I enjoyed our discussion on the advertisements that were displayed in Tuesday’s power point. In the past, I’ve had trouble identifying why an advertisement, like the Hermes and Benaton ads, are successful, but our discussion on Hook’s analyses of the Other cleared up the reason to why such “exotic” ads work. I think this relates to many theorists, but most notably DeSaussure and Barthes. DeSaussure says that we only know what a thing is not. When we are exposed to ads that are glamorous, unique, and ideal, then clearly the product not going to be “trashy.” There is an advertisement for Brieghtling watches in almost any magazine whose demographic is for wealthy individuals. The ads depict a beautiful single prop plane that is basking in the sun. In the foreground, the ideal male walks towards the camera wearing a fancy flight suite, or has a sports jacket flung over his shoulder. The watches are designed for aviation, but if the company only sold watches to people who fly, they would be out of business. What does this ad do? It tells you that the situation presented is not going to be disappointed: it’s so perfect, how could it provide anything less than an outstanding experience?
This concept also relates to Barthes because advertisements give the reader the opportunity to fill the in the gap. So we’re exposed to this Brightling watch advertisement, and we immediately start day dreaming of how wonderful life would be if you were about to get into this beautiful plane, and just fly off into the sunset. Life is but a dream, right?
These exotic ads work because they are participatory. My opinion of advertising in modern society is that everything has to be interactive if it’s expected to sell. Even though many of us are passive, we don’t like to think we are: we want to believe that we have a choice and are in control; we like when we are presented with options. Apple Inc. figured this out about seven years ago when they introduced the iMac lineup in four colors. Since then, they’ve released iPods, iPhones, and MacBooks in colors that will suite YOUR desire. The ads displayed in class are participatory because the viewer extends him/herself into the text and dreams of what life would be like with the product advertised. And this can happen even if the only real product in the advertisement being sold is the brand or name of the company advertising.
Here is a Breigtling ad with John Travolta, their ace:
http://i8mywatch.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/ad_062.jpg
Saturday, April 25, 2009
I enjoyed our discussion on the advertisements that were displayed in Tuesday’s power point. In the past, I’ve had trouble identifying why an advertisement, like the Hermes and Benaton ads, are successful, but our discussion on Hook’s analyses of the Other cleared up the reason to why such “exotic” ads work. I think this relates to many theorists, but most notably DeSaussure and Barthes. DeSaussure says that we only know what a thing is not. When we are exposed to ads that are glamorous, unique, and ideal, then clearly the product not going to be “trashy.” There is an advertisement for Brieghtling watches in almost any magazine whose demographic is for wealthy individuals. The ads depict a beautiful single prop plane that is basking in the sun. In the foreground, the ideal male walks towards the camera wearing a fancy flight suite, or has a sports jacket flung over his shoulder. The watches are designed for aviation, but if the company only sold watches to people who fly, they would be out of business. What does this ad do? It tells you that the situation presented is not going to be disappointed: it’s so perfect, how could it provide anything less than an outstanding experience?
This concept also relates to Barthes because advertisements give the reader the opportunity to fill the in the gap. So we’re exposed to this Brightling watch advertisement, and we immediately start day dreaming of how wonderful life would be if you were about to get into this beautiful plane, and just fly off into the sunset. Life is but a dream, right?
These exotic ads work because they are participatory. My opinion of advertising in modern society is that everything has to be interactive if it’s expected to sell. Even though many of us are passive, we don’t like to think we are: we want to believe that we have a choice and are in control; we like when we are presented with options. Apple Inc. figured this out about seven years ago when they introduced the iMac lineup in four colors. Since then, they’ve released iPods, iPhones, and MacBooks in colors that will suite YOUR desire. The ads displayed in class are participatory because the viewer extends him/herself into the text and dreams of what life would be like with the product advertised. And this can happen even if the only real product in the advertisement being sold is the brand or name of the company advertising.
Here is a Breigtling ad with John Travolta, their ace:
http://i8mywatch.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/ad_062.jpg
This concept also relates to Barthes because advertisements give the reader the opportunity to fill the in the gap. So we’re exposed to this Brightling watch advertisement, and we immediately start day dreaming of how wonderful life would be if you were about to get into this beautiful plane, and just fly off into the sunset. Life is but a dream, right?
These exotic ads work because they are participatory. My opinion of advertising in modern society is that everything has to be interactive if it’s expected to sell. Even though many of us are passive, we don’t like to think we are: we want to believe that we have a choice and are in control; we like when we are presented with options. Apple Inc. figured this out about seven years ago when they introduced the iMac lineup in four colors. Since then, they’ve released iPods, iPhones, and MacBooks in colors that will suite YOUR desire. The ads displayed in class are participatory because the viewer extends him/herself into the text and dreams of what life would be like with the product advertised. And this can happen even if the only real product in the advertisement being sold is the brand or name of the company advertising.
Here is a Breigtling ad with John Travolta, their ace:
http://i8mywatch.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/ad_062.jpg
aro0823, 4-25
Upon critically investigating the Benetton ad campaign, I have come to several mixed conclusions about the meaning behind their advertising strategy. I believe that the messages are purposefully double coded; they simultaneously celebrate and commodify difference. By putting together such blatantly different skin colors in a single frame, it acknowledges that Benetton is a progressive company that unites people of all races. In this respect, Benetton doesn’t seem to care about “otherness.” The ads prove that one of the most internationally successful clothing companies markets to a wide and all encompassed demographic.
However, such an act also magnifies differences, and serves to incorporate people of different races into an ad just to make a profit and reach out to a broader demographic. Thus, in terms of hooks, the ad is a "mutual recognition of racism" (371). Hooks continues by saying that "sophisticated marketing surveys reveal the extent to which people of all races consume products" and "these markets can be appealed to by advertising" (371). In this day and age, we as a society should theoretically be understanding enough to be accepting of all people and do not need ads to encourage this acceptance.
Continued research on the inclusion of multiracial models in advertisements is necessary to determine if marginalized groups feel included or commodified. Unfortunately, historically marginalized groups will accept any media inclusion as positive and ignore the associated negative factors. Though, in my opinion, the most effective way to change this and return dignity and respect to minorities is to include them in many forms of media. Then, once their inclusion is normalized, they can begin to form oppositional readings and understand the marketing stereotypes. Until that point, the “commodification of difference will continue,” and society will move backward instead of forward toward becoming a united race of humans (373).
However, such an act also magnifies differences, and serves to incorporate people of different races into an ad just to make a profit and reach out to a broader demographic. Thus, in terms of hooks, the ad is a "mutual recognition of racism" (371). Hooks continues by saying that "sophisticated marketing surveys reveal the extent to which people of all races consume products" and "these markets can be appealed to by advertising" (371). In this day and age, we as a society should theoretically be understanding enough to be accepting of all people and do not need ads to encourage this acceptance.
Continued research on the inclusion of multiracial models in advertisements is necessary to determine if marginalized groups feel included or commodified. Unfortunately, historically marginalized groups will accept any media inclusion as positive and ignore the associated negative factors. Though, in my opinion, the most effective way to change this and return dignity and respect to minorities is to include them in many forms of media. Then, once their inclusion is normalized, they can begin to form oppositional readings and understand the marketing stereotypes. Until that point, the “commodification of difference will continue,” and society will move backward instead of forward toward becoming a united race of humans (373).
Rubber Soul, 4/25
Our culture is so consumer oriented that if everyone in the world consumed at the rate Americans do we would need 5 worlds. Dr. Rog made the comment that people in the East sit in front of Buddha to find spiritual peace, but the Westerners idea of accomplishing spiritual peace involves going to the store and buying a Buddha. This just goes to show how Western society longs for pleasure through an exotic lense, yet our idea of the Other is merely a commodified version. Something easily bought and sold, like a website for ordering exotic brides. We've gone as far as commodifying human beings, and if we can ignore the fact that people are more than objects of lust, then where does it end? Our imperialistic visions have become so narrowly focused that we've resorted to conquering bodies of people just like we conquer land and bodies of water. Sexual domination over a person of a different ethnicity is viewed as erotic and getting in touch with your more primitive sense of being. The stigma is that the "Others" are more primitive than the mainstream "white bread" Western culture. We think that they are more in tune with their basic desires, and that sexual pleasure is at a more heightened level. Just today I had a discussion about the AIDS crisis in Africa. Someone said that AIDS is so rampant there because the people are so primitive and the disease spreads quicker because Africans are more sexually active. While I don't know the statistics on that particular topic, I argued that there was more to the story than that. AIDS awareness and safe sexual practices are not being taught enough over there. Dismissing the AIDS issue as a cause of Africans being highly sexual does not explain the reality of the situation. We need to consider human beings as equals rather than thinking of Others as being more or less animalistic.
000ooo000ooo Cixous
I had a very difficult time understanding what Cixous was getting at. She seemed to go back and forth between a few paradoxical ideas. She begins with her idea of woman as bisexual. For Cixous, bisexual means accepting both sexes within oneself. It is not a meshing of two different sexes into an asexual being, but the coming out of two separate sexes. She claims that only woman is able to do this because man could never accept any part of woman in him. One of the biggest problems I have with this idea is that throughout the entire essay, she never mentions any good traits of "masculinity". Why would woman want both sexes if one of them was so defficient? Another problem I have is Cixous' perpetuation of binary oppositions. Although she is changing them from their culturally accepted forms, she still creates oppositions and generalized differences. Barthes, Althusser, and Derrida have all warned us of the dangers and fallacies behind binary oppositions. Even Cixous seems to deny their legitimacy at the beginning of her piece. However, I read her piece as having many of these oppositions within it.
She is constantly referring to "we" (women) and "them" (men). I don't think this split needs to exist and I don't think she is going to help society progress by pressing this split. One example of this can be found on page 164. Cixous explains a womans voice by saying: "And that is how she writes, as one throws a voice - forward, into the void. She goes away, she goes forward, doesn't turn back to look at her tracks. Pays no attention to herself. Running breakneck. Contrary to the self-absorbed, masculine narcissism, making sure of its image, of being seen, of seeing itself, of assembling its glories, pocketing itself again.... he needs to love himself. But she launches forth; seeks to love." If Cixous was writing in terms of just "masculine" and "feminine" I would be okay with such pointed generalizations. However, she uses masculinity and femininity synonymously with man/woman, he/she, and other words that imply a biological difference instead of a social construction. Cixous is making generalizations and separating men and women on a biological basis that I don't think she has the right to do. Many men can write just as selflessly as many women - neither is any more adept at this than the other.
I do not mean to sound like I don't believe any of what Cixous is saying, or that she doesn't have numerous valid points and an important message as a whole. However, I think that too many of her passages are too generalized and debatable, without any real world evidence to back them up, to sway anyone's opinion that didn't already agree with her. For example on page 162 she writes: "Listen to woman speak in a gathering (if she is not painfully out of breathe): she doesn't 'speak,' she throws her trembling body into the air, she lets herself go, she flies, she goes completely into her voice, she vitally defends the 'logic' of her discourse with her body; her flesh speaks true." This is a beautifully vivid and description of a woman talking in public. However, I have heard numerous females speaking in public and they don't all bring this image to my head. For every female speaker who can inspire you with what she says, there will inevitably be one who makes you fall asleep. The same holds true for male speakers.
She is constantly referring to "we" (women) and "them" (men). I don't think this split needs to exist and I don't think she is going to help society progress by pressing this split. One example of this can be found on page 164. Cixous explains a womans voice by saying: "And that is how she writes, as one throws a voice - forward, into the void. She goes away, she goes forward, doesn't turn back to look at her tracks. Pays no attention to herself. Running breakneck. Contrary to the self-absorbed, masculine narcissism, making sure of its image, of being seen, of seeing itself, of assembling its glories, pocketing itself again.... he needs to love himself. But she launches forth; seeks to love." If Cixous was writing in terms of just "masculine" and "feminine" I would be okay with such pointed generalizations. However, she uses masculinity and femininity synonymously with man/woman, he/she, and other words that imply a biological difference instead of a social construction. Cixous is making generalizations and separating men and women on a biological basis that I don't think she has the right to do. Many men can write just as selflessly as many women - neither is any more adept at this than the other.
I do not mean to sound like I don't believe any of what Cixous is saying, or that she doesn't have numerous valid points and an important message as a whole. However, I think that too many of her passages are too generalized and debatable, without any real world evidence to back them up, to sway anyone's opinion that didn't already agree with her. For example on page 162 she writes: "Listen to woman speak in a gathering (if she is not painfully out of breathe): she doesn't 'speak,' she throws her trembling body into the air, she lets herself go, she flies, she goes completely into her voice, she vitally defends the 'logic' of her discourse with her body; her flesh speaks true." This is a beautifully vivid and description of a woman talking in public. However, I have heard numerous females speaking in public and they don't all bring this image to my head. For every female speaker who can inspire you with what she says, there will inevitably be one who makes you fall asleep. The same holds true for male speakers.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Happy Birthday!, 4/24
“It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of otherness finds expression” (370)
After talking about bell hooks more in detail, I found this quote to be most thought-provoking. This quote is talking about advertisements and the different techniques within advertising. For example, products nowadays are not sold on their individual properties and characteristics. Instead, advertisements cut down other products, or cleverly suggest their product is better than the other by using some catchy phrase or slogan. Advertising companies started advertising products because people started to encounter mass-produced products and needed to be convinced as to why they should buy a particular product over the other. The most frequently used caption in advertisements I see on television are "...is better than the leading brand". This can sway an audience members perception of what he or she should actually buy. Often advertisements will endorse a celebrity or athlete to represent their product in order to gain popularity as well and to create a larger fan base. For example, if teenagers saw a popular singer advertising for a new clothing brand, the chances of that brands income increasing is very high.
bell hooks suggests that our culture is extremely focused on “the other". She says in we study it, consume it, exoticize it, and ultimately commodify it. In today’s culture, we constantly consume and engage in things that are considered “the other” even if it may be offensive (to some). Sometimes I do not even pick up on this "othering" in t.v. shows, movies, advertisements, and any other form of media until i study it for a long while. This is what CMC has taught me. If you study something critically, you are bound to uncover a meaning behind what is being shown to the public. bell hooks was very interesting to learn about and is very prevalently seen in today's culture and society.
After talking about bell hooks more in detail, I found this quote to be most thought-provoking. This quote is talking about advertisements and the different techniques within advertising. For example, products nowadays are not sold on their individual properties and characteristics. Instead, advertisements cut down other products, or cleverly suggest their product is better than the other by using some catchy phrase or slogan. Advertising companies started advertising products because people started to encounter mass-produced products and needed to be convinced as to why they should buy a particular product over the other. The most frequently used caption in advertisements I see on television are "...is better than the leading brand". This can sway an audience members perception of what he or she should actually buy. Often advertisements will endorse a celebrity or athlete to represent their product in order to gain popularity as well and to create a larger fan base. For example, if teenagers saw a popular singer advertising for a new clothing brand, the chances of that brands income increasing is very high.
bell hooks suggests that our culture is extremely focused on “the other". She says in we study it, consume it, exoticize it, and ultimately commodify it. In today’s culture, we constantly consume and engage in things that are considered “the other” even if it may be offensive (to some). Sometimes I do not even pick up on this "othering" in t.v. shows, movies, advertisements, and any other form of media until i study it for a long while. This is what CMC has taught me. If you study something critically, you are bound to uncover a meaning behind what is being shown to the public. bell hooks was very interesting to learn about and is very prevalently seen in today's culture and society.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Juice15, hooks
“…can be manipulated by cultural strategies that offer Otherness as appeasement, particularly through commodification” (hooks 368). I feel that this quote sums up the reading from a marketing and advertising point of view. Today more and more others are taking up places in these advertisements while the thought of white, skinny blond girls are falling by the way side.
Our culture today was described as “the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (hooks 366). This is why many advertisers are using the other and otherness in their advertisements. From the white culture seeing the other in advertisements pleasure can be found in the acknowledgment and enjoyment of seeing racial difference. When this is seen it is said to often bring unconscious fantasies about the other. Most of these fantasies relate to sex. This is used to let the white innocence be put behind and let people enter a new world of experience. Foucault made me feel that advertisers do this to try and let people find a more intense form of pleasure. This can be done by the visual of the advertisement of the text that might be on the advertisement. The whole idea of grabbing the viewer’s attention by using otherness and evoking some sort of emotional response is what I feel the advertisers are trying to accomplish with this.
From the other side this article mentioned how market surveys show how certain products consumed by other races fold out. These companies can then add more advertisements with that race in there to relate to them more. The example of Pepsi was used in the reading. A lot of clothing companies are turning to this as well as using a crossover of races to appeal to a broader audience. Overall I feel that is use of otherness is becoming more and more prominent and before too long will not be seen as something out of the ordinary.
Our culture today was described as “the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (hooks 366). This is why many advertisers are using the other and otherness in their advertisements. From the white culture seeing the other in advertisements pleasure can be found in the acknowledgment and enjoyment of seeing racial difference. When this is seen it is said to often bring unconscious fantasies about the other. Most of these fantasies relate to sex. This is used to let the white innocence be put behind and let people enter a new world of experience. Foucault made me feel that advertisers do this to try and let people find a more intense form of pleasure. This can be done by the visual of the advertisement of the text that might be on the advertisement. The whole idea of grabbing the viewer’s attention by using otherness and evoking some sort of emotional response is what I feel the advertisers are trying to accomplish with this.
From the other side this article mentioned how market surveys show how certain products consumed by other races fold out. These companies can then add more advertisements with that race in there to relate to them more. The example of Pepsi was used in the reading. A lot of clothing companies are turning to this as well as using a crossover of races to appeal to a broader audience. Overall I feel that is use of otherness is becoming more and more prominent and before too long will not be seen as something out of the ordinary.
Smiley Face - 4/23
For my post class post, I would like to evaluate the work of Hooks with a couple of previous theorists from class, as well as look at the way mainstream media influences our independent consumption of media. The first one I had in mind when discussing her in class was Dick Hebdige and the commodification of subcultures. Both theorists recognize the difference between dominant culture and subculture, and the subsequent desire of the dominant to have a taster of the subculture and explore it within the safe limits of their culture. When you think about the term 'subculture' it covers a broad array of meaning, but in its most basic definition it refers to any group that is not part of the dominant hegemony. But, these days, it seems as though subcultures can no longer hold that title due to the immediacy of mainstream media to normalize everything. Our popular culture today demands the new (Habermas) 'now' (Derrida) when, as we found in class, the term 'now' is constantly on the move to the next now, and the now after that, and the now now...which could go on and on. The use of technology, or more like reliance on technology, encourages the notion of new-ness and now-ness for mainstream media as well as the audience. The internet, for example gives the user a means to be come an active member in their bubble of culture in which they can find any culture and be apart of it. This sounds relatively unbiased since users are able to search what they like without the judging eyes of the media watching them or pushing them in any particular direction(Foucault). On the other hand, people talk and tell each other which sites to visit or youtube clips to watch. As a result, subcultures are being discovered online that are not controlled by the media and therefore it means that the media must normalize it as mainstream sooner. Even without the pressure of mainstream media dictating hegemony within the public sphere, with often times a pinch of a subcultural element thrown in to "spice" it us as put by Hooks, those pressures are slowly merging into the private sphere of individuals surfing the web in ways the media intend. Is there any escape?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Marie89, 4/22
I found bell hook’s article to be very interesting and different, and I enjoyed our discussion in class on Tuesday. bell hooks suggested that our culture is extremely focused on “the other” in that we study it, analyze it, exoticize it, want to be it, want to commodify it, and use it as a means to call attention to products or cultural aspects. In today’s culture, we continually consume things that people may call “the other” even if it may be offensive, etc. as they are entertaining. In a sense, we have become absent-minded observers in that even though things may be offensive, we still find entertainment value in them and search for “othering” or to “other” products in every aspect of society. For example, the media continually “other” products as a means to make products seem better in comparison. This cultural aspect annoys me as it shows a lack of creativity in advertising and marketing. Why is it that other things must be made strange to humans in order for them to approve of something else? This aspect says a lot about our culture as a whole and the ways in which we view things that may be different from the norm. Another cultural aspect that I now find strange after reading bell hooks as well as taking this class is that after we “other” something, it becomes known and therefore normalized. In this sense, nothing is that strange to anyone after a certain amount of time as we live in a society in which commodification is extremely prevalent. Once we are exposed to a certain thing a number of times, we no longer find it different, but rather integrated into our culture. Holistically, our culture lacks motivation to challenge the other when seen for entertainment purposes, internalizes the ways in which the “other” is portrayed, and views the “other” as a means for advertising and marketing purposes. In other words, we let the media take control as we sit back and observe without hesitation. The media and therefore the workings of the “other” have become vital parts of our culture and appear to be normal rather than socially constructed ideologies. But I guess that is what this entire class has been about.
CMCstudent, 4/22
I agree with Kuloco who says “America is known as a melting-pot of different cultures. However, the media produces images of only a portion of these different ethnicities.” This is very true, American media is selective about what they choose to show us regarding other ethnicities and how they depict them. When minorities are shown they are shown as the media wants them to, as our seasoning to our wonderful world. Ya right, America just wants to bank of them, which is all they care about, big media really does not care if we are a happy bowl of soup. Instead they want to depict these people as spicy and exotic. The media does not depict the minorities as they truly are. Americans would find out they are just like them, how boring would that be! Instead, America takes this “seasoning” and uses it where they like leaving an absence of reality. Companies put in their own myth about the product and why it is exotic. So instead of contributing the exotic to where it really comes from, they show examples of where it should be in American culture. A good example of this was from CMC100 there was an ad for a pair of Indian Moccasins. The back drop was in elegant fall colors, and there was a picture of one brown leather moccasin with exotic beadwork. These were clearly for a sophisticated lady. What the ad didn’t mention was that these are the same moccasins you can find any Indian wearing if you were to travel to India. Or that in India you could get them for a fraction of the cost. The ad worked with the myth, made up by the company, that sophisticated women could be one with nature this fall by purchasing a pair of these leather moccasins. This shows that media needs such control that they must make up their own myths about things, taking true ethnicity and turning into something they can have power over. It seems to be the only time the dominant want to acknowledge spice and exoticism is when they have control over it and are profiting from it. Otherwise they see it as a threat, and want nothing to do with it. This is what happens when the culture or society believes itself to be number one, they use everyone who is not them to look better, classy.
Asyouwish 4/22
While in our groups during the class discussions my group talked about how advertising doesn't allow you to say your product is better without putting another product down. While discussing this we thought of all different types of advertisements that really do this. We mainly came up with normal commercials and infomercials. We talked about how many car commercials, especially volkswagon commercials, talk about how their product is better because it is foreign made. Sometimes volkswagon commercials themselves are in german or have a narrator speaking in a heavy german accent to accentuate the fact that the product they are selling are exotic and foreign. Infomercials are also very much like this, if not more so, because they discuss their product in full and then state that their product will beat out any other product or your money back. They are so sure of their product that it does not shame them to put other products down. I recently saw a commercial for a rag that absorbs liquid spills 100 times better than a paper towel or regular towel and that will not drip. They state that you will never again reach for a paper towel to clean up a mess. At the end of the commercial they tell you that if you call now they will include an extra product therefore furthering their more for the dollar concept because you do not get two packages of paper towels for less then the price of one package. While I am writing this blog a commercial for at&t came on stating that they have the best coverage worldwide, and that their deal is an unreal deal, and that no one offers prices like that. Sounds like they are putting down every other phone company worldwide by stating that theirs is the best of any and that they have the best prices in the world.
MerryChristmas!, Cixious & Butler
Cixious & Butler's descriptions of social constructions were rather interesting to read about. Cixious' quote regarding femininity was enlightening because it is a construction of our culture that is relatively true. Cixious states, "But at the same time, man has been given the grotesque and unenviable fate of being reduced to a single idol and clay balls. And terrified of homosexuality, as Freud and his followers remark. Why does man fear being a woman? Why this refusal (Ablehnug) of femininity?" (159). Why is being feminine viewed as being such a negative characteristic? Men really do fear being feminine or representing feminist ideas because it is a sign of being inferior in our culture. We actually discussed this notion of what it is to be a feminist in my Communication Theory class the other day. I would not consider myself a feminist by any means, but after answering a short survey I realized that I had the same characteristics of the feminist. The word feminine or feminist just has a negative connotation to it, but why is that? Who decides how these social constructs play out in our society? Dr. Cavenaugh talks a lot about what it means to be androgynous and how he describes himself as this, or even a little bit on the feminine side. By this, he challenges social constructs in today's society. He also says that he allows his young son to get dressed up in girl's clothing when he wants to simply because he doesn't want the notion of masculinity to be placed on his son. I found this very intriguing because Cixious also talks about what it is to be bisexual. While is it accepting of women to be bisexual, it is not accepting of men. However, a long time ago in ancient Greece, men were also bisexual and it was a common, normal occurance. Does this mean that the urge still exists but the social constructs are holding them back? Perhaps in the future this may change back to the way it was. This idea is an uncomfortable one, but I get the sense that with more acceptance of homosexuality in the US that this may be possible in the future. The fact that this idea is uncomfortable also relies heavily on the influences of social constructs and goes to show how much it unconsciously has an impact on us.
MerryChristmas!, 4.22
Hook's concept of the otherness is only perpetuated by video games and other media outlets today. This concept of the "otherness" is also discussed in my COM300 class: Communication theory. Although we try to fight it, we cannot escape this sense of the others as being inferior to us. It is similar to this idea of ethnocentrism where you place a bias on your own culture by assuming that your culture is better than others. I suppose this concept can apply to race as well. A video game in particular that we discussed in Tillmann's CMC200 course was this new Iraq war video game coming out soon. We also read an article that looks into a popular video game out now that is featured in Japan. In the video game, the Vietnamese fighters are represented as the villans and the evil people. They share no similarities to us. They speak a different language that we cannot understand and they do not have identities. Their faces all look the same and not one of them stands out. Despite all of this, young Japanese children still play this game. What does that mean for them? Do they consider how the game is representing their race and culture? This idea can relate back to Poster's quote about how the Internet has forced others to use different domains or country codes while the US's is automatic. The English language is also the primary language on the Internet. This suggests that we believe that we are superior to all other countries in the world and they must work around us. After evaluating these things, it makes me wonder if the "others" think the same thing? Do they have any concept of "the otherness" or are they mindlessly subjecting themselves to it by playing our video games?
weezy27/4/21
Bell Hooks talks a lot about orientalism in her essay entitled “The Other.” The other is anyone that falls outside the white Caucasian culture. At the start of her article she begins with a very blunt and in your face quote which says: “within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture.” This quote really caught my attention because I believe that in at some degree we as whites due tend to hold other ethnic groups responsible for mixing up the cultural pot. We rely on other ethnicities to define ourselves. Without referring to them as the other, we have no definition. By calling other ethnicities “the other” we are then able to define ourselves as the mass majority, controlling class.
Another quote from Bell Hooks states: “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” This quote is also very interesting because I believe that white people do become threatened when other ethnicities are spotlighted within the media. What Hooks is saying here is that when this spotlighting of other cultures happens, white people come back into play by attempting to sexually conquer the other. As we discussed in class, this sexual conquer is a great way of imperialism, it is just a simple way for the white culture to establish their prevailing power over the other.
I found Bell Hook’s essay very interesting, yet sad at the same time. There is an inequality in today’s society. I find it sad that this is something that may never change and there will always be “others” in our society.
Another quote from Bell Hooks states: “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” This quote is also very interesting because I believe that white people do become threatened when other ethnicities are spotlighted within the media. What Hooks is saying here is that when this spotlighting of other cultures happens, white people come back into play by attempting to sexually conquer the other. As we discussed in class, this sexual conquer is a great way of imperialism, it is just a simple way for the white culture to establish their prevailing power over the other.
I found Bell Hook’s essay very interesting, yet sad at the same time. There is an inequality in today’s society. I find it sad that this is something that may never change and there will always be “others” in our society.
JLO63O, 4/21
In class we talked about Hook’s notion of ‘Otherness.’ We looked pictures that exploited and commodified other in the Benneton clothing advertisements. I looked at these photos and advertisements, and in our discussion I could not help but be reminded of the Althusser’s notion of “There is no ideology except but the subject and for subjects” (45). Many theorists this semester have talked about the subjective relationship of hierarchy. The totalizing metanarratives of ‘they, them, everybody else’ is a subjective ideology.
“It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression” (370).
The Other, unexpressed, is difference. Without commercial commodification, the notion of the Other would just mean different from the normal. But with the commercialization, the Other is expressed and is now not ‘different,’ but rather normalized as the Other. The notion of being ‘Other’ is much softer than the notion of being ‘different.’ Though it is not ideologically postmodern to view difference, the separateness is inevitable in hierarchy. Here, we see the moral and ethical dichotomy of being exploited and viewed as Other, or not being exploited and being viewed as different.
OOOoooOOOooo similarly stated that she was confused if commercialization of the other was a good thing because it endorses the idea of unity, or a bad thing because it exploits people from other countries. On the one hand, the idea of unity means that there originally has to be separateness. Although they may be recognized for it, I do not think that the intent behind fashion companies such as Benneton is to unify cultures. The intent to unify would not make sense for companies like Bennaton because they are gaining capital from the difference of the Other. To unify would go against the attraction of their clothing. So to rephrase this, the mission of clothing companies like Benneton is not to unify, but to objectify! To say that Benneton’s mission is to objectify sounds silly because they are revolutionizing the way fashion and cultures combine; but we remember that nothing is truly revolutionary because at the moment it is avant-garde, it is pulled back into the mainstream and normalized in culture.
“It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression” (370).
The Other, unexpressed, is difference. Without commercial commodification, the notion of the Other would just mean different from the normal. But with the commercialization, the Other is expressed and is now not ‘different,’ but rather normalized as the Other. The notion of being ‘Other’ is much softer than the notion of being ‘different.’ Though it is not ideologically postmodern to view difference, the separateness is inevitable in hierarchy. Here, we see the moral and ethical dichotomy of being exploited and viewed as Other, or not being exploited and being viewed as different.
OOOoooOOOooo similarly stated that she was confused if commercialization of the other was a good thing because it endorses the idea of unity, or a bad thing because it exploits people from other countries. On the one hand, the idea of unity means that there originally has to be separateness. Although they may be recognized for it, I do not think that the intent behind fashion companies such as Benneton is to unify cultures. The intent to unify would not make sense for companies like Bennaton because they are gaining capital from the difference of the Other. To unify would go against the attraction of their clothing. So to rephrase this, the mission of clothing companies like Benneton is not to unify, but to objectify! To say that Benneton’s mission is to objectify sounds silly because they are revolutionizing the way fashion and cultures combine; but we remember that nothing is truly revolutionary because at the moment it is avant-garde, it is pulled back into the mainstream and normalized in culture.
JLO63O, 4/21
In class we talked about Hook’s notion of ‘Otherness.’ We looked pictures that exploited and commodified other in the Benneton clothing advertisements. I looked at these photos and advertisements, and in our discussion I could not help but be reminded of the Althusser’s notion of “There is no ideology except but the subject and for subjects” (45). Many theorists this semester have talked about the subjective relationship of hierarchy. The totalizing metanarratives of ‘they, them, everybody else’ is a subjective ideology.
“It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression” (370).
The Other, unexpressed, is difference. Without commercial commodification, the notion of the Other would just mean different from the normal. But with the commercialization, the Other is expressed and is now not ‘different,’ but rather normalized as the Other. The notion of being ‘Other’ is much softer than the notion of being ‘different.’ Though it is not ideologically postmodern to view difference, the separateness is inevitable in hierarchy. Here, we see the moral and ethical dichotomy of being exploited and viewed as Other, or not being exploited and being viewed as different.
OOOoooOOOooo similarly stated that she was confused if commercialization of the other was a good thing because it endorses the idea of unity, or a bad thing because it exploits people from other countries. On the one hand, the idea of unity means that there originally has to be separateness. Although they may be recognized for it, I do not think that the intent behind fashion companies such as Benneton is to unify cultures. The intent to unify would not make sense for companies like Bennaton because they are gaining capital from the difference of the Other. To unify would go against the attraction of their clothing. So to rephrase this, the mission of clothing companies like Benneton is not to unify, but to objectify! To say that Benneton’s mission is to objectify sounds silly because they are revolutionizing the way fashion and cultures combine; but we remember that nothing is truly revolutionary because at the moment it is avant-garde, it is pulled back into the mainstream and normalized in culture.
coolbeans, 4/22
In class this Tuesday we talked about the concept of white bread and how it’s connotation has come to mean plain, simple, and dull. Hooks says that the Other acts as a spice that livens up the dullness of the hegemonic norm. We looked at some advertisements, such as the Hermes ad with the painted elephants. It is interesting to me how the advertisements are used to target the different groups. Hermes is a fairly exotic, expensive, luxury brand from France so it makes sense why they would feature exotic animals like brightly painted elephants in their advertisement. Ralph Lauren is a typical, all American, casual sportswear brand which is why many of their ads feature scenes not quite as decadent as the Hermes ad. Instead of seeing elephants in a Ralph Lauren advertisement, one might see two golden retrievers, or a saddled horse. Americans commonly buy foreign cars such as BMW, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc…. The act of buying these exotic cars can be seen as an attempt for someone with plain, simple style to add some spice to their lifestyle as hooks would put it. It’s so interesting for me to see it this way because most of the time, exotic is associated with “flashy”. Many times in this country people who dress in exotic fashions (Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi, Dior, etc…) are referred to as tacky or flashy, or when a house is just too large, too grand, too decorated it is deemed over-the-top or gaudy. There seems to be a fine line between simple, elegant, luxury and over-the-top, tacky luxury. That one extra fountain could cause your house to cross the line from being considered elegant to being ostentatious. But on the contrary, it seems as if hooks is saying that people who choose the exotic are not being tacky but are just livening up their otherwise dull lives.
ginger griffin, 4/21
As mentioned in yesterdays class, when celebrities do anything, the greater half of the population will follow in their footsteps. This is not to exclude the following of adoption outside the United States in other countries and ethnicities. Take for example, Brad and Angelina or Madonna. They have adopted, or are in the process of adopting , multiple children from around the world: Korea, China, Malawi...etc. Americans, not at celebrity status, are following suit and adopting from many different countries. This has now become the norm.
The "norm" concept is also seen in advertising such as the Aunt Jamima ad. "It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression (370)." Hooks can be easily related to the television show on Comedy Central, SouthPark. It is in this show that constantly pushes the boundaries of what if considered normal and what is not. On the show you have many characters that are seen as the "other" but at the same time, are now considered normal. Take for instance the character Token. He is the only Black child on the show, and his name stems from the term "Token black kid".
It seems that today "otherness" is more widely excepted in almost all aspects of life. Once it becomes the hegemonic norm, it will no longer be the "other". This relates to Hebdige when he talks about the counter culture, and an example would be of Marilyn Manson. When he was first noticed he was extremely considred the "other" but through mainstream media and constant commodification, he is now considered to be the norm. If something is showed to the greater population over and over again, it becomes normal to us and and eventually loses its power as "different"
The "norm" concept is also seen in advertising such as the Aunt Jamima ad. "It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression (370)." Hooks can be easily related to the television show on Comedy Central, SouthPark. It is in this show that constantly pushes the boundaries of what if considered normal and what is not. On the show you have many characters that are seen as the "other" but at the same time, are now considered normal. Take for instance the character Token. He is the only Black child on the show, and his name stems from the term "Token black kid".
It seems that today "otherness" is more widely excepted in almost all aspects of life. Once it becomes the hegemonic norm, it will no longer be the "other". This relates to Hebdige when he talks about the counter culture, and an example would be of Marilyn Manson. When he was first noticed he was extremely considred the "other" but through mainstream media and constant commodification, he is now considered to be the norm. If something is showed to the greater population over and over again, it becomes normal to us and and eventually loses its power as "different"
Dot, 4/21
As I was thinking further about the Hooks quotes we discussed in class, I was reminded of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's adoption stories. They have adopted 3 children from different countries and have one of their own. In thinking about their story, I was reminded of Hooks' quote that states,"within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture".
In our culture, we are constantly being told about the lives of celebrities and their children. When Brad and Angelina decided to adopt children of other ethnicities, people became exited about the new mix of children being brought into the celeb world. Our culture was surely bored with the mundaneness of the mostly white celebrity world and enjoyed the spice of having ethnic children. Brad and Angelina's adoption also brought much more media attention to other countries, spicing up the types of things our culture watches.
Although maybe cynically, Hooks' other idea that about asserting dominance over "others" is seen in our close relationship with them can also be related to Brad and Angelina's adoption. In adopting less fortunate ethnic children, they have sent out the message that these ethnic cultures need our help, representing our power over them.
yellowdaisy 4, Hooks
Hooks discusses “the other” as the less dominant group in society. Otherness can be seen as taboo or exotic because it is different than the mainstream group in society. Hooks talks about people of different races being the other and how they are portrayed in the media. Whether, if it seems that they are being portrayed positively, like in Hairspray, or in a negative light, like in war movies or videogames, otherness is always being accentuated. Hooks quote that explains “within current debates about race and difference, mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgement and enjoyment of racial difference” , sums up how our media is always drawing attention to otherness instead of the fact that we are all the same. One way they do this is by playing on stereotypes or mocking differences in films or TV shows. The other is also usually always recognized for being the different one and usually that is worked into their character and what they have to overcome. The media plays up on otherness instead of sameness or equal-ness because it gets more attention. The united colors of Benetton ads are interesting because they are going against racism by actually getting people’s attention by playing up on people’s reactions of their ads which are of all people of different races almost merging their skin together as one. The advertisements show we are aware of how the media portrays the other but still surprised.
Kuloco, 04/22
The thing that stood out the most for me about the discussion of hooks’ article was the idea that multiculturalism is a “seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream culture.” America is known as a melting-pot of different cultures. However, the media produces images of only a portion of these different ethnicities. In CMC 100, we discussed the idea of upscale emulation, in which the media presents a certain lifestyle that many people hope to attain. These images are often of successful and attractive individuals, mostly all white. Therefore, following the idea of imitating the characteristics shown in the mainstream media, people are exposed to mainly one image of “perfect” or “desirable” traits.
I started to think more about the shows and movies that I have recently viewed and some advertisements that we discussed. In most of the media that perpetuates this idea of upscale emulation, there are rarely any images of multiculturalism. This supports hooks’ argument that the normalized ideology is a white ideology, even in a hegemonic culture. In most of these types of programs, if there are characters that could represent different ethnicities, it is not generally discussed. In Desperate Housewives, one of the main characters is a Mexican woman. However, she and her husband are equally, or possibly more, successful than the other characters on the show. Their heritage is rarely discussed and they play the part of a “normal” suburb family.
Another show I thought about supported hooks’ idea that ethnicity and the use of different races can liven up the normative, dominant white-bread culture; this show is Lost. On the show, that we have previously discussed in class, the main characters come from various backgrounds—Korean, Iraqi, Mexican, African-American and, of course, white. The mixture and use of multiculturalism in this series gives more depth to the plot and allows for a large number of different situations to be presented and keep the show moving. Through flashbacks and character development, the show uses these ethnic backgrounds to define the people on the show.
In our commodity culture, as hooks’ calls it, images of ethnicity and racism are being presented at such a large rate that they are becoming normative. Just as in Desperate Housewives, many examples of media feel that they no longer have to even distinguish between different races. However, this has also had a negative affect on society; people feel that it is okay to discuss opinions about race that were once considered to be taboo. This supports our discussion about the fact that “we are consuming what others might find offensive.” It could also be related to the idea that mainstream media has redefined the meanings of products and people that has been discussed previously by theorists such as Zizek, Horkheimer & Adorno and Jameson. Also, as Benjamin has stated, our culture is replacing tradition with production, therefore losing the original meaning completely in order to promote consumption.
I started to think more about the shows and movies that I have recently viewed and some advertisements that we discussed. In most of the media that perpetuates this idea of upscale emulation, there are rarely any images of multiculturalism. This supports hooks’ argument that the normalized ideology is a white ideology, even in a hegemonic culture. In most of these types of programs, if there are characters that could represent different ethnicities, it is not generally discussed. In Desperate Housewives, one of the main characters is a Mexican woman. However, she and her husband are equally, or possibly more, successful than the other characters on the show. Their heritage is rarely discussed and they play the part of a “normal” suburb family.
Another show I thought about supported hooks’ idea that ethnicity and the use of different races can liven up the normative, dominant white-bread culture; this show is Lost. On the show, that we have previously discussed in class, the main characters come from various backgrounds—Korean, Iraqi, Mexican, African-American and, of course, white. The mixture and use of multiculturalism in this series gives more depth to the plot and allows for a large number of different situations to be presented and keep the show moving. Through flashbacks and character development, the show uses these ethnic backgrounds to define the people on the show.
In our commodity culture, as hooks’ calls it, images of ethnicity and racism are being presented at such a large rate that they are becoming normative. Just as in Desperate Housewives, many examples of media feel that they no longer have to even distinguish between different races. However, this has also had a negative affect on society; people feel that it is okay to discuss opinions about race that were once considered to be taboo. This supports our discussion about the fact that “we are consuming what others might find offensive.” It could also be related to the idea that mainstream media has redefined the meanings of products and people that has been discussed previously by theorists such as Zizek, Horkheimer & Adorno and Jameson. Also, as Benjamin has stated, our culture is replacing tradition with production, therefore losing the original meaning completely in order to promote consumption.
WoolyBully7, 4/21
I recently was hired for a summer internship that primarily focuses on writing skills, so I am fairly confident that my paper will be given back with hopefully minimal errors. It was odd to hear Dr. Rog say that he thought our informal discourse was better written than our formal discourse, as in papers and letters. But I have to agree with Dr. Rog that some of our grammar is atrocious, I have peer-edited a lot of papers and I don’t believe how some of the kids here got into college writing the way they do. People still confuse weather with whether, still don’t know the differences in their, there, and they’re. I’m not calling people out since I have some issues writing but I can at least recognize them and fix them. But when it’s all said and done, it is what we don’t say that matters, right Macherey?
Hooks was very interesting. We mentioned in class a lot of topics that we thought related to what she discusses, especially as far as the Rush Hour movies are concerned. The quote about ethnicity adding spice to white bread culture reminded of the tv show COPS. As awful as it sounds, it was used as a form of entertainment in the recent movie Stepbrothers as well as many other movies. This show mostly portrays minorities, with a few random Caucasians, committing crimes. It also adds a feeling of nervousness and eagerness that keeps the viewers drawn in to the action. This serves as a window into the criminal life that the typical white bread person doesn’t experience. The action shown in COPS is exoticized in a way to so that the dominant group watching the show, can further exercise their power-over relationship.
Hooks was very interesting. We mentioned in class a lot of topics that we thought related to what she discusses, especially as far as the Rush Hour movies are concerned. The quote about ethnicity adding spice to white bread culture reminded of the tv show COPS. As awful as it sounds, it was used as a form of entertainment in the recent movie Stepbrothers as well as many other movies. This show mostly portrays minorities, with a few random Caucasians, committing crimes. It also adds a feeling of nervousness and eagerness that keeps the viewers drawn in to the action. This serves as a window into the criminal life that the typical white bread person doesn’t experience. The action shown in COPS is exoticized in a way to so that the dominant group watching the show, can further exercise their power-over relationship.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
000ooo000ooo 4/21
The Benneton advertising strategy has always been a very confusing one for me. I cannot figure out if it is endorsing the idea of unity, commodifying the "Other", exploiting people from other countries, commodifying the idea of unity or a number of other interpretations. To make this more confusing, I'm not even sure if all of these things are good or bad. Is it bad to unity created by commodification better than no unity at all? Are the social issues used to sell Benneton clothes being exploited or should I be happy to see them get whatever attention they can? Benneton clearly creates confusion and there is no easy way to understand or judge their advertising campaign.
At first, I want to support Benneton because at the very least raising social awareness is infinitely more responsible than degrading women and selling sex. Advertisers have to do something to sell products, their will never be a time when advertisements consist only of the statistics and functional information about their products. There is going to be some image used so why not have it be something regarding social action? However, the more I think about this the more I question it.
I do not know enough about Benneton to rush to any conclusion but as far as we have read and talked about in class I have not come across anything saying that Benneton gives money or provides any other aid to groups supporting unity or trying to solve social problems. All they do is use the images to sell products. The idea of unity and the way it plays out in real life is taken out of context and this can make it hard to people to understand or take action through it. Further, people may think that just because they buy Benneton clothes they are doing something to fix social problems, even though in reality Benneton is no different than anything else and spending money there does nothing to further causes of social unity. So, while I originally though that depictions of unity had to be positive, regardless of the reason for them, I now question this assumption and wonder if Benneton is actually undermining the goal of unity.
At first, I want to support Benneton because at the very least raising social awareness is infinitely more responsible than degrading women and selling sex. Advertisers have to do something to sell products, their will never be a time when advertisements consist only of the statistics and functional information about their products. There is going to be some image used so why not have it be something regarding social action? However, the more I think about this the more I question it.
I do not know enough about Benneton to rush to any conclusion but as far as we have read and talked about in class I have not come across anything saying that Benneton gives money or provides any other aid to groups supporting unity or trying to solve social problems. All they do is use the images to sell products. The idea of unity and the way it plays out in real life is taken out of context and this can make it hard to people to understand or take action through it. Further, people may think that just because they buy Benneton clothes they are doing something to fix social problems, even though in reality Benneton is no different than anything else and spending money there does nothing to further causes of social unity. So, while I originally though that depictions of unity had to be positive, regardless of the reason for them, I now question this assumption and wonder if Benneton is actually undermining the goal of unity.
aro0823, hooks
“Marginalized groups, deemed other, who have been ignored, rendered invisible, can be seduced by the emphasis on otherness, by its commoditization, because it offers the promise of recognition and reconciliation” (170)
Hooks’ aforementioned quotation struck me especially hard because of its relationship to an exact discussion we had in CMC 200. After reading an article detailing the hidden/ explicit stereotyping in Rush Hour 2, I was shocked to discover how often marginal identities are exploited for economic gain. It further struck me that instead of whipping up backlash, minority communities did not respond because finally, for the first time, they were being recognized in mass media instead of made invisible. Participants in the study’s focus group made several comments saying that they were pleased to see a leading Asian character depicted positively and were willing to dismiss the related stereotypes as merely comedy.
Attitudes such as these are particularly bothersome because they serve to reaffirm the status quo. With “consumer culture show[ing] the way,” the Caucasian hegemony is able to subtly present subordinating relationships in creative ways that are double coded to both appeal to a mass audience and appeal to the white man who is dominant over minorities (170). However, because we live in the post civil rights era of political correctness, this consumer culture must be discreet in its demonstration of superiority. Thus, relating to another article we read in CMC 200, culture puts forth only a certain framework when presenting minorities so it cannot be challenged, because every media depiction is identical. So, if every media outlet shows the same stereotype of African American women, these women will feel pressured to look like what they see on television and will in turn begin a negative feedback loop. Culture remains unchanged because the stereotypes of minorities are not empowering, but rather tautological exemplifications of why Hooks’ writing will unfortunately be the last word on the matter probably for years to come.
Hooks’ aforementioned quotation struck me especially hard because of its relationship to an exact discussion we had in CMC 200. After reading an article detailing the hidden/ explicit stereotyping in Rush Hour 2, I was shocked to discover how often marginal identities are exploited for economic gain. It further struck me that instead of whipping up backlash, minority communities did not respond because finally, for the first time, they were being recognized in mass media instead of made invisible. Participants in the study’s focus group made several comments saying that they were pleased to see a leading Asian character depicted positively and were willing to dismiss the related stereotypes as merely comedy.
Attitudes such as these are particularly bothersome because they serve to reaffirm the status quo. With “consumer culture show[ing] the way,” the Caucasian hegemony is able to subtly present subordinating relationships in creative ways that are double coded to both appeal to a mass audience and appeal to the white man who is dominant over minorities (170). However, because we live in the post civil rights era of political correctness, this consumer culture must be discreet in its demonstration of superiority. Thus, relating to another article we read in CMC 200, culture puts forth only a certain framework when presenting minorities so it cannot be challenged, because every media depiction is identical. So, if every media outlet shows the same stereotype of African American women, these women will feel pressured to look like what they see on television and will in turn begin a negative feedback loop. Culture remains unchanged because the stereotypes of minorities are not empowering, but rather tautological exemplifications of why Hooks’ writing will unfortunately be the last word on the matter probably for years to come.
DBA123, 4/21/09
In today’s class we discussed many of the topics bell hooks brings up in her article. One of the first we talked about was how our culture has started to “consume and enjoy what others might find offensive.” I thought about this concept more after class in relation to many of the movies and TV shows we now see in the media. Media today is now more explicit than it ever has, especially sexually. My group talked about how in films today we see teenagers talking openly about sex, how they often partake in it, and other graphic details, and we all think it is normal. I know from personal experience, that when my own parents and even my sister who is seven years older than me, have seen some of this on our TV, they question what I am watching. Something that doesn’t faze me at all can stop someone less than a generation apart in his or her tracks.
Hooks also discusses how our generation in particular is beginning to look at sexual encounters with someone from a distinctively different culture as a conquest. We can relate this idea back to colonialism or imperialism taking on a new form. Somehow sleeping with someone who doesn’t have the same heritage as you is now a “cultured experience.” Fantasies of “the Other” is also something our culture has normalized. In one of the Austin Powers movies, we see Austin being confronted by Fook Mi and her twin sister Fook Yu. We view these images as comical, not as offensive. The 1960’s are looked at as a time of change when many people from the non-dominant culture fought for equal rights. Now we see these rights being abused once again in media, normalizing a new type of racism, one that probably didn’t occur to those pioneers decades ago.
Hooks also discusses how our generation in particular is beginning to look at sexual encounters with someone from a distinctively different culture as a conquest. We can relate this idea back to colonialism or imperialism taking on a new form. Somehow sleeping with someone who doesn’t have the same heritage as you is now a “cultured experience.” Fantasies of “the Other” is also something our culture has normalized. In one of the Austin Powers movies, we see Austin being confronted by Fook Mi and her twin sister Fook Yu. We view these images as comical, not as offensive. The 1960’s are looked at as a time of change when many people from the non-dominant culture fought for equal rights. Now we see these rights being abused once again in media, normalizing a new type of racism, one that probably didn’t occur to those pioneers decades ago.
LightningBolt, 4/21
As the other United Color of Benetton advertisements we reviewed in class, this ad seems to encompass Hook’s main paint points.
http://www.leoburnett.ro/360/images/blog/media/photos/cc8511dfd3c1b402bb84cebb3e094ca7.jpg
The top of the women in the ad as well as her two arms appear to portray three different “shades” of a white person. The bottom stomach portion of the women seems to be portraying the body of a black woman. By using the proportion of the examples of a white woman and one of a black woman, the advertisement is “othering” the black race. The drama of this otherness is creating attraction to the ad and provokes interest and curiosity. Using race as a way of attracting interest and attention is exactly what Hooks discusses in her paper. Race is being commodified in this ad because the company is using it as a tool to sell their company.
After reading Hooks’ experience of overhearing the Yale students discuss their desires for sexual encounters with women of the opposite race and discussing the quote, “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (366), I tried to think of relatable experiences in my own life. At first I had a hard time, but then realized that my life experiences are much more subtle. Fashion in our culture continuously draws upon different ethnicities to liven up our dull, familiar trends. Wearing Rasta colors and Jamaican type clothing has become a fairly normal way for people in our culture to spicen up their style. The majority of people probably don’t know the meaning behind the style and wear it strictly for looks.
http://www.leoburnett.ro/360/images/blog/media/photos/cc8511dfd3c1b402bb84cebb3e094ca7.jpg
The top of the women in the ad as well as her two arms appear to portray three different “shades” of a white person. The bottom stomach portion of the women seems to be portraying the body of a black woman. By using the proportion of the examples of a white woman and one of a black woman, the advertisement is “othering” the black race. The drama of this otherness is creating attraction to the ad and provokes interest and curiosity. Using race as a way of attracting interest and attention is exactly what Hooks discusses in her paper. Race is being commodified in this ad because the company is using it as a tool to sell their company.
After reading Hooks’ experience of overhearing the Yale students discuss their desires for sexual encounters with women of the opposite race and discussing the quote, “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (366), I tried to think of relatable experiences in my own life. At first I had a hard time, but then realized that my life experiences are much more subtle. Fashion in our culture continuously draws upon different ethnicities to liven up our dull, familiar trends. Wearing Rasta colors and Jamaican type clothing has become a fairly normal way for people in our culture to spicen up their style. The majority of people probably don’t know the meaning behind the style and wear it strictly for looks.
brookes77, 4/21/09
In class today we talked about Belle Hooks’ essay. We focused on the United Colors of Beneton Advertisements. This company has been known for being one of the first to cast multicultural actors and actresses in their advertisements. When I was living in London last semester and when I visited Rome I saw a lot of these advertisements when I was shopping. They seem to be much more prevalent in the European culture rather than in American culture which I thought was interesting for I remembered them much more when I was younger. Beneton showed ads that were pretty uncommon such as a white baby sucking on a black woman’s breast. Beneton is trying to address the issue of how white culture others, other races, but really we define others so we can eventually define ourselves, and we all are different and the other race to each other. Beneton is trying to address the fact that we should all understand that we are on the same level but the hegemonic white voice says otherwise. One could argue that these advertisements are too risky and too avant guard, but really they are just making a point that when we put different races together we all have different views of each other, and we all are the same in the end, and we should understand this. Now it is even more interesting to show how Beneton advertisements are sending this message and at the same time have become more and more absent in the white American culture yet is still very publicized in other countries.
Another interesting issue that was discussed in class was the notion of how segregation was not the right word to describe exoticizing the other. We are not trying to be completely different from others, but we are trying to create a gap between races that shows the dominant race and power. If we were to segregate races there could be a threat of competition, yet by making a race different they are just a different version of what is normal and accepted. So creating a large gap in races is worse then segregating races in my opinion for it is further showing a comparing relationship. As I conclude I end up with the same questions that we asked ourselves sin class: who has the right to make this separation? Who is given this authority and why?
Another interesting issue that was discussed in class was the notion of how segregation was not the right word to describe exoticizing the other. We are not trying to be completely different from others, but we are trying to create a gap between races that shows the dominant race and power. If we were to segregate races there could be a threat of competition, yet by making a race different they are just a different version of what is normal and accepted. So creating a large gap in races is worse then segregating races in my opinion for it is further showing a comparing relationship. As I conclude I end up with the same questions that we asked ourselves sin class: who has the right to make this separation? Who is given this authority and why?
dmariel, 4/21
I thought that the conversation about Hooks ideas of advertising methods was really interesting..She points out something very obvious that is going on in American advertising techniques-you can’t sell your product anymore without cutting down another. Just yesterday I wrote a paper on pharmaceutical advertising and many of its targeting techniques. One of my main focuses was the way in which medical brand names are constantly comparing themselves to other brands of the same type of medication. For example, a recent advertisement for Lunesta, a sleeping pill, states “If you cant get a good night of rest with Ambien, try Lunesta.” Not only is this quote the main focus of the advertisement, the background portrays two very sexualized women in two different beds. The woman who took Ambien is blankly staring at the ceiling, her sheets are a mess, and her body looks twisted and uncomfortable. On the other hand, the woman who took Lunesta is perfectly tucked in under her covers, sleeping serenely with a butterfly (Lunesta’s symbol) watching over her shoulder to make sure she sleeps perfectly. Interestingly enough, through my research and interviews I found that the average American consumer found this technique to be VERY effective.
The internet was a perfect example of the commodification of human beings. The website, planet love, offering brides from other cultures is degrading to the women. Not only are you conquering their race, but their body and life on an individual and sexual basis. The caricatures that they use as their icons for the website reiterate the commodification of these women, portraying what Hooks refers to as the “alternative playground.” The assumed visitors that use this site are supposedly white men, who are affirming power relationships over the women (and men-by objectifying their women) of other ethnicity's. I think that Hooks was a particularly interesting theorist and I enjoyed the reading and the class session looking at different types of advertisements that we often see in the material world today.
The internet was a perfect example of the commodification of human beings. The website, planet love, offering brides from other cultures is degrading to the women. Not only are you conquering their race, but their body and life on an individual and sexual basis. The caricatures that they use as their icons for the website reiterate the commodification of these women, portraying what Hooks refers to as the “alternative playground.” The assumed visitors that use this site are supposedly white men, who are affirming power relationships over the women (and men-by objectifying their women) of other ethnicity's. I think that Hooks was a particularly interesting theorist and I enjoyed the reading and the class session looking at different types of advertisements that we often see in the material world today.
Monday, April 20, 2009
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…
Trapnest, Hooks
The Other exists as a common, yet often unspoken, understanding of a specific group within a particular society. This group is, like the name suggests, something which is different from the dominant and or most prevalent group within a society. Because of this “foreign” nature, the other achieves an exotic nature and what I feel is almost a taboo within society. This is what part of Hooks’ argument stems from, that the other becomes a source of desire, or sexual fantasy.
I feel the focus upon the body stems from another factor, which Hooks also touches upon. This is the fact that often the classification of The Other focuses upon the body. She discusses the Other as race, and to determine someone’s race there is a focus almost exclusively upon the body to make distinctions.
The Other has a key relationship to society. As previously mentioned the other is the less dominant group in society, therefore they are expected to play the role their numbers dictate, one of submission. Another quote which interested me in particular was, “the Other will be eaten, consumed, and forgotten.” (380) This quote exemplifies another form of dominance, one where we are able to consume the Other. While in some cases this can be viewed as a literal consumption, like genocide. Different cases include the commoditization of the Other for our pleasure.
This commodification of the other is seen throughout society. For example many people will comment to a single colored person’s presence in a show or movie as “the token black guy” for humor or a certain racial inclusion. I believe it was in “Scary Movie” that had a discussion about how the “black guy” always got killed off first. In this single instance we have commodified a person of color, made him the Other, used the Other for our entertainment, and have shown that it is within our power to “kill him off” and “consume” him if it pleases us.
I feel the focus upon the body stems from another factor, which Hooks also touches upon. This is the fact that often the classification of The Other focuses upon the body. She discusses the Other as race, and to determine someone’s race there is a focus almost exclusively upon the body to make distinctions.
The Other has a key relationship to society. As previously mentioned the other is the less dominant group in society, therefore they are expected to play the role their numbers dictate, one of submission. Another quote which interested me in particular was, “the Other will be eaten, consumed, and forgotten.” (380) This quote exemplifies another form of dominance, one where we are able to consume the Other. While in some cases this can be viewed as a literal consumption, like genocide. Different cases include the commoditization of the Other for our pleasure.
This commodification of the other is seen throughout society. For example many people will comment to a single colored person’s presence in a show or movie as “the token black guy” for humor or a certain racial inclusion. I believe it was in “Scary Movie” that had a discussion about how the “black guy” always got killed off first. In this single instance we have commodified a person of color, made him the Other, used the Other for our entertainment, and have shown that it is within our power to “kill him off” and “consume” him if it pleases us.
brookes77, Belle Hooks
“The West’s are fascinated with the primitive has to do with its own crises in identity.” This is very relevant to what we are discussing in Dr. Cummings 350 class that focuses on Native American representations in the media. We talked about how only define others because we must define ourselves somehow. We point at people and state that they are different or other because we can not identify white power without seeking the identify of the other which is less significant and thought of as weaker then the white race. White culture constructs the way we look at other races because it is how the white race wants them to be remembered, and because of our culture that is obsessed with winning and competing we remember and re teach the other’s identity, and we call them the lower less important and less intelligent class. We take advantage of them. Belle hooks also states that: “Longings about contacting the other- embedded in the secret (not so secret) deep structure of white supremacy”. This is showing how white construction of undermining other races is not as secretive anymore. People are benefiting from education of how the mass media portrays the “other” and how a negative light is brought on all other races, besides the dominant white race. Hooks also talks about on page 371: “ Mutual recognition of racism, its impact both on those who are dominated and those who dominate, is the only standpoint that makes possible an encounter between races that is not based on denial and fantasy.” This notion of mutual recognition of racism is on one hand a step in the right direction because this issue is no longer overlooked yet on the other had it is a lot worse. People on both sides are understanding racial stereotypes and accepting them and that people are aware of them. This brings in a sense of normalization of racism. We have become so obsessed with competing can we ever have all equal races, do humans know how to live with out different, better, or worse classes/races? Or are we too judgmental and competitive. Domination has become white culture’s obsession.
Another interesting quote I found was:“ To make one’s self vulnerable to the seduction of difference, to seek an encounter with the Other, does not require that one relinquish forever one’s mainstream positionality. This means that race and ethnicity have become products of commodification. These people who are considered the other are exotic and because of this the white culture is obsessed with taking advantage of them, in Hooks explanation on 367, sexually. They are different looking not white and pure, which gives them a sense of experiment. This in itself is racial stereotyping.
Another interesting quote I found was:“ To make one’s self vulnerable to the seduction of difference, to seek an encounter with the Other, does not require that one relinquish forever one’s mainstream positionality. This means that race and ethnicity have become products of commodification. These people who are considered the other are exotic and because of this the white culture is obsessed with taking advantage of them, in Hooks explanation on 367, sexually. They are different looking not white and pure, which gives them a sense of experiment. This in itself is racial stereotyping.
Rubber Soul, bell hooks
"Mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgment and enjoyment of racial difference" (366). The author describes the Other as a spice, or a "seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture." I immediately thought of how people around me use Othering. A couple of my friends who are of a different ethnicity, actually use their "Otherness" as a means of entertainment. They tell stereotypical jokes of their ethnicity all the time. It makes sense that they would use racially limiting perceptions as comedic relief, since our white-mainstream culture uses it in the media constantly. People who are not of the mainstream ethnicity use stereotypical jokes about their own ethnicity as a coping mechanism to join the mainstream view. It allows them to lighten the mood and it is an attempt to prove that they acknowledge their difference but they are "white" enough to assimilate to the mainstream ideologies. The author says that Othering is a "contemporary revival of interest in the "primitive," with a distinctly postmodern slant." This quote made me think of a game show called "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge." It was a Japanese television show that was aired on SPIKETV and constituted of contestants doing the most ridiculous obstacle courses that more or less left them in pain at the end. Americans dubbed over what the game show hosts were saying as well as the contestants which usually was along the lines of something very primitive and making them all look stupid and crazy. In summary, American culture has used the Other as a means of belittling and entertainment.
ashlayla, bell hooks (response to Rico72)
Bell Hooks' reading was definitely easier for me to get through and to understand. Like in Rico72's post, I was also able to connect this to the reading on Medal Of Honor. I have never played Medal of Honor or any other similar video game. However, one of my friend's plays Call of Duty and I have noticed how the creators of the game have "othered" the foreign people. Just like in Medal Of Honor, the Japanese and Germans are seen as savages and the player is determined to defeat the savage "other." In these games, Americans are the victims and the Japanese are the murderers and savages.
I agree with Rico72 that games like these could be used to teach history, however I think it could hurt the "other" even more if we use Medal of Honor and Call of Duty as teaching tools. During WWII, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese across the United States were put into camps. We were "othering" the Japanese because we associated them with those that attacked our troops at Pearl Harbor. Because people that looked and spoke like Japanese Americans, we automatically assumed that all Japanese were criminals and we felt like we needed to keep them away from our families. To me, if we used video games such as Medal of Honor as a teaching tool, it would make othering worse. I feel like we would start treating today's Japanese Americans like we treated those from the 1940s. We would create more stereotypes for the Japanese and to us, that is what they would be. We create these stereotypes from the games that we play and the movies and television shows that we watch. I think that if we could overcome those stereotypes that we have created, we could stop "othering." Once we stopped "othering" people, we would realize that they are just like us but with a different skin color and a different spoken language.
I agree with Rico72 that games like these could be used to teach history, however I think it could hurt the "other" even more if we use Medal of Honor and Call of Duty as teaching tools. During WWII, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese across the United States were put into camps. We were "othering" the Japanese because we associated them with those that attacked our troops at Pearl Harbor. Because people that looked and spoke like Japanese Americans, we automatically assumed that all Japanese were criminals and we felt like we needed to keep them away from our families. To me, if we used video games such as Medal of Honor as a teaching tool, it would make othering worse. I feel like we would start treating today's Japanese Americans like we treated those from the 1940s. We would create more stereotypes for the Japanese and to us, that is what they would be. We create these stereotypes from the games that we play and the movies and television shows that we watch. I think that if we could overcome those stereotypes that we have created, we could stop "othering." Once we stopped "othering" people, we would realize that they are just like us but with a different skin color and a different spoken language.
Savvy, Hooks 4.20.09
"The commodification of Otherness has been so successful because it is offered as a new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling. (366)
- I thought that this quote was important because it talks about the importance and power of "othering" It does not look down upon Othering as a negative thing, It is saying that Otherness has been turned into something to be used as a profit. That to Other has been used not to put others down, but for everyone enjoyment and clearer understanding.
"Commodity culture in the United States exploits conventional thinking about race, gender, and sexual desire by "working" both the idea that racial difference marks one as Other and the assumption that sexual agency expressed within the context of racialized sexual encounter is a conversion experience that alters one's place and participation in contemporary cultural politics" (667).
- I felt that this quote related to pieces later in the article where the author discusses the encounter with the white, male jocks, as the author listens to their conversation about different racial women. The author views this process of the sexal encounter as a positive learning experience.
"It is this willingness to transgress racial boundaries within the realm of the sexual that eradicates the fear that one must always conform to the norm to remain "safe".
- this quote is important because I felt the the author was trying to say that even though they may have sexual encounters with "others" the boys will always go back to what is expected to be cultural normal to them.
"The direct objective was not simply to sexually poses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter" (368).
-"They do not see themselves as perpetuating racism" (369).
The quotes above are the ones that I felt stood out to me the most in the reading. At first, I was unsure of what the authors main point for the article was. To be completely honest, I still am a little unsure of what exactly the authors main argument that they want to portray to the reader is. However, I still felt that these quotes above I could relate to postmodernism. It was interesting when I was reading this article because we had discussed the idea of the "other" in my cmc200 class last semester. The discussion of the "Other" has been a main topic in my Intercultural communication this semester as well. In a way I felt like I was reading and article that could have been presented in any one of these three classes.
- I thought that this quote was important because it talks about the importance and power of "othering" It does not look down upon Othering as a negative thing, It is saying that Otherness has been turned into something to be used as a profit. That to Other has been used not to put others down, but for everyone enjoyment and clearer understanding.
"Commodity culture in the United States exploits conventional thinking about race, gender, and sexual desire by "working" both the idea that racial difference marks one as Other and the assumption that sexual agency expressed within the context of racialized sexual encounter is a conversion experience that alters one's place and participation in contemporary cultural politics" (667).
- I felt that this quote related to pieces later in the article where the author discusses the encounter with the white, male jocks, as the author listens to their conversation about different racial women. The author views this process of the sexal encounter as a positive learning experience.
"It is this willingness to transgress racial boundaries within the realm of the sexual that eradicates the fear that one must always conform to the norm to remain "safe".
- this quote is important because I felt the the author was trying to say that even though they may have sexual encounters with "others" the boys will always go back to what is expected to be cultural normal to them.
"The direct objective was not simply to sexually poses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter" (368).
-"They do not see themselves as perpetuating racism" (369).
The quotes above are the ones that I felt stood out to me the most in the reading. At first, I was unsure of what the authors main point for the article was. To be completely honest, I still am a little unsure of what exactly the authors main argument that they want to portray to the reader is. However, I still felt that these quotes above I could relate to postmodernism. It was interesting when I was reading this article because we had discussed the idea of the "other" in my cmc200 class last semester. The discussion of the "Other" has been a main topic in my Intercultural communication this semester as well. In a way I felt like I was reading and article that could have been presented in any one of these three classes.
Kuloco, hooks
“Getting a bit of the Other, in this case engaging in sexual encounters with non-white females, was considered a ritual of transcendence, a movement out into a world of difference that would transform, an acceptable rite of passage. The direct objective was not simply to sexually posses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter.” (368)
While reading the first few pages of this article, I kept waiting for a “but,” or a “however,” or something that would refute hooks’ argument. Despite my hope that it would eventually come, I got to the last page and ended just, if not more, confused than when I started. There should probably be a rule about what you can and cannot read simultaneously, such as bell hooks’ “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance” and Robert Jensen’s “Getting Off.” After finishing the latter for CMC 200, I don’t know how to interpret hooks’ theories. When I looked hooks up on Google, I was shocked to read the description of a female African-American feminist.
In his book, Jensen discusses the exploitation and objectification of women as a result of masculinity and pornography. Somewhat similar, hooks discusses the Other as a sexual object, “existing to serve the ends of white male desires.” However, while Jensen aims to solve the issues of objectification, hooks seems to be more accepting. Hooks tells an anecdote about All-American boys planning to have as many sexual encounters with as many girls from other racial or ethnic groups as possible. Instead of arguing the thought process behind these actions, she provides excuses for the behavior—even though it seems to go against every aspect of feminism.
The way I understand it, these sexual encounters are for the white male’s benefit alone; the female Others are being sexually exploited during the white male’s quest to be changed in some way by their “primitive” nature. It is entirely plausible that I may be interpreting the ideas behind this article completely wrong. However, as an African-American female, I would think that hooks would be highly critical of this behavior. Instead, she discusses the tradition, commodity culture and transgressions as rationalization for the actions of white males.
Again, this entire post could be completely irrelevant due to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the material. If that is the case, I would be significantly less confused. However, I guess I’ll find out in class tomorrow.
While reading the first few pages of this article, I kept waiting for a “but,” or a “however,” or something that would refute hooks’ argument. Despite my hope that it would eventually come, I got to the last page and ended just, if not more, confused than when I started. There should probably be a rule about what you can and cannot read simultaneously, such as bell hooks’ “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance” and Robert Jensen’s “Getting Off.” After finishing the latter for CMC 200, I don’t know how to interpret hooks’ theories. When I looked hooks up on Google, I was shocked to read the description of a female African-American feminist.
In his book, Jensen discusses the exploitation and objectification of women as a result of masculinity and pornography. Somewhat similar, hooks discusses the Other as a sexual object, “existing to serve the ends of white male desires.” However, while Jensen aims to solve the issues of objectification, hooks seems to be more accepting. Hooks tells an anecdote about All-American boys planning to have as many sexual encounters with as many girls from other racial or ethnic groups as possible. Instead of arguing the thought process behind these actions, she provides excuses for the behavior—even though it seems to go against every aspect of feminism.
The way I understand it, these sexual encounters are for the white male’s benefit alone; the female Others are being sexually exploited during the white male’s quest to be changed in some way by their “primitive” nature. It is entirely plausible that I may be interpreting the ideas behind this article completely wrong. However, as an African-American female, I would think that hooks would be highly critical of this behavior. Instead, she discusses the tradition, commodity culture and transgressions as rationalization for the actions of white males.
Again, this entire post could be completely irrelevant due to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the material. If that is the case, I would be significantly less confused. However, I guess I’ll find out in class tomorrow.
Rico72, Hooks
“Certainly from the standpoint of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the hope is that desires for the “primitive” or fantasies about the other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribes and maintains the status quo.” (367)
Hooks is saying that we constantly re-create the same image of the “others” to keep the status quo. This can be seen in almost every form of media. In CMC 200 we read an article on the Medal of Honor video games. The article discusses how you play an American soldier and it completely “others” the Japanese army showing them as savages who are simply out to kill you. It glorifies the U.S. military in WW2 and makes the Japanese look like the aggressors. The article even discusses how some believe the game can be an instrument to teach history since it is filled with historical film clips of the war.
Although the game discussed in that article came out over five years ago, the same thing continues to happen in games being released today. The most recent being Call of Duty: World at War is guilty of the same thing. It makes you sympathize for the U.S. Marines you play as, meanwhile the Japanese are portrayed as “primitive” soldiers whose sole purpose is to kill.
The media is constantly “others” different cultures from our own. If we continue to do this we will never be able to truly understand these cultures. It is hurting us in the long run and it needs to stop. However, we may have already been pushed to far to believe all of these stereotypes. It has gotten to the point where some people truely believe that is how the world is.
Hooks is saying that we constantly re-create the same image of the “others” to keep the status quo. This can be seen in almost every form of media. In CMC 200 we read an article on the Medal of Honor video games. The article discusses how you play an American soldier and it completely “others” the Japanese army showing them as savages who are simply out to kill you. It glorifies the U.S. military in WW2 and makes the Japanese look like the aggressors. The article even discusses how some believe the game can be an instrument to teach history since it is filled with historical film clips of the war.
Although the game discussed in that article came out over five years ago, the same thing continues to happen in games being released today. The most recent being Call of Duty: World at War is guilty of the same thing. It makes you sympathize for the U.S. Marines you play as, meanwhile the Japanese are portrayed as “primitive” soldiers whose sole purpose is to kill.
The media is constantly “others” different cultures from our own. If we continue to do this we will never be able to truly understand these cultures. It is hurting us in the long run and it needs to stop. However, we may have already been pushed to far to believe all of these stereotypes. It has gotten to the point where some people truely believe that is how the world is.
JLO63O, Butler
“Juridical power inevitably ‘produces’ what it claims merely to represent; hence, politics must be concerned with this dual function of power: the juridical and the productive” (192).
Judith Butler addresses the issues with the political representation of women. She starts first, by readdressing this statement by saying that both representation and politics are the controversial terms to be dealt with. Representation, she says, constitutes an exclusive binary framework where the terms woman, female, etc. are identified only as comparisons to the patriarchal society. Politics, conversely, work in accordance with representation. Together, ‘they produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent.’
“A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (Foucault).
We can relate the feminist theories of Butler to Foucault’s concept of power and subjection. Last class, someone used the example of tying baby elephants up to a post. When they are younger, they are not strong enough to break away from that post. When they grow up, however, it is already inculcated that they cannot break away from the post, so they assume the role of staying near – never testing that they have the strength to break away. Similar to the relation of power constructs and political representations, you grow up hearing about repressive state apparatuses and it is instilled in you that someone is always watching and you should never break the law. You are a ‘subject before the law.’ Likewise, young women grow up encultured by ideological representations of the female. “One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one” – Simone de Beauvoir. Butler argues that binary representations are politically universal while culturally acclaimed.
It is the “power relations that both constitute ‘identity’ and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer” (194).
Webster’s dictionary defines identity as “oneself or itself, and not the other.” It is thus paradoxical to state that an identity is a function of something else. Butler says that women, like the term ‘woman,’ are objectified as subjects (defined as “an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art). Their assumed identities are constructed out of an already existing other, specifically of the patriarchal male. It would be post feminist, however, to be liberated of “the necessity of having to construct a single or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions that it invariably excludes” (194). We need to remove representational politics because in representational politics, we find people subjecting themselves in relation.
Judith Butler addresses the issues with the political representation of women. She starts first, by readdressing this statement by saying that both representation and politics are the controversial terms to be dealt with. Representation, she says, constitutes an exclusive binary framework where the terms woman, female, etc. are identified only as comparisons to the patriarchal society. Politics, conversely, work in accordance with representation. Together, ‘they produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent.’
“A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (Foucault).
We can relate the feminist theories of Butler to Foucault’s concept of power and subjection. Last class, someone used the example of tying baby elephants up to a post. When they are younger, they are not strong enough to break away from that post. When they grow up, however, it is already inculcated that they cannot break away from the post, so they assume the role of staying near – never testing that they have the strength to break away. Similar to the relation of power constructs and political representations, you grow up hearing about repressive state apparatuses and it is instilled in you that someone is always watching and you should never break the law. You are a ‘subject before the law.’ Likewise, young women grow up encultured by ideological representations of the female. “One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one” – Simone de Beauvoir. Butler argues that binary representations are politically universal while culturally acclaimed.
It is the “power relations that both constitute ‘identity’ and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer” (194).
Webster’s dictionary defines identity as “oneself or itself, and not the other.” It is thus paradoxical to state that an identity is a function of something else. Butler says that women, like the term ‘woman,’ are objectified as subjects (defined as “an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art). Their assumed identities are constructed out of an already existing other, specifically of the patriarchal male. It would be post feminist, however, to be liberated of “the necessity of having to construct a single or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions that it invariably excludes” (194). We need to remove representational politics because in representational politics, we find people subjecting themselves in relation.
CMCstudent, Bell
I really liked this reading. I felt it was easier to understand compared to most the theorists we have been studying. I also felt while reading the article I was able to apply a lot of things bell was talking about to things around us today.
The pleasure and enjoyment in acknowledging racial differences can be seen in all forms of entertainment. In movies you can’t help but notice the dichotomy of the sexy, hard working, Latino that the young high society white male ends up falling for. She has what he yearns, the spice and adventure that takes him out of his usual element. We are never told but always assume she has more sexual experience than he does and in the bedroom could teach him more than he could learn from the girl at the country club. This is an example of “the ‘real fun’, ‘nasty’ fantasies and longing with the Other embedded in the secret deep structure of white supremacy” (366). Bell believes that having a sexual experience with the Other can be so pleasurable that status quo can be infiltrated through this pleasurably. “Other threatens to take over, consume, transform via the experience of pleasure” (327). This reminds me of the movie Monster –in-Law, starring Jennifer Lopez and Michael Vartan. Vartan, a doctor, falls for Lopez, a temp. Lopez and Vartan fall in love and are to get married. Lopez is that spice in his life. The mother in law (Lane Fonda) who is wealthy and famous hears of the engagement and flips out. She does not think her son should be marrying a Spanish temp. She is afraid she will ruin their lifestyle and will not fit in, and is determined to show her daughter-in-law just that. It is this love and pleasure of a relationship that can change fixed static conditions, identities and ultimately take over how one lives. This is what Fonda feared.
I found this next quote to remind me a lot of a reading we were exposed to CMC 100, Edward Said’s Orientalism and the exoticization of the other. Bell hook says “sexuality is the metaphoric Other” (327) Hooks believes we end up taking the Other and sexualizing it or as Said would say, “exoticize.” We then see it as this foreign thing we want to conquer, voyage, and colonize.
The pleasure and enjoyment in acknowledging racial differences can be seen in all forms of entertainment. In movies you can’t help but notice the dichotomy of the sexy, hard working, Latino that the young high society white male ends up falling for. She has what he yearns, the spice and adventure that takes him out of his usual element. We are never told but always assume she has more sexual experience than he does and in the bedroom could teach him more than he could learn from the girl at the country club. This is an example of “the ‘real fun’, ‘nasty’ fantasies and longing with the Other embedded in the secret deep structure of white supremacy” (366). Bell believes that having a sexual experience with the Other can be so pleasurable that status quo can be infiltrated through this pleasurably. “Other threatens to take over, consume, transform via the experience of pleasure” (327). This reminds me of the movie Monster –in-Law, starring Jennifer Lopez and Michael Vartan. Vartan, a doctor, falls for Lopez, a temp. Lopez and Vartan fall in love and are to get married. Lopez is that spice in his life. The mother in law (Lane Fonda) who is wealthy and famous hears of the engagement and flips out. She does not think her son should be marrying a Spanish temp. She is afraid she will ruin their lifestyle and will not fit in, and is determined to show her daughter-in-law just that. It is this love and pleasure of a relationship that can change fixed static conditions, identities and ultimately take over how one lives. This is what Fonda feared.
I found this next quote to remind me a lot of a reading we were exposed to CMC 100, Edward Said’s Orientalism and the exoticization of the other. Bell hook says “sexuality is the metaphoric Other” (327) Hooks believes we end up taking the Other and sexualizing it or as Said would say, “exoticize.” We then see it as this foreign thing we want to conquer, voyage, and colonize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)