“ It is this rupture which must be studied ” Pierre Macherey, pg 23). This week in class we talked about how we need to be studying what’s stuck in the middle of all this stuff. As critical readers of theory we need to study the gaps of what’s NOT being said by these people. But the question is, like Rog said, “who are these people? This assumption needs to be studied of who “they” is.”
So the other day I was on the phone with one of my friends and she was telling me about her new hair cut etc.. and somehow we started having a conversation about how many times a week we wash are hair. I told her that I washed my hair everyday and her response was… “ you know, you’re not supposed to wash your hair every day, they say it’s really bad for your hair. Right away I started laughing and thinking about are conversation we had in class. I said, “Katie, I have a question for you…who is they”? She was so confused and did not understand what I was talking about. I then explained and said, “well, you told me that it’s really bad because they say it is… But really, can you tell me who they is? I’d love to know because I’ve been trying to figure out who they is. She did not think it was very funny and thought I was being a smart*ss.
I never really thought of how many times people always come up to you telling you something extremely important and you must do because “they” said it’s the right way when really… no one really knows who the “they” is. Honestly, next time you are with a friend you should start keeping track of how many “theys” he or she talks about. You would be shocked! Not to mention it’s kind of funny.
I’m enjoying this class a lot and I love how I’m starting to notice things we talk about in class outside of the classroom.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Graham, 9/3/09
I thought that class this week was very interesting. On Tuesday we discussed signs, signifiers and signified. Dr. Casey gave us examples of gas station logos and proved to us that we group things together in language. When we are driving and out of gas, we see a gas station as a place to get gas. However, when we are going to a BYOB party and we don’t have any beer, we begin seeing a gas station as a place that we can purchase the beer for the party.
I also thought that the youtube video on the signs was funny, because sometimes things are said to get our attention, and sometimes we fail to realize what things really mean because we tend to get extremely busy. It was also interesting how we looked at 6 words on the overhead and all came up with completely different plots. This really proved that in language, sometimes when the author doesn’t say something, we begin looking deeper into it and creating multiple meanings for it. The meanings of what we see or read is determined by the individual, but the meanings will vary from person to person. Everyone in the world will never agree on what something means. There are so many versions of recipes, religions, instruction manuals…etc
I liked the quote that he chose to discuss from the reading “is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes?” (Barthes, 108) He explained that the most sexual part about nudity is about what leads up to the person becoming naked. He said that if you walk into a strip club and everyone is completely nude, then there is no excitement. It is Barthes’ opinion that this is the same things that occurs when we are reading or watching movies…etc.
I am very glad that he discussed the reading so in depth, because prior to the class I was extremely confused on what I was reading, but now I feel that I have grasped the concepts of the authors for the most part.
I also thought that the youtube video on the signs was funny, because sometimes things are said to get our attention, and sometimes we fail to realize what things really mean because we tend to get extremely busy. It was also interesting how we looked at 6 words on the overhead and all came up with completely different plots. This really proved that in language, sometimes when the author doesn’t say something, we begin looking deeper into it and creating multiple meanings for it. The meanings of what we see or read is determined by the individual, but the meanings will vary from person to person. Everyone in the world will never agree on what something means. There are so many versions of recipes, religions, instruction manuals…etc
I liked the quote that he chose to discuss from the reading “is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes?” (Barthes, 108) He explained that the most sexual part about nudity is about what leads up to the person becoming naked. He said that if you walk into a strip club and everyone is completely nude, then there is no excitement. It is Barthes’ opinion that this is the same things that occurs when we are reading or watching movies…etc.
I am very glad that he discussed the reading so in depth, because prior to the class I was extremely confused on what I was reading, but now I feel that I have grasped the concepts of the authors for the most part.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
DoubleBubble, Macherey
At first this reading was extremely tricky and I had a hard time trying to understand what the author was trying to say. I think the ideas of the author are great in regards to trying to understand the deeper idea of “silence”. Before I read this article I would of defined silence as absolutely nothing. After reading this I understand how much silence really can be. “For it is the silence that is doing the speaking" (17). When I first read this I instantly thought, how can silence be the one that is doing the speaking?
Silence within our texts is explaining things that are physically not there. It is necessary for us to look deep into what we are reading and truly try to get the “deeper” meaning. If we are not one of those people who looks deeper into what the texts are actually trying to say then we never will truly understand what the author is saying. But, then I wonder, even if we do look deeper into the text and find that “silence”, then how do we know if what we think is what the author thinks? I think it is very interesting this idea of silence, and it makes me really curious because how do these authors get across their ideas through texts, but yet say what they want but not physically with print.
Silence, within a text is truly the meaning and idea that the author is trying to say but they don’t want to give it to us that easily. I never realized until this reading how much someone could understand through just reading the sentence again and looking deeper into the “silence”.
Silence within our texts is explaining things that are physically not there. It is necessary for us to look deep into what we are reading and truly try to get the “deeper” meaning. If we are not one of those people who looks deeper into what the texts are actually trying to say then we never will truly understand what the author is saying. But, then I wonder, even if we do look deeper into the text and find that “silence”, then how do we know if what we think is what the author thinks? I think it is very interesting this idea of silence, and it makes me really curious because how do these authors get across their ideas through texts, but yet say what they want but not physically with print.
Silence, within a text is truly the meaning and idea that the author is trying to say but they don’t want to give it to us that easily. I never realized until this reading how much someone could understand through just reading the sentence again and looking deeper into the “silence”.
Nate Dogg, Machery
“Silences shape all speech.” Silence provides time to reflect and understand all the thoughts, information, and knowledge we consume on a day to day basis. Machery helps us to understand that the silence serves to aid the spoken, by designating the spoken and clarifying it. The first time I read through this portion of the book, I found the way the author wrote the piece to be confusing and difficult to understand. By taking time with each sentence; each word, it became easier to get a grasp of what Machery was saying.
Even the way that some sentences in the chapter are written seems to convey that one should pause before continuing. “This moment of absence founds the speech of the work. Silences shape all speech. Banality?” Here Machery himself offers an utterance, followed by a question. The utterance is the same as the sound that De Sassure discussed in our earlier reading. The sound/utterance is the signifier, and the question or meaning that we take from that utterance is the signified. It certainly helps to add silence in order to process the signifier and the signified. Machery seems to say that without the silence, it would be impossible to determine the signifier from the signified.
The silence is what speaks to us, tells us how we feel about ideas and emotions. Without the silence, speech would be useless because it would exist as information without a method to understand and take meaning from it.
While I do not understand this chapter and am still lost as to the meaning of the whole thing, I think I understand Machery’s point. Silence and speech cannot exist without one another, and use each other as a function to create meaning with emotion behind it. “Silence reveals speech – unless it is speech that reveals the silence.”
