text speak” if she would be able to read it quicker and understand concepts and themes more thoroughly.
Derrida brings up some very good points about our language and the existence (or declining existence) of it. He challenged us in our writing and challenges everyone to question every single word he or she puts down on a piece of paper. The fact of the matter is, no matter what anything we say can be twisted and morphed into something else used against us…or used to help us.
Class today was extremely thought provoking. I now find myself re-reading everything I’m writing just to make sure that I’m saying what I’m trying to say…none the less I’m so confused when I write!! I kind of always knew that there were words in our culture that had multiple meanings. For example, “fag”, “gay”, “retarded”, “sick”, “bro”, the list can go on. It’s crazy that this is what our language has turned into. As days go on I’m afraid language is getting more and more butchered. It seems as though pop culture is developing more quickly by the second…which leads to language being morphed/twisted/construed to fit the pop culture. It only makes sense that this language is being cut up because it makes it shorter…faster to read…because we are a generation fixed on instant gratification and receiving information immediately.
This makes me wonder if ten years from now will there be papers published in “text speak”? Will professors start teaching in this sort of fashion? Will this become a new language?!?! Bourdieu states, “ The farther a paper extends its circulation, the more it favors such topics that interest ‘everybody’ and don’t raise problems. The object-news- is constructed in accordance with perceptual categories of the receiver”. I know that majority of people do not use this sort of “text speak” but it is rising fairly fast amongst the younger generation. I wonder if this has an effect on their learning capabilities and attention span. My younger sister just turned sixteen and literally cannot sit down and read a book. She says it’s not interesting and she jut cannot stay focused. Yet, I wonder if it was written in this new sort of language “text speak” if she would be able to read it quicker and understand concepts and themes more thoroughly.
Derrida brings up some very good points about our language and the existence (or declining existence) of it. He challenged us in our writing and challenges everyone to question every single word he or she puts down on a piece of paper. The fact of the matter is, no matter what anything we say can be twisted and morphed into something else used against us…or used to help us.
WoolyBully7, Derrida
“The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it (127).” This represents the importance of context. Taking things in and out of context is a crucial part, I believe, for “re”-learning De Saussure and understanding this part of Derrida’s article on Difference. What a sign actually signifies is not as important as what it seems to mean in relation to signs that surround it. One example I created of this is looking through a car magazine and seeing a Toyota Prius on one page and what that initially means, which is car, or transport. But if on the two pages before that ad, you saw pick-up trucks, and then saw pick-up trucks again on the two pages following the ad I would think of environmental awareness or technological progression. Here we can see how important the context is of the signs around that original sign.
What Derrida tells us is that the concept of the Prius only exists due to other pre-existing chains of concepts “by the systematic play of differences,” i.e. vs. pick-ups and other cars. De Saussure said that “language is a set of interdependent terms that derive their meanings from the simultaneous presence of other terms.” Thus, the terms used only represent their true meanings only when they are placed next to other terms somehow related to each other and since, “in language there are only differences,” and no two things are the same.
What Derrida tells us is that the concept of the Prius only exists due to other pre-existing chains of concepts “by the systematic play of differences,” i.e. vs. pick-ups and other cars. De Saussure said that “language is a set of interdependent terms that derive their meanings from the simultaneous presence of other terms.” Thus, the terms used only represent their true meanings only when they are placed next to other terms somehow related to each other and since, “in language there are only differences,” and no two things are the same.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Brookes77, Jaques Derrida
“Within a language, within the system of language there are only differences. A taxonomic operation can accordingly undertake its systematic, statistical, and classificatory inventory…these differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language and speech” (129). This quote from Jaques Derrida was part of the reading that really stuck out to me. Derrida’s reading relates much to what we learned before the first exam from Macherey and De Saussure about signs and language. From what I understood to me he was talking about how everywhere, for everyone language is different. Certain words, and signs mean different things in every culture and language, this notion of “difference” can not be defined because what is different, everything is different to somebody. Although then Derrida goes on saying that the notion of “difference” did not just suddenly appear out of thin air, that it had to be produced somewhere, and then goes on explaining that “difference” can be broken down and cause effects, such as emotions, views, etc. This reading also made me think of Hebdige and his notion of sameness. Hedbige talked about how we either other new trends, ideas, and classify them as exoticism them or make them normal. I think that this can be related with some of what Derrida is explaining how there really is no difference, or being different because our culture normalizes something that is at first “different” that may cause effects ( may make peoples heads turn at first), yet then we give acceptance or we make it avant guard, which in a way is normalizing something by bringing up, and giving it attention, which eventually makes this thing not as “different” anymore,; even though it is not a trend, it is still known. So I do agree, that one can not state: “What differs? Who Differs? What is Difference” (130) because “difference” can not be classified like thing it must be broken down into a cycle. “ … the system of differences, or at least to the general law of difference, by conforming to that law of language which Saussure calls ‘ language without speech” (130) This sentence summarized what I was saying above, how basically how we think that others in other languages are different, and the other people believe we are different, making this language of differences on both sides normal. These thoughts about each different languages causes effects, representations, stereotypes, yet it is the same everywhere.
Rico72, Foucault
Foucault compares a more modern Panopticon to the way a town would handle a plague out break. There is one part where he shows how they differ from one another that relates to our society today. "In the first case [plague stricken town], there is an exceptional situation: against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized; it makes itself everywhere present and visible; it invents new mechanisms; it separates, it immobilizes, it partitions; it constructs for a time what is both a counter-city and the perfect society; it imposes an ideal functioning, but one that is reduced, in the final analysis, like the evil that it combats, to a simple dualism of life and death" (99).
This whole section reminded me of 9/11 and the U.S.A. in the following weeks. There was an "exceptional situation" we were faced with and the government quickly mobilized to keep order. Our society was changed forever when this happened. Every day on the news we would hear about a new terrorist threat level and given tips on how to survive certain attacks. I remember seeing American flags every where in the weeks following the attack. This rush of nationalism allowed us to get caught in a war. This also led to the "lock down" of America which leads to the Panopticon.
"It is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form; its functioning, abstracted from any obstacle, resistance or friction, must be represented as a pure architectural and optical system: it is in fact a figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use" (99).
This can be related to all the new "security" and other technology that was developed after 9/11. As technology gets better and better it becomes easier for governments to see what people are doing. The "terror threat level" tells us when we should be prepared for an attack. This puts us in fear and we look to the government to tell us what to do. This is how we were/are controlled, by a color. If you challenged this system or the government, you could be considered a terrorist. If you caused enough trouble you could be arrested and held in prison with out trial. You can be traced through your phone, car, computer, and online interactions.
Although Foucault points out that the plague came hundreds of years before the Panopticon, I think you can still see that progression from our recent history. The difference is, the "plague" struck and the "Panopticon" came much sooner. Although this is just looking at one incident, it shows how the Panopticon comes from an "exceptional" situation.
Technology is just forcing us to become part of the Panopticon. The problem is we all have this ideology that technology will help us (which it can). However, as we have seen with oil, over-dependence never leads to anything good.
This whole section reminded me of 9/11 and the U.S.A. in the following weeks. There was an "exceptional situation" we were faced with and the government quickly mobilized to keep order. Our society was changed forever when this happened. Every day on the news we would hear about a new terrorist threat level and given tips on how to survive certain attacks. I remember seeing American flags every where in the weeks following the attack. This rush of nationalism allowed us to get caught in a war. This also led to the "lock down" of America which leads to the Panopticon.
"It is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form; its functioning, abstracted from any obstacle, resistance or friction, must be represented as a pure architectural and optical system: it is in fact a figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use" (99).
This can be related to all the new "security" and other technology that was developed after 9/11. As technology gets better and better it becomes easier for governments to see what people are doing. The "terror threat level" tells us when we should be prepared for an attack. This puts us in fear and we look to the government to tell us what to do. This is how we were/are controlled, by a color. If you challenged this system or the government, you could be considered a terrorist. If you caused enough trouble you could be arrested and held in prison with out trial. You can be traced through your phone, car, computer, and online interactions.
Although Foucault points out that the plague came hundreds of years before the Panopticon, I think you can still see that progression from our recent history. The difference is, the "plague" struck and the "Panopticon" came much sooner. Although this is just looking at one incident, it shows how the Panopticon comes from an "exceptional" situation.
Technology is just forcing us to become part of the Panopticon. The problem is we all have this ideology that technology will help us (which it can). However, as we have seen with oil, over-dependence never leads to anything good.
LightningBolt, Derrida
“The first consequence to be drawn from this is that the signified concept is never present in itself, in an adequate presence that would refer only to itself. Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences” (127).
While digesting Derrida’s writing I found myself injecting myself into situations that I could compare to his thoughts. While reading this quote I pictured myself in different situations where I came in contact with a concept, image, or text. For example seeing an advertisement for milk seems like something that everyone would interpret in the same way. As Derrida explains the advertisement can never refer to just itself. When I see the advertisement my mind can not help but to draw connections to previous experiences I have had with milk or similar milk ads. There is no way for my mind to forget these previous thoughts or stop my mind from connecting them with the current image. A different person who is looking at the same image will have their own chain of thoughts and connections being made in their mind. We may both associate the milk with warm cookies that our mom made when we were little; however, there is no way that our entire chain of connections could be exactly the same. As Derrida states earlier in his piece:
“We provisionally give the name difference to this sameness which is not identical” (120).
While I could easily be having a similar chain of thoughts while I look at the milk advertisement it is impossible that it will be identical to anyone else. As Derrida explains I will not know how different our thoughts actually are. Attempting to put myself in the position of the other person I will need to rely on the similarities in our thoughts.
While digesting Derrida’s writing I found myself injecting myself into situations that I could compare to his thoughts. While reading this quote I pictured myself in different situations where I came in contact with a concept, image, or text. For example seeing an advertisement for milk seems like something that everyone would interpret in the same way. As Derrida explains the advertisement can never refer to just itself. When I see the advertisement my mind can not help but to draw connections to previous experiences I have had with milk or similar milk ads. There is no way for my mind to forget these previous thoughts or stop my mind from connecting them with the current image. A different person who is looking at the same image will have their own chain of thoughts and connections being made in their mind. We may both associate the milk with warm cookies that our mom made when we were little; however, there is no way that our entire chain of connections could be exactly the same. As Derrida states earlier in his piece:
“We provisionally give the name difference to this sameness which is not identical” (120).
While I could easily be having a similar chain of thoughts while I look at the milk advertisement it is impossible that it will be identical to anyone else. As Derrida explains I will not know how different our thoughts actually are. Attempting to put myself in the position of the other person I will need to rely on the similarities in our thoughts.
JLO63O, 4/12
I think the discussion we had in class on Thursday got a lot of us thinking about our K-12 education. Dr. Casey put this (initially wordy) quote in perspective, “The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforces the mechanisms I have described” (336). Taking our K-12 education in account, there was no required class about media, media constructs, and/or propaganda. What Bourdieu argues is that there should be because these media constructs have huge influences over our lives and the way we live them. In K-12 we are required to take math, history, English and science courses. I wouldn’t argue against any of these courses, after all I do go to a liberal arts college, but I would say that none of these required fields apply directly to our daily lives. Chomsky says that the mass media “inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures or the larger society.” Doesn’t this sound a lot like what schools do? We can then say that the mass media inculcates values in our schooling as well, so the question reemerges, why are there no required class in K-12 that address these pressing influences. Perhaps because they’re ideological, and ideology is profoundly unconscious – Althusser.
Scorpio, Foucault
Foucault writes much like George Orwell. He is seemingly depressive with his insightful views, however leaves a reader gasping for security in the world described. He labels the world as a panopticon, which establishes that we are trapped or buried like the dead. Foucault states, “The panopticon mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately”. In the Orwellian context, this theory is applied in the book 1984. Although personally, I wasn’t the most enthused reader of my ninth grade English class during this novel, I was intrigued by the notion of a world where, “Big Brother” was always watching.
Foucault also states that panoption can “induce the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”. The characters of 1984 displayed this notion perfectly in their everyday lives, where nobody questioned the government or the ideology. Orwell himself believed the usage of surveillance could lead to this type of society where democracy ceases to stand up to public policy.
This type of shift toward society is seen everywhere. From traffic light cameras, GPS navigation systems, to cell-phone tracking, we see surveillance of ourselves in the world and think nothing of it. Ever GoogleMap-ed yourself? Foucault questions that we may have reached a point in time when viewing our house from space is deemed as normal, not “Big Brother”-like. I argue that while we use technology to advance our society, we might be limiting our privacy rights.
Foucault also states that panoption can “induce the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”. The characters of 1984 displayed this notion perfectly in their everyday lives, where nobody questioned the government or the ideology. Orwell himself believed the usage of surveillance could lead to this type of society where democracy ceases to stand up to public policy.
This type of shift toward society is seen everywhere. From traffic light cameras, GPS navigation systems, to cell-phone tracking, we see surveillance of ourselves in the world and think nothing of it. Ever GoogleMap-ed yourself? Foucault questions that we may have reached a point in time when viewing our house from space is deemed as normal, not “Big Brother”-like. I argue that while we use technology to advance our society, we might be limiting our privacy rights.
aro0823, foucalt
“Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchanged, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power; it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies” (101).
The Foucalt quotation I chose, assumedly the longest one in the reading, connects to almost all of our theorists from CMC 300, and even from some in CMC 100. To begin, the first clause directly contradicts a theorist we discussed in CMC 100, Guy Debord. Debord argued that we live in a “society of the spectacle.” Debord’s argument was based in contemporary Marxism: obsession with the spectacle, materialism, and commodity fetishism has replaced anything of actual significance. Debord argues that our society functions on images; there is no depth to it.
To continue, the next section which focuses around the circuits of communication and centralization of knowledge, relates to Marx and Althusser’s notions of ideology and its hegemonic producers. Because, as Chomsky would argue, “mass media inculcates individuals… into the institutional structures,” the ISAs and RSAs are able to achieve methods of surveillance by controlling the methods of ideology. They “carefully fabricate” individuals into the framework of ideology so subtly that no one consciously realizes they are living within it. Various “forces and bodies” from all directions work together to interpolated the population.
Macherey, de Saussure, and Barthes’ concepts of intertextuality, signs, and signifiers are all applicable because it is this “play of signs [which] defines the anchorages of power.” The situation of various semiotic structures in modern discourse leads the populace to unquestionably obey the status quo. Thus, the quotation enumerates the conflicting zone we are in between modernism and postmodernism. There is a constant pull between totality and the individual. We want neither a society where the public sphere and private sphere are completely intersected, nor one where they are completely polarized. Foucalt discusses a world of the former, where the government has full access to each individual’s private life. The passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11 brought about some of that, and it will be interesting to see where the Obama administration takes our society in terms of surveillance and security.
The Foucalt quotation I chose, assumedly the longest one in the reading, connects to almost all of our theorists from CMC 300, and even from some in CMC 100. To begin, the first clause directly contradicts a theorist we discussed in CMC 100, Guy Debord. Debord argued that we live in a “society of the spectacle.” Debord’s argument was based in contemporary Marxism: obsession with the spectacle, materialism, and commodity fetishism has replaced anything of actual significance. Debord argues that our society functions on images; there is no depth to it.
To continue, the next section which focuses around the circuits of communication and centralization of knowledge, relates to Marx and Althusser’s notions of ideology and its hegemonic producers. Because, as Chomsky would argue, “mass media inculcates individuals… into the institutional structures,” the ISAs and RSAs are able to achieve methods of surveillance by controlling the methods of ideology. They “carefully fabricate” individuals into the framework of ideology so subtly that no one consciously realizes they are living within it. Various “forces and bodies” from all directions work together to interpolated the population.
Macherey, de Saussure, and Barthes’ concepts of intertextuality, signs, and signifiers are all applicable because it is this “play of signs [which] defines the anchorages of power.” The situation of various semiotic structures in modern discourse leads the populace to unquestionably obey the status quo. Thus, the quotation enumerates the conflicting zone we are in between modernism and postmodernism. There is a constant pull between totality and the individual. We want neither a society where the public sphere and private sphere are completely intersected, nor one where they are completely polarized. Foucalt discusses a world of the former, where the government has full access to each individual’s private life. The passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11 brought about some of that, and it will be interesting to see where the Obama administration takes our society in terms of surveillance and security.
dmariel, Foucault
When reading through Foucault, I was startled by the way he discusses such serious and depressing matters. The sentence that I found to be most powerful is “The plague-stricken town, traversed throughout hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in a distinct way over all individual bodies-this is the utopia of the perfectly governed city”. He states that rulers dreamt for this type of plague-like condition in which to exercise their disciplinary power. I cannot imagine any place functioning properly in the way that he describes. The amount of power that he discusses seems sickening and unrealistic to me.
I remember learning about the panopticon in my International Media class last semester. One thing that I do recall is that many prisons used this exact design to keep their prisoners in line. “The panopticon mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately”. Foucault states that in the case of the panopticon, visibility is a trap. I believe that the fact that each prisoner knows that he is constantly being watched is the most effective part. The older concept, the dungeon, would hide the prisoner and deprive them of light. But, “Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness”..The prisoner can be seen, but he cannot see himself what is watching him. “He is the object of information, never a subject in communication”. All in all, the panopticon functions to “induce the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”.
The panopticon design reminds me of the new idea in the 20th century that with so much technology, we are constantly being watched. At any time or place, we may think that we are alone, making a private phone call or watching TV, but someone or something always knows exactly what you are doing. Are all of these new technologies being invented to watch over humanity like a panopticon? “The panopticon...must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men..”. Foucault states that the panopticon is not necessarily a building, but a political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use. Therefore, I would agree that our society is no longer one of spectacle, but one of surveillance.
I remember learning about the panopticon in my International Media class last semester. One thing that I do recall is that many prisons used this exact design to keep their prisoners in line. “The panopticon mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately”. Foucault states that in the case of the panopticon, visibility is a trap. I believe that the fact that each prisoner knows that he is constantly being watched is the most effective part. The older concept, the dungeon, would hide the prisoner and deprive them of light. But, “Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness”..The prisoner can be seen, but he cannot see himself what is watching him. “He is the object of information, never a subject in communication”. All in all, the panopticon functions to “induce the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”.
The panopticon design reminds me of the new idea in the 20th century that with so much technology, we are constantly being watched. At any time or place, we may think that we are alone, making a private phone call or watching TV, but someone or something always knows exactly what you are doing. Are all of these new technologies being invented to watch over humanity like a panopticon? “The panopticon...must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men..”. Foucault states that the panopticon is not necessarily a building, but a political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use. Therefore, I would agree that our society is no longer one of spectacle, but one of surveillance.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
CMCstudent, 4/12
This is so very true. I have a MySpace account that I opened up in high school. Back them it was a site for me to connect with my friends. Once in a while I still go back and check my account. Instead of having requests from friends, I am constantly having requests from businesses, or event invites from promotional companies to events in the Orlando area. Just in the past few years’ internet sites like these have gone from direct interaction of person to person to interaction where a company can seek a person and the two can talk back and forth. My MySpace now has photographers, promoters, clothing designers, and my friends. It has become a social network, so much that I switched from MySpace to facebook about a year ago. Again the wonders of the internet and the “cult of the new”.
After taking all these CMC courses I have learned that news media can be very bias, and I do not even waste my time watching TV news anymore. The internet makes it so convenient to check out multiple websites and see their views in the same time one would do so waiting for the nightly news to come on and going through commercials. The internet also opens us to an outlet of news beside the U.S. tendencies to where one can see what the entire world is thinking about an event. Many times there are blogs or places to e-mail if you want to comment or have concern. This again really takes it from a one way media to a two way media in which both parties are interacting.
After taking all these CMC courses I have learned that news media can be very bias, and I do not even waste my time watching TV news anymore. The internet makes it so convenient to check out multiple websites and see their views in the same time one would do so waiting for the nightly news to come on and going through commercials. The internet also opens us to an outlet of news beside the U.S. tendencies to where one can see what the entire world is thinking about an event. Many times there are blogs or places to e-mail if you want to comment or have concern. This again really takes it from a one way media to a two way media in which both parties are interacting.
Marie89, 4/12
In class on Thursday, I found it interesting when we discussed the fact that TV cannot give us a sense of immediacy anymore. It is strange that we now rely on so many modes of communication and that when one fails to give us exactly what we need when we need it, we turn to another immediately, yet annoyed. I also find it interesting that when one speaks of “media,” television is not the first thing that pops into my head, but rather the internet is my immediate reaction. The internet has become a more hands-on mode of information sharing as it allows for one to find exactly what he or she wants when he or she wants it rather than waiting for a certain news section, etc. The internet also allows for one to insert his or her opinion as blogs, chat rooms, and comment boxes have begun to take over the internet. The internet seems to provide us with less bias, more freedom, and more efficient information sharing than television ever could. It is also interesting the pace at which new technologies get invented as we are never satisfied as a culture with certain aspects that do not provide us with immediate responses, etc. The TV is a relatively new invention yet it had already begun to be replaced by youtube.com, hulu.com, on-demand Netflix, and a variety of other modes of watching television shows without a television. Another aspect of class that I found interesting was the idea of a knowledge leading to freedom from ideology. I do not believe that once we are knowledgeable about being within ideology that we may escape it, but rather we have become aware of its manipulation. Therefore, we are eternally stuck within ideology, but realize that we are in fact stuck and we usually just accept it rather than moving outside of it.
spaghetti, 4/12
in class on thursday, we talked about celebrity figures in the media and their perceived credibility. I was brought back to the notion of how everyone is a critic. With the internet and its accessibility, anyone and everyone can be an expert on any topic. Expertise is measured now not by education and experience, it is measured by presence. Like we said earlier in class, someone is considered an expert if he or she has not only a tv show, but also a book, blog, etc. I remembered what Dr. Casey said about making an experiment out of the displays in borders. I was in borders the other day, looking for a birthday present for my mom and i noticed that i went straight to the books on display on the tables at the front. A lot of those books on the tables in the front were not from authors i had heard of before, yet i still stopped to look at them. This got me to thinking--not only is expertise a product of the individual's media presence, but it is also something that is fueled by the larger conglomerates. They tell us whose news channel to go to, or whose book to read by positioning. Everything is rooted in advertising. Even if we still know something is an ad, if a product is presented to us then we are aware of its existence. Therefore, it exists in our subconscious until we decide that we need what that product is selling. Therefore, the expert's credibility is not only reliant upon his or her media presence, but his or her acceptance and endorsement from larger super conglomerates.
thestig, 04/12
“The failure of critical thinkers and organizations charged with articulating the interests of dominated individuals to think clearly about this problem only reinforces the mechanisms I have described.” (336)
I thought our class discussion on this quote was so interesting: All of these forces in society say we cannot teach kids about television. TV is TV, and that’s that. A positivist would say it isn’t an appropriate object to study. However, a critical theorist would argue that this is ideology is the very notion that keeps perpetuating the malaise of today’s media and influence that it has on the consumers. The issue is that people don’t have the critical tools to analyze the propaganda models used in today’s media, and the impact it has on our society.
What sort of undertaking would this be if we were to answer Bourdieu’s call for instilling our kids with the tools for analyzing today’s media? It seems like this would be an incredible undertaking. We live in a world where every day, there are new technologies developed and new concepts to reaching the audience, both of which, s Bourdieu would argue, seem so natural in society. So it would be a real challenge to pick out all of the mechanisms that should be studied. And wouldn’t the capitalist alter the mechanisms if the masses were studying their persuasion techniques? Sine the media companies in this country are privately held, they have to generate profits for their owners, and would be obligated to find knew ways to combat the studies of media.
In order to really solve this problem, I think it would be important to build an infrastructure within the agenda of education and media which is healthy and balanced so children can learn the mechanisms. I think this would require a combined effort from both the media companies and the education system. The media companies would need to agree on making children’s programming that is focused on media itself, i.e. shows kids could understand that are focused on showing the point and counter point.
I thought our class discussion on this quote was so interesting: All of these forces in society say we cannot teach kids about television. TV is TV, and that’s that. A positivist would say it isn’t an appropriate object to study. However, a critical theorist would argue that this is ideology is the very notion that keeps perpetuating the malaise of today’s media and influence that it has on the consumers. The issue is that people don’t have the critical tools to analyze the propaganda models used in today’s media, and the impact it has on our society.
What sort of undertaking would this be if we were to answer Bourdieu’s call for instilling our kids with the tools for analyzing today’s media? It seems like this would be an incredible undertaking. We live in a world where every day, there are new technologies developed and new concepts to reaching the audience, both of which, s Bourdieu would argue, seem so natural in society. So it would be a real challenge to pick out all of the mechanisms that should be studied. And wouldn’t the capitalist alter the mechanisms if the masses were studying their persuasion techniques? Sine the media companies in this country are privately held, they have to generate profits for their owners, and would be obligated to find knew ways to combat the studies of media.
In order to really solve this problem, I think it would be important to build an infrastructure within the agenda of education and media which is healthy and balanced so children can learn the mechanisms. I think this would require a combined effort from both the media companies and the education system. The media companies would need to agree on making children’s programming that is focused on media itself, i.e. shows kids could understand that are focused on showing the point and counter point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)