Even the way that some sentences in the chapter are written seems to convey that one should pause before continuing. “This moment of absence founds the speech of the work. Silences shape all speech. Banality?” Here Machery himself offers an utterance, followed by a question. The utterance is the same as the sound that De Sassure discussed in our earlier reading. The sound/utterance is the signifier, and the question or meaning that we take from that utterance is the signified. It certainly helps to add silence in order to process the signifier and the signified. Machery seems to say that without the silence, it would be impossible to determine the signifier from the signified.
The silence is what speaks to us, tells us how we feel about ideas and emotions. Without the silence, speech would be useless because it would exist as information without a method to understand and take meaning from it.
While I do not understand this chapter and am still lost as to the meaning of the whole thing, I think I understand Machery’s point. Silence and speech cannot exist without one another, and use each other as a function to create meaning with emotion behind it. “Silence reveals speech – unless it is speech that reveals the silence.”
Mongoose, Macherey
Everything is this particular article relates back to one simple word: silence. Silence in the sense of saying nothing at all and also silence being the key contributor to what is said. The first point drawn by Macherey is that every book which has ever been written in actually incomplete and it must in fact be incomplete in order for anything else to be said. By this he means that the book is not complete until the criticism and reactions from outside sources have had their chance to expand on the written words. He goes on the say that “This silence gives it life”(16) and “the book is not self-sufficient; it is necessarily accompanied by a certain absence”(16); which I take to mean that the discourse and criticism about the book is actually what brings the book to life and it is made possible by the ‘silence’, or incompleteness, of the book.
Taking the concept of silence a step further, he continues on that silence not only shapes all books, it actually “shapes all speech” (17). So how in the world could silence possibly shape speech? Macherey goes back to work of Sigmund Freud and his concept of the ‘unconscious’ to explain this. Freud’s work determined that “in order to say anything, there are things which must not be said” (17). Basically what he is getting at is that our mind’s have a built-in filter which processes every thought that comes into our mind and helps us determine what we should say and what we shouldn’t. Every word that we speak has gone through this filter and been allowed to pass through our unconscious to our conscious. In order for there to be spoken words, there must also be words which are not spoken. This can be very important in situations where we bite our tongues and do not say certain things which we would later regret.
Taking the concept of silence a step further, he continues on that silence not only shapes all books, it actually “shapes all speech” (17). So how in the world could silence possibly shape speech? Macherey goes back to work of Sigmund Freud and his concept of the ‘unconscious’ to explain this. Freud’s work determined that “in order to say anything, there are things which must not be said” (17). Basically what he is getting at is that our mind’s have a built-in filter which processes every thought that comes into our mind and helps us determine what we should say and what we shouldn’t. Every word that we speak has gone through this filter and been allowed to pass through our unconscious to our conscious. In order for there to be spoken words, there must also be words which are not spoken. This can be very important in situations where we bite our tongues and do not say certain things which we would later regret.
ESPN12, Macherey
I defiantly found this section of the book to be confusing. However once I was able to step back and really look at it I guess I was able to understand a little better. Throughout the beginning I found Macherey to be talking about how all literary work is open to being critiqued and how because of that no work is really complete. It made me think about how a simple story, which is not even made to be complex or made to be anything else then it really is can be looked at and then critiqued to be something else. This shows that people can think many ways about certain texts and many different feelings can arise. That leads me in the next section of the book that talks about silence. It says both that “in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, and also “Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us. We investigate silence, for it is silence that is doing the speaking.” Thus when one looks a simple story, they come up with new ideas and feelings that are not said and leads them to think that there is more to it then there really is. Certainly, it could be the same for complex and long writings as well, but it is the Silence can give us many new feelings and thought. This shows us that silence is indeed is more important than is what is being said as it opens a whole new thought process and new ideas of what is being said. Silence is really something I have never thought about in writing but it really gives one a whole perspective on not only writings but also in everyday language and movies. It must also be known that even though silence seems to be more important then what is written, what is written is also important as it give one the amiability to choose how much silence there is.
biegieGo, Macherey
Post2 September 2, 2009
“The recognition of the area of shadow in or around the work is the initial moment of criticism.”
I think this is a very important statement by Macherey. It made me think of what criticism is all about and if it is really like a shadow. I mean shadows are dark but they can also be very light. Criticism is the same way; it can be very cold, harsh words that someone is trying to tell you or it can be light and not so dark and scary. I guess it all depends on how you look at the shadow/criticism. Some people cannot take criticism and therefore the shadow would be considered very dark but others can take it and learn from it, they look at it in a positive light and those are the kinds of people that exceed in this world. When someone recognizes that your work needs a little cleaning up and gives you some criticism, it’s like them making a shadow over you/your work. Macherey says he “wants to examine the nature of this shadow: does it denote a true absence, or is it the extension of a half-presence?” what if there was a meaning for the space between the shadow and the work? What would people call it, would it be the other half-presence Macherey is talking about? “Will it be the pillar of an explanation or the pretext for an interpretation?” for me to answer that question I think the shadow would lead people to be interpreted in its own ways to whoever it looking at it.
“The recognition of the area of shadow in or around the work is the initial moment of criticism.”
I think this is a very important statement by Macherey. It made me think of what criticism is all about and if it is really like a shadow. I mean shadows are dark but they can also be very light. Criticism is the same way; it can be very cold, harsh words that someone is trying to tell you or it can be light and not so dark and scary. I guess it all depends on how you look at the shadow/criticism. Some people cannot take criticism and therefore the shadow would be considered very dark but others can take it and learn from it, they look at it in a positive light and those are the kinds of people that exceed in this world. When someone recognizes that your work needs a little cleaning up and gives you some criticism, it’s like them making a shadow over you/your work. Macherey says he “wants to examine the nature of this shadow: does it denote a true absence, or is it the extension of a half-presence?” what if there was a meaning for the space between the shadow and the work? What would people call it, would it be the other half-presence Macherey is talking about? “Will it be the pillar of an explanation or the pretext for an interpretation?” for me to answer that question I think the shadow would lead people to be interpreted in its own ways to whoever it looking at it.
Daisy, Macherey
Pierre Macherey focused on the unspoken silence within texts. This is the idea that an article, book, or song is incomplete and there is some part of it that causes a larger meaning. The missing language within a text is what creates further questions. Texts have both an explicit and implicit meaning. According to Macherey, the explicit “is formally accounted for, expressed, and even concluded” (13). The implicit, on the other hand, is the meaning behind the explicit, the unspoken knowledge. It is what creates further discussion through language.
According to Macherey, “the explicit requires the implicit: for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said” (17). For a text to be effective it requires thought, more language. But before a text can have effective implicit meaning, the language requires effectiveness to produce the explicit. A couple years ago I heard a story about a Phil Collins song, “In the Air Tonight.” The story says when Phil Collins was young his best friend was drowning and a man passing by wouldn’t help save him. Later in life, Phil Collins wrote a song about it and tracked the man down and invited him to his concert to hear the song played. It was said that a week later the man committed suicide. Whether or not that story is true it can provide an example here. The language and silence within the song affected the man in a very powerful way. The song can be interpreted many different ways and create different feelings for different people, the key word here is different.
The idea of silence is that it is not quiet. Many times the silence is very loud as it was said to be for the man listening to the Phil Collins song. Another example is a friend might ask you how your day is, and you reply “fine.” But in reality the implicit meaning behind the “fine,” is that you’re having a horrible day, your boyfriend broke up with you and you just failed a test. Your friend might sense the silence within your reply and go on to ask you more questions, such as “Are you really fine? You seem kind of down.” The important part within this conversation was not the answer “fine,” but what was not said, the meaning behind the language.
According to Macherey, “the explicit requires the implicit: for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said” (17). For a text to be effective it requires thought, more language. But before a text can have effective implicit meaning, the language requires effectiveness to produce the explicit. A couple years ago I heard a story about a Phil Collins song, “In the Air Tonight.” The story says when Phil Collins was young his best friend was drowning and a man passing by wouldn’t help save him. Later in life, Phil Collins wrote a song about it and tracked the man down and invited him to his concert to hear the song played. It was said that a week later the man committed suicide. Whether or not that story is true it can provide an example here. The language and silence within the song affected the man in a very powerful way. The song can be interpreted many different ways and create different feelings for different people, the key word here is different.
The idea of silence is that it is not quiet. Many times the silence is very loud as it was said to be for the man listening to the Phil Collins song. Another example is a friend might ask you how your day is, and you reply “fine.” But in reality the implicit meaning behind the “fine,” is that you’re having a horrible day, your boyfriend broke up with you and you just failed a test. Your friend might sense the silence within your reply and go on to ask you more questions, such as “Are you really fine? You seem kind of down.” The important part within this conversation was not the answer “fine,” but what was not said, the meaning behind the language.
Elmo, Macherey
After reading and reflecting on Pierre Macherey’s “A Theory of Literary Production” I came to have a new understanding of the word silence. One quotation from the reading that struck me was “silences shape all speech” (17). I underlined this in the essay and then continued to read. As I read onward, I had a better understanding of its meaning. While we initially read for the upfront meaning of the words on a page, we often times also read in order to understand a deeper hidden meaning. Macherey says, “speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking” (17). This is the essence of Macherey’s entire essay. When we read it is important for us to look further, we need to look beyond the words on a page. We need to talk about reading, try to examine and understand what the author might have been thinking, but not necessarily writing down for us. This silence that we investigate may provide us with more insight than we think. The interpretations we come up with aid us in drawing conclusions and ultimately understanding the authors opinions. Macherey later states, “to know the work, we must move outside it” (20). This also seems to be central in Macherey’s thinking because to truly “know” and understand a work we must look outside the box at the abstract thoughts and ideas that go along with the written words. I had never really thought about the things not said in writing as “silences” but after reading Macherey’s work I have come to understand this term with a new light. I always try to gain insight by looking for the underlying messages or meaning from a piece of literature but I never knew exactly why I would do this. Now I know that by doing this, I am actually gaining more knowledge of the work. Perhaps this concept could go along with the expression, “silence is golden”; because now I know that there really is something special to be said about the silence.
Teets, Macherey
"By speech, silence becomes the centre and principle of expression, its vanishing point. Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking" (Page 17). In American society today, people want to know what is going on at all times. It seems to me that people are afraid of silence, or a lack of words. Silence makes people uncomfortable, whether it is brief or for a long period of time. There are some things in life that "words can't even express..." Silence fills the void in those situations.
Silence can represent many things; fear, anger, stupidity, etc. Regardless, it is an interesting topic of study. Similar to silence are implications. In text there is always an explicit meaning; that which is clearly stated. However, in most cases there is also an implicit meaning. "Either all around or in its wake the explicit requires the implicit: for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said" (Page 17). A song with esoteric lyrics is a great example of the relationship between explicit and implicit. The lyrics literally say something, but the deeper meaning is a bit more ambiguous. The listener can try to understand the implications of the song, but often times the lyricist is the only one who understands.
Thought requires speech, but speech also requires thought. I see a parallel between thought<>speech and implicit<>explicit. Both connections can go either way. In my opinion, an author has some sort of motive for writing a story, poem, song, etc. The author conveys his message in a certain way, which can be understood explicitly. However, because the piece came from the thoughts of one person, readers will imply different things. I guess what i got from this article is that words aren't enough to express a feeling or an idea. Sometimes silence is the key, while other times it is implications that are the key.
Silence can represent many things; fear, anger, stupidity, etc. Regardless, it is an interesting topic of study. Similar to silence are implications. In text there is always an explicit meaning; that which is clearly stated. However, in most cases there is also an implicit meaning. "Either all around or in its wake the explicit requires the implicit: for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said" (Page 17). A song with esoteric lyrics is a great example of the relationship between explicit and implicit. The lyrics literally say something, but the deeper meaning is a bit more ambiguous. The listener can try to understand the implications of the song, but often times the lyricist is the only one who understands.
Thought requires speech, but speech also requires thought. I see a parallel between thought<>speech and implicit<>explicit. Both connections can go either way. In my opinion, an author has some sort of motive for writing a story, poem, song, etc. The author conveys his message in a certain way, which can be understood explicitly. However, because the piece came from the thoughts of one person, readers will imply different things. I guess what i got from this article is that words aren't enough to express a feeling or an idea. Sometimes silence is the key, while other times it is implications that are the key.
Graham, Macherey
The quote from the chapter that I chose to9 discuss is "if the author does not always say what he states, he does not necessarily state what he says."
I believe that this is a great statement, meaning that sometimes the most important things for us to know are the things that we forget to mention. For instance, if we are reading a biography about an important figure in society, there is no way that the author will be able to capture every single fact about that individual that has impacted their life in an important way.
I believe that this quote is often relevant because we read something either in a textbook, or maybe even just a book or newspaper that we choose to read for our entertainment. We read a few hundred pages (in a book) or maybe even a few paragraphs (in a newspaper) and we feel as if we know an extensive amount of information about the topic. We later find out after other individuals do further research that we actually know nothing at all…well, at least about the most important things on the subject.
Sometimes the things that are not said are the things that we need to look into and investigate further. Maybe they are not openly discussed because the topic is something that is difficult to understand. But with time and proper research, everyone would benefit very well from knowing the unspoken details.
I believe that this also has to do with what we discussed last class (signs). Sometimes it is not necessarily what we say that matters, it is the way that people interpret it and the way that people choose to think about it based on their past experiences. Many things can be interpreted many different ways, so extensive research must be done in order to fully understand information that we read or hear. We will probably still be missing vital information even after the excessive research, which just goes to show that there are constantly new things for us to learn.
I believe that this is a great statement, meaning that sometimes the most important things for us to know are the things that we forget to mention. For instance, if we are reading a biography about an important figure in society, there is no way that the author will be able to capture every single fact about that individual that has impacted their life in an important way.
I believe that this quote is often relevant because we read something either in a textbook, or maybe even just a book or newspaper that we choose to read for our entertainment. We read a few hundred pages (in a book) or maybe even a few paragraphs (in a newspaper) and we feel as if we know an extensive amount of information about the topic. We later find out after other individuals do further research that we actually know nothing at all…well, at least about the most important things on the subject.
Sometimes the things that are not said are the things that we need to look into and investigate further. Maybe they are not openly discussed because the topic is something that is difficult to understand. But with time and proper research, everyone would benefit very well from knowing the unspoken details.
I believe that this also has to do with what we discussed last class (signs). Sometimes it is not necessarily what we say that matters, it is the way that people interpret it and the way that people choose to think about it based on their past experiences. Many things can be interpreted many different ways, so extensive research must be done in order to fully understand information that we read or hear. We will probably still be missing vital information even after the excessive research, which just goes to show that there are constantly new things for us to learn.
Gwatter06, Macherey
Our first piece covering the critical complex behind language and literature! I enjoyed this piece from Macherey because there were a lot of different points and angles taken on the theory of literary production. The point that intrigued me most that Macherey covered was that all literary work is empty, empty in the sense that all work is feasible to critique. “For there to be a critical discourse which is more than a superficial and futile reprise of the work, the speech stored in the book must be incomplete; because it has not said everything, there remains the possibility of saying something else…” (15) Without the creation of this notion and the understanding of this aspect, we wouldn’t even have a CMC framework, we wouldn’t have literary disputes, and many things would be tunneled and closed-minded. Macherey makes a great point in saying, “to know what the writer is saying, it is not enough to let him speak, for his speech is hollow and can never be completed at its own level” (16). What I believe Macherey is trying to develop is that, theory and critical discourse thrives from the emptiness of language in a text. The incompleteness in which cannot be located is what provides the window for the crucial role of critical discourse.
Another compelling topic Macherey covered within this excerpt was the idea of the significance of the “unspoken” in language. Early on he explained that explicit and implicit are exact opposites and that explicit is text that is accounted for, expressed and sometimes concluded and is directly correlated with the text. Implicit plays its role in the formulation of the speech in text. Macherey claims that a book or text is not self-sufficient, and its figure contrives from a “certain absence.” Macherey explains that explicit derives and requires the implicit, creating the notion, “for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said” (17). My first thought on this is the renowned common relation in physics; for every action there is an opposite reaction. In this case, the action creates a reaction in which ultimately solidifies speech in text. In the end, creating the base for the formulation literature.
Another compelling topic Macherey covered within this excerpt was the idea of the significance of the “unspoken” in language. Early on he explained that explicit and implicit are exact opposites and that explicit is text that is accounted for, expressed and sometimes concluded and is directly correlated with the text. Implicit plays its role in the formulation of the speech in text. Macherey claims that a book or text is not self-sufficient, and its figure contrives from a “certain absence.” Macherey explains that explicit derives and requires the implicit, creating the notion, “for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said” (17). My first thought on this is the renowned common relation in physics; for every action there is an opposite reaction. In this case, the action creates a reaction in which ultimately solidifies speech in text. In the end, creating the base for the formulation literature.
Ron Burgundy, Macherey
While reading the passage from Pierre Macharey I felt intrigued by a particular sentence that dealt with the silence in speech and the importance of investigating not what is said but what is not said. Macharey writes, “ speech eventually has nothing more to tell us; we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking” emphasizing the unsaid, in this case with writing. If I am understanding this concept correctly it reminds me much of what my English classes dealt with throughout my entire high school career. With every single book that I read in high school I was made to explain the “themes” or important “underlying ideas” that were within the text. In order to find these themes I had to draw myself back from what was literally being said in the book to look at the whole picture and the types of metaphors that were being played with in the text. In a sense, I was doing exactly what Macharey says we must do in all the speech, “investigate the silence”, as I was looking for things that were not explicitly stated in the text but still existed within the work. This idea of the silence of the text being a major contributor to the speech is extremely curious to me. For our younger years of education we are taught to read what is set before us and take the story for literal meaning. Then once we grow in our education we our told to investigate further than what is there and can only truly understand speech when it is appreciated for both what is said and what is not said. In my interpersonal communications class we are also looking at a comparable idea to the concept of the unsaid by Macharey as we are looking at the different between context meaning and relational meaning. When we look at context meaning we are looking at the literal meaning of what is said with no underlying message, in a sense taking the message for face value. When we discuss relational meaning we examine the relationship within which the message was communicated and examine to see if there could be an underlying idea implicated in addition to the message. In my interpersonal class we discussed how different genders often lean towards applying one of the two meanings and so therefore there is often miscommunication of ideas because one can only recognize either the said or unsaid. Looking at these two ideas with one another I can only wonder since dialogue is often misunderstood because of the said and unsaid, are books are often misread because of the failure to appreciate both the said and unsaid?
Captain Outrageous, Macherey
"work does not say what it does not say" - Macherey
"if the author does not say what he states he doesn't necessarily state what he says." -Macherey
"I've no idea what I'm talking about...I'm trapped in this body and I can't get out." -Thom Yorke
Let me start off by saying that this was one seriously confusing text. It felt that he was saying the same thing repetitively though moving through different things to say.
Moving on.
My first subject regarding this text is the bottomless hole that is created through the journey of Macherey. We live in an absence that isn't necessarily there relying on or not relying on an ideological theme due or not due to an external history caused or not caused by ideologies that form questions that shouldn't be questions but are questions necessary to ask due to the unnecessariness of...something. That I don't know. Because apparently I'm not supposed to know? But it is that not-knowing that is important? Hence the Thom Yorke quote. No clue what I'm talking about...but I can't seem to get outside of it anyway.
My second subject is this: allegory, symbolism, theme. These things, I interpreted at least, are sort of what Macherey was getting at in terms of a work saying or not saying things, stating but not stating, and of course all that confusion about the history. For example, "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller. The book DOES NOT DIRECTLY SAY "this book is ACTUALLY about the McCarthy era and the concepts and conspiracies behind being red-listed". The book does not directly say anything about being a factual account of the Salem Witch Trials either. This is the ever widening 'gap' of relationship that Macherey described between what is there and what isn't there. Furhtermore this connects to the issue of questioning. Eventually, Macherey explains that looking for meaning within the work is good for asking the questions because we will find that the work is already prepared to answer them. There's no great or grand outside theory of the book- this obscene silence to be answered or completed- it is all WITHIN the book (unless it is a Toni Morrisson book but that is my personal opinion) due to an unspoken meaning; or, as Macherey says, the necessary secret that gives a book its life. So, if Arthur Miller had, within the text of "The Crucible" somehow told us what he was saying, the book wouldn't be saying very much at all. In that matter, "The Lord of the Flies" wouldn't say much about society. But these examples fall under a specific group, however, that's the connection I made.
I think, in the end, Macherey is very very complicatedly saying that what is not directly stated within a text is not necessarily what the text isn't saying. Not that that is any less complicated. The "What does this mean?" concept must be studied, as he says, the rupture between the questions of within and outside.
What it all comes down to is "All that a man allows to appear"- whatever you allow to be seen is what shall be seen as author or as reader, at the same time mangled underneath 'history' and 'ideology' and theme and so very incredibly open and realistic.
"if the author does not say what he states he doesn't necessarily state what he says." -Macherey
"I've no idea what I'm talking about...I'm trapped in this body and I can't get out." -Thom Yorke
Let me start off by saying that this was one seriously confusing text. It felt that he was saying the same thing repetitively though moving through different things to say.
Moving on.
My first subject regarding this text is the bottomless hole that is created through the journey of Macherey. We live in an absence that isn't necessarily there relying on or not relying on an ideological theme due or not due to an external history caused or not caused by ideologies that form questions that shouldn't be questions but are questions necessary to ask due to the unnecessariness of...something. That I don't know. Because apparently I'm not supposed to know? But it is that not-knowing that is important? Hence the Thom Yorke quote. No clue what I'm talking about...but I can't seem to get outside of it anyway.
My second subject is this: allegory, symbolism, theme. These things, I interpreted at least, are sort of what Macherey was getting at in terms of a work saying or not saying things, stating but not stating, and of course all that confusion about the history. For example, "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller. The book DOES NOT DIRECTLY SAY "this book is ACTUALLY about the McCarthy era and the concepts and conspiracies behind being red-listed". The book does not directly say anything about being a factual account of the Salem Witch Trials either. This is the ever widening 'gap' of relationship that Macherey described between what is there and what isn't there. Furhtermore this connects to the issue of questioning. Eventually, Macherey explains that looking for meaning within the work is good for asking the questions because we will find that the work is already prepared to answer them. There's no great or grand outside theory of the book- this obscene silence to be answered or completed- it is all WITHIN the book (unless it is a Toni Morrisson book but that is my personal opinion) due to an unspoken meaning; or, as Macherey says, the necessary secret that gives a book its life. So, if Arthur Miller had, within the text of "The Crucible" somehow told us what he was saying, the book wouldn't be saying very much at all. In that matter, "The Lord of the Flies" wouldn't say much about society. But these examples fall under a specific group, however, that's the connection I made.
I think, in the end, Macherey is very very complicatedly saying that what is not directly stated within a text is not necessarily what the text isn't saying. Not that that is any less complicated. The "What does this mean?" concept must be studied, as he says, the rupture between the questions of within and outside.
What it all comes down to is "All that a man allows to appear"- whatever you allow to be seen is what shall be seen as author or as reader, at the same time mangled underneath 'history' and 'ideology' and theme and so very incredibly open and realistic.
Serendipity, Macherey
One of the most interesting sections to me in the reading for Thursday’s class was the notion of “silence” particularly when Macherey was referring to books. He states that silence gives it life, and it is what you don’t say and that is implicit is more important. In writing a book, there is a coherent belief that there will be a beginning, middle, and an end. No one has to spell that out in the beginning of the book because it is known to be as fact. I would suppose that people would be very disturbed and confused if this was not the case. Also, at the beginning of most novels, the characters are described and we are conditioned to make assumptions about them that carry us throughout the story, even if they do not exhibit behaviors that necessarily point to that assumption. Macherey basically believes that silence has the loudest voice. This belief is heavily portrayed in some of history’s most difficult times. For example, during the Holocaust, rhetoric and words and signs (mostly propaganda) had loud voices and made the atrocities a reality. However, the people in Europe and across the world that were silent really had the biggest impact. If those silent people spoke up and took action against the horrific acts that took place then it would have been stopped earlier, or not have happened at all. The power of voice is not to be undermined, and those that are silent may be inadvertently helping some of the world’s most brutal acts to go unnoticed.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Nemo, de Saussure
"When we speak of the value of a word, we generally think first of its property of standing for an idea, and this is in fact one side of linguistic value. But if this is true, how does value differ from signification?" (p. 7)
I decided to write about this passage because it was the one that confused me and I felt that if I did write about it, I would understand it a little more.
This passage discusses the signified and the signifier. When we speak a word we first picture sign attached to the meaning of the word (the visual aspect) and then we think if the meaning of the word fits in what we are trying to say to another person [the linguistic value (7)]. When I read this article I tried to understand it by thinking of everyday things - such as dollar bills, pictures, road signs, etc. First I thought of a word, then I thought of its linguistic meaning or definition. Finally I put an image that best described the meaning.
In the reading there was a diagram (on page 7) that explained all of this and even though I have learned what the difference between the signified and the signifier is I sometimes still get confused. This diagram confused me somewhat. It showed that when we speak a word we are, at first, only concerned with the sound-image idea (7) and eventually we start to processes the entire meaning of the word or the signification. That is what I thought this passage was discussing but if I am wrong feel free to correct me.
I decided to write about this passage because it was the one that confused me and I felt that if I did write about it, I would understand it a little more.
This passage discusses the signified and the signifier. When we speak a word we first picture sign attached to the meaning of the word (the visual aspect) and then we think if the meaning of the word fits in what we are trying to say to another person [the linguistic value (7)]. When I read this article I tried to understand it by thinking of everyday things - such as dollar bills, pictures, road signs, etc. First I thought of a word, then I thought of its linguistic meaning or definition. Finally I put an image that best described the meaning.
In the reading there was a diagram (on page 7) that explained all of this and even though I have learned what the difference between the signified and the signifier is I sometimes still get confused. This diagram confused me somewhat. It showed that when we speak a word we are, at first, only concerned with the sound-image idea (7) and eventually we start to processes the entire meaning of the word or the signification. That is what I thought this passage was discussing but if I am wrong feel free to correct me.
FloRida, de Saussure and Barthes
Ferdinand de Saussure’s article from “Course is General Linguistics” has a very profound statement that made me think about past, current, and possible future learning’s. It states, that “Philosophers and linguistics have always agreed in recognizing that without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction between two ideas.” This brings up a question. Is de Saussure talking about a physical sign, like hand motions, or interpretive signs, like metaphors and myths? Maybe he is talking about both? Throughout the course of the Critical Media and Cultural Studies major, semiotics has been studied and discussed. Semiotics is the study of codes and signs within texts or visuals. What this article brings up is how closely signs and linguistics are interconnected, an idea I never really thought about. The article states that, “the arbitrary nature of the sign explains in turn why the social fact alone can create a linguistic system.” To me linguistic signs can include both physical and metaphorical meanings. Signs help us understand things better. They create meaning and emotions for us. This can occur through conscious thought and unconscious thought. Sometimes people do not even realize how a specific sign is affecting them. In this case, I believe that signs are representing all sides of the spectrum. De Saussure’s concepts have a relation to Roland Barthes’ article, “The Pleasure of the Text.” His article describes how sometimes we skim or pass over some of readings and that it might not always be a bad thing. We might sometimes identify with something (a sign) in a text and create part of the story. In reference to authors of novels, the article states that, “the author cannot predict tmesis: he cannot choose to write what will not be read. And yet, it is the very rhythm of what is read and what is not read that creates the pleasure of the great narratives.” Both of these articles were definitely eye-opening to the correlation between linguistics and signs and how we as people are effected by them.
Nemo 8/31
In this post-modern culture people have become obsessed with absurdity, meaninglessness and surrealism. Directors and writers alike, have been fueled by the notion of suspicion - they need to give their audience something to explain the unknown. On the first day of class we discussed an article in the New York Times about the CW network's new T.V. show "The Vampire Diaries". The consept that this show is based on is not a new one, in fact many shows and movies have used the same base but with varied story lines. Graham Stoker's book Dracula, Nosveratu, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, The Twilight Saga, An Interview with a Vampire, Being Human, True Blood, and on and on. All of these shows, movies and books have created a sense of reality so that people do not fear what they do not know. The question that the New York Times is asking is "Is America Vampired out?" In a certain way America is vampired out but as long as there is this fear of the unknown the media will be able to continue creating story lines about the supernatural to allow people the false sense that they actually do know about things that they only have suspicions about. I personally enjoy thinking about what else is out there in the world and by watching all of these movies or shows I feel as though I am able to comprehend what else might be in this world.
HOLLA! Saussure
“To prove that language is only a system of pure values, it is enough to consider the two elements involved in its functioning: ideas and sounds” (5). This being the opening quotation of the text brought clarity to the idea of language and how it can be viewed. Saussure compares language to a sheet of paper; thoughts (ideas) as the front and sounds as the back of the paper. If the front and backside of a sheet of paper cannot be divided either can the ideas and sounds of language. Another comparison, the back and front of a piece of paper makes up a whole piece of paper, without the back and front you would no longer have a piece of paper. Through this comparison the same can be said for language. Ideas and sounds are two elements of language and when comparing language to a piece of paper their elements cannot be extracted. The piece of paper concept gives a visual form to the idea of linguistics/language, which is clearly verbal. So in short, as Saussure says, “linguistics then works in the borderland where the elements of sound and thought combine; their combination produces a form, not a substance” (6). Another point of linguistics/language that interested me was the fact that language is made up of symbols. If language is made up of symbols, whether they be arbitrary or not, then our ideas and sounds are actually produced and grouped into symbols, in return becoming language. Also, language is a shared group of symbols that are common with all countries yet can be made up of different values. For instance, Saussure uses the comparison to ‘sheep’ in English and ‘mutton’ in French. In English ‘sheep’ is the animal and in English ‘mutton’ is a cooked sheep/lamb whereas ‘mutton’ in French only has one meaning. This fact interested me as well because language (symbol wise) is so simple yet its value can be so different and diverse.
Kiwi , saussure and barthes reading
I thought after reading Saussure and Barthes there was no way I was going to be able to do a post on what I just read. However, after going back through the readings, slowly, numerous amounts of times I was able to comprehend that, in language there are only differences. These differences involve positive terms between which the difference is set up. Though in language there are only differences without positive terms. But the statement that everything in language is negative is also true only if the signified and the signifier are considered separately. When we look at the sign as a whole, we have something that becomes positive in its own classes. So what does all of this mean?
The linguistic sign has two elements: Signifier- the form that signifies and Signified- the conceptual meaning. Two important characteristics of the relationship between the signifier and the signified: 1) As invisible as two sides of a piece of paper 2) Something that is always an arbitrary (random) convention (meeting/gathering).
“ Although both the signified and the signifier are purely differential and negative when considered separately, their combination is a positive fact; it is even the sole type of facts that language, has, for maintain the parallelism between the two classes of difference is the distinctive function of the linguistic institution.”(pg.11)
“There is nothing at all to prevent the association of any idea whatsoever with any sequence of sounds whatsoever.”(De Saussure) Saussure asserted the independence (autonomy) of language with respect to reality. Signs have no inherent meaning. Sign derives entirely from relation to other signs within the languages system. Roland Barthes argued that signs in any signifying system can be understood by means of language. He developed a framework for the practice of examining cultural signs and reading their meaning within larger structures of myth. Myth operates by transforming a sign (the signifier/signified) in the first-order language system, into a mere signifier in the second-order system. For example say we are looking at a picture of a young French African American boy saluting. The signifier would be the black solider giving a salute. Barthes sees the figuration of the photo, that is to say, the arrangement of colored dots on a white background as constituting the signier, and the concept of the black soldier saluting the tricolor as constituting the signified. Together, they form the sign.
The linguistic sign has two elements: Signifier- the form that signifies and Signified- the conceptual meaning. Two important characteristics of the relationship between the signifier and the signified: 1) As invisible as two sides of a piece of paper 2) Something that is always an arbitrary (random) convention (meeting/gathering).
“ Although both the signified and the signifier are purely differential and negative when considered separately, their combination is a positive fact; it is even the sole type of facts that language, has, for maintain the parallelism between the two classes of difference is the distinctive function of the linguistic institution.”(pg.11)
“There is nothing at all to prevent the association of any idea whatsoever with any sequence of sounds whatsoever.”(De Saussure) Saussure asserted the independence (autonomy) of language with respect to reality. Signs have no inherent meaning. Sign derives entirely from relation to other signs within the languages system. Roland Barthes argued that signs in any signifying system can be understood by means of language. He developed a framework for the practice of examining cultural signs and reading their meaning within larger structures of myth. Myth operates by transforming a sign (the signifier/signified) in the first-order language system, into a mere signifier in the second-order system. For example say we are looking at a picture of a young French African American boy saluting. The signifier would be the black solider giving a salute. Barthes sees the figuration of the photo, that is to say, the arrangement of colored dots on a white background as constituting the signier, and the concept of the black soldier saluting the tricolor as constituting the signified. Together, they form the sign.
Kiwi -8/31
I thought after reading Saussure and Barthes there was no way I was going to be able to do a post on what I just read. However, after going back through the readings, slowly, numerous amounts of times I was able to comprehend that, in language there are only differences. These differences involve positive terms between which the difference is set up. Though in language there are only differences without positive terms. But the statement that everything in language is negative is also true only if the signified and the signifier are considered separately. When we look at the sign as a whole, we have something that becomes positive in its own classes. So what does all of this mean?
The linguistic sign has two elements: Signifier- the form that signifies and Signified- the conceptual meaning. Two important characteristics of the relationship between the signifier and the signified: 1) As invisible as two sides of a piece of paper 2) Something that is always an arbitrary (random) convention (meeting/gathering).
“ Although both the signified and the signifier are purely differential and negative when considered separately, their combination is a positive fact; it is even the sole type of facts that language, has, for maintain the parallelism between the two classes of difference is the distinctive function of the linguistic institution.”(pg.11)
“There is nothing at all to prevent the association of any idea whatsoever with any sequence of sounds whatsoever.”(De Saussure) Saussure asserted the independence (autonomy) of language with respect to reality. Signs have no inherent meaning. Sign derives entirely from relation to other signs within the languages system. Roland Barthes argued that signs in any signifying system can be understood by means of language. He developed a framework for the practice of examining cultural signs and reading their meaning within larger structures of myth. Myth operates by transforming a sign (the signifier/signified) in the first-order language system, into a mere signifier in the second-order system. For example say we are looking at a picture of a young French African American boy saluting. The signifier would be the black solider giving a salute. Barthes sees the figuration of the photo, that is to say, the arrangement of colored dots on a white background as constituting the signier, and the concept of the black soldier saluting the tricolor as constituting the signified. Together, they form the sign.
The linguistic sign has two elements: Signifier- the form that signifies and Signified- the conceptual meaning. Two important characteristics of the relationship between the signifier and the signified: 1) As invisible as two sides of a piece of paper 2) Something that is always an arbitrary (random) convention (meeting/gathering).
“ Although both the signified and the signifier are purely differential and negative when considered separately, their combination is a positive fact; it is even the sole type of facts that language, has, for maintain the parallelism between the two classes of difference is the distinctive function of the linguistic institution.”(pg.11)
“There is nothing at all to prevent the association of any idea whatsoever with any sequence of sounds whatsoever.”(De Saussure) Saussure asserted the independence (autonomy) of language with respect to reality. Signs have no inherent meaning. Sign derives entirely from relation to other signs within the languages system. Roland Barthes argued that signs in any signifying system can be understood by means of language. He developed a framework for the practice of examining cultural signs and reading their meaning within larger structures of myth. Myth operates by transforming a sign (the signifier/signified) in the first-order language system, into a mere signifier in the second-order system. For example say we are looking at a picture of a young French African American boy saluting. The signifier would be the black solider giving a salute. Barthes sees the figuration of the photo, that is to say, the arrangement of colored dots on a white background as constituting the signier, and the concept of the black soldier saluting the tricolor as constituting the signified. Together, they form the sign.
Visionsof6, Sausure
“The characteristic role of language with respect to thought is not to create a material phonic means for expressing ideas but to serve as a link between thought and sound, under conditions that of necessity bring about the reciprocal delimitations of units…Language can also be compared with a sheet of paper: thought is the front and the sound is the back; one cannot cut the front without cutting the back at the same time; likewise in language, once can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound.”
What Saussure says about language reminded me of how physicists describe our universe. With language, the signifier/signified give meaning to thought and sound. In our universe, time and space make our universe “corporeal.” In other terms, if we weren’t able, as a race, to add significance to the primitive noises and drawings we created millions of years ago, we would haven’t evolved into the creatures we are now.
I found myself thinking of road signs when reading this article. The yield sign does not say “yield” like the stop sign does, yet we know, because of drivers ed, that we must slow our car down to make sure that we aren’t going to get t-boned by a 90 year-old driver that shouldn’t be on the road.
In the reading there is a diagram showing thought floating above sound with a gap in between the two. What I’ve taken from this diagram and the article – which is more than likely wrong – is that signifiers bridge the gap between thought and sound, giving us language. We could easily create an experiment wherein we tell young children that at traffic lights, red means go, and green means stop. When they reach driving age, they would of course cause many accidents, but because they are told what these colors mean, they interpolate the sign and do as they’re told – stop or go – proving that no matter how you spin it, language is subjective to different cultures, and even species.
Every creature has a language – we as humans are not capable of understanding most of their languages, but those that we do understand it is all based on signs, body language, etc. The primal sounds of an ape, aren’t just sounds, they’re that species’ way of communicating to each other.
Semiotics fascinates me and I find it oddly interesting that the smarter the human race gets, the more it seems we don’t understand a thing about how or why we do the things we do. A favorite writer/director of mine, who is no doubt a pioneer in the television industry best sums up this entry…
“A caveman painted on a cave/ It was a bison, was a fave/ The other cave-people would rave/ They didn’t ask, “why?/Why paint a bison if it’s dead/When did you choose the color red/What was the process in your head/He told their story/What came before he didn’t show/We’re not supposed to know/But now we pick pick/Pick pick pick it apart/Open it up to find the/Tick tick tick of a heart.”
In short, we can pick things apart until there’s nothing left, but that takes the mystery out of life.
-6
What Saussure says about language reminded me of how physicists describe our universe. With language, the signifier/signified give meaning to thought and sound. In our universe, time and space make our universe “corporeal.” In other terms, if we weren’t able, as a race, to add significance to the primitive noises and drawings we created millions of years ago, we would haven’t evolved into the creatures we are now.
I found myself thinking of road signs when reading this article. The yield sign does not say “yield” like the stop sign does, yet we know, because of drivers ed, that we must slow our car down to make sure that we aren’t going to get t-boned by a 90 year-old driver that shouldn’t be on the road.
In the reading there is a diagram showing thought floating above sound with a gap in between the two. What I’ve taken from this diagram and the article – which is more than likely wrong – is that signifiers bridge the gap between thought and sound, giving us language. We could easily create an experiment wherein we tell young children that at traffic lights, red means go, and green means stop. When they reach driving age, they would of course cause many accidents, but because they are told what these colors mean, they interpolate the sign and do as they’re told – stop or go – proving that no matter how you spin it, language is subjective to different cultures, and even species.
Every creature has a language – we as humans are not capable of understanding most of their languages, but those that we do understand it is all based on signs, body language, etc. The primal sounds of an ape, aren’t just sounds, they’re that species’ way of communicating to each other.
Semiotics fascinates me and I find it oddly interesting that the smarter the human race gets, the more it seems we don’t understand a thing about how or why we do the things we do. A favorite writer/director of mine, who is no doubt a pioneer in the television industry best sums up this entry…
“A caveman painted on a cave/ It was a bison, was a fave/ The other cave-people would rave/ They didn’t ask, “why?/Why paint a bison if it’s dead/When did you choose the color red/What was the process in your head/He told their story/What came before he didn’t show/We’re not supposed to know/But now we pick pick/Pick pick pick it apart/Open it up to find the/Tick tick tick of a heart.”
In short, we can pick things apart until there’s nothing left, but that takes the mystery out of life.
-6
Bubbles, de Saussure
In the second reading "The Pleasure of the Text" Barthes explains the concept of tmesis, the "source or figure or pleasure." This concept opened my eyes to various new ideas. I had never thought of how different texts could be interpreted differently, i always had thought that texts such as poetry were open for interpretation but even simple phrases can have different interpretations. At first i thought this concept was an obstacle for authors who write novels or any text with a certain code, but different readers decode those novels in different ways. This may seem like an obstacle, but i think the open interpretation may be beneficial for the authors because more readers can relate to their novels with their own interpretations.
I also found this concept to be similar to that of de Saussure's linguistics. Both concepts reveal how different ideas, terms, texts, have different values to each individual, the signified is different to each signifier, just as each source of pleasure is different to each reader. Both concepts are very interesting and eye opening.
I also found this concept to be similar to that of de Saussure's linguistics. Both concepts reveal how different ideas, terms, texts, have different values to each individual, the signified is different to each signifier, just as each source of pleasure is different to each reader. Both concepts are very interesting and eye opening.
Captain Planet, Saussure
Saussure claims that “there are no pre-existing ideas, and nothing is distinct before the appearance of language” (5). Fundamentally Saussure is saying that language is directly linked with thought, and therefore before we learned language we did not form thoughts. But does this mean that until we know language (either spoken or written) that we cannot form ideas and furthermore, cannot communicate. Take an infant for example. Prior to learning language does the child have thoughts? Is the child able to communicate? Looking back to Saussure, these questions are further developed in his statement by saying that “the characteristic role of language… [is] to serve as a link between thought and sound” (5-6). It is the connection between the thought and sound (the spoken words we hear) which give us language. Language enables us to communicate with people across the world. Although the written word may look different and the spoken word may sound different, the meaning underlying each word is universal. When an American and a Spaniard view a house, the word they use to describe it are ‘house’ versus ‘casa.’ Even though the two men may use different sounds, both words signify the same thing. In regards to an infant as mentioned before, research has said that babies have different cries to show they need different things. The sound of different cries is the child’s way of communicating. However, because the child is not communicating through spoken word, does that make his/her type of language less validated? Are the cries of the child an attempt to communicate through language? Or are the cries simply the infant’s body reacting to a physical need? I think to answer my own question about infants I need to do some research, but I guess the underlying question here is what defines what language is? Is language confined to the sophisticated written and spoken languages around the world? Or can language, as Saussure states it, be more primitive than that?
Ace Ventura, de Saussure
In de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, he speaks about language and value placed on words and sounds. To find the value of a word, he says that it must be compared to other words that stand in opposition to it (8). This means that a word is only given value when we can define what it is NOT. Or as de Saussure says, everything that exists outside it (8). Another step in finding the value and meaning of a word is to be able to symbolically compare it to something, for example one dollar is comparable to four quarters. Or we must understand something that it could be exchanged for. This would work with monetary values or with abstract words, such as "kind" can be exchanged for "nice". This is further discussed in Section 4: The Sign considered in its totality. Of course, I think to understand a sign, you have to look at every aspect of it (its opposites, its comparisons, its exchanges). de Saussure clarifies the importance of comparing opposites by saying that this is "only true if the signified and the signifier are considered separately" (10-11). In order to get the totality of the sign’s meaning, the signified (or symbol/abstract idea) and the signifier (the word or thing used to represent that idea) must be considered together. This makes the sign positive in its own effect because it is given totality and meaning it both what the sign is and is not. And once the totality of the sign is established, this is what makes up language and allows meaning from one person’s ideas to be passed on to another person and understood by both.
Captain Outrageous, Saussure
"Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system."
Language doesn't have ideas or sounds that existed before the linguistic system. In a conundrum sort of way this is saying that language didn't exist before language (though I understand it is specifically the concept of linguistics). What we know as language is a system of sounds and words that mean things. When I read and contemplated this quote I thought of evolution, of cave man and ape. Sound, Saussure explains, cannot be in language alone. This is true. The phonic 'noises' that come out of our mouths wouldn't mean anything if they weren't forming words; or, if they didn't have associated letters and words (for example, laughing). What I found interesting about this is the idea that even without words sound must be a language. Though there are no spoken (formed words) meanings, the concepts within the brain can associate sound. This idea drove me to the concept of cave man and ape. Neither species had a signified language but grunts and utters or screeches signified emotions or purpose. I like to think of the incredibly long and vague introduction to Kubrick's "Space Odyssey" when the apes are communicating. The different pitches or manners of their yelling meant danger, or discontent. The same could be assumed for caveman. The fascinating thing is that overtime this has transitioned into cave paintings, to words, to languages, to linguistics. This, to me at least, is the overwhelming message in Saussure's piece beyond the whole 'lost in translation' concept- that this complicated system goes beyond cultural difference, phonic difference, contextual difference etc. and goes inter-species. No, I'm not saying that we could all pull a Dr. Do-little. What I am saying is that the idea of language in the terms of phonic outputs and conceptual inputs is universal. I've often wondered how it is animals communicate with one another albeit a functioning language to speak. It is clear to me now that their actions and sounds are the language. I suppose as globalizing as this is, it is also very humbling. We complicate our linguistic system enough to have Saussure right such a critical essay or, really, end up with a show like "The Hills". Yet, in everyday nature, in evolutionary time, the solid and basic fundamentals of communication (sound and meaning) apply to all.
I will end with a paraphrased fun question posed by author Chuck Klosterman in his book "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs": Let's say that cats suddenly had the ability to read and comprehend what they read to a relative level. They could feel emotion, they could interpret, however, they cannot express their findings or their emotions. This being given, do you think the domestic feline species would be offended by the "Garfield" comic series?
I ask this out of humor but also out of serious consideration for it drives a point as to perhaps why the linguistic system is so entirely complicated and 'lost'. We don't speak animal languages but as humans (and I am generalizing here) we mostly presume there is not a significant level of intellect or emotion (though studies on apes prove differently). Considering the flow charts and formulae regarding the signified and signifier etc., I think it is obvious that emotion and overwhelming additional input to language is what complicates things. I know this sounds like a "duh" sort of revelation but I at least find it to be a bit profound- are we gifted or burdened by the vulnerability of our language?
Language doesn't have ideas or sounds that existed before the linguistic system. In a conundrum sort of way this is saying that language didn't exist before language (though I understand it is specifically the concept of linguistics). What we know as language is a system of sounds and words that mean things. When I read and contemplated this quote I thought of evolution, of cave man and ape. Sound, Saussure explains, cannot be in language alone. This is true. The phonic 'noises' that come out of our mouths wouldn't mean anything if they weren't forming words; or, if they didn't have associated letters and words (for example, laughing). What I found interesting about this is the idea that even without words sound must be a language. Though there are no spoken (formed words) meanings, the concepts within the brain can associate sound. This idea drove me to the concept of cave man and ape. Neither species had a signified language but grunts and utters or screeches signified emotions or purpose. I like to think of the incredibly long and vague introduction to Kubrick's "Space Odyssey" when the apes are communicating. The different pitches or manners of their yelling meant danger, or discontent. The same could be assumed for caveman. The fascinating thing is that overtime this has transitioned into cave paintings, to words, to languages, to linguistics. This, to me at least, is the overwhelming message in Saussure's piece beyond the whole 'lost in translation' concept- that this complicated system goes beyond cultural difference, phonic difference, contextual difference etc. and goes inter-species. No, I'm not saying that we could all pull a Dr. Do-little. What I am saying is that the idea of language in the terms of phonic outputs and conceptual inputs is universal. I've often wondered how it is animals communicate with one another albeit a functioning language to speak. It is clear to me now that their actions and sounds are the language. I suppose as globalizing as this is, it is also very humbling. We complicate our linguistic system enough to have Saussure right such a critical essay or, really, end up with a show like "The Hills". Yet, in everyday nature, in evolutionary time, the solid and basic fundamentals of communication (sound and meaning) apply to all.
I will end with a paraphrased fun question posed by author Chuck Klosterman in his book "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs": Let's say that cats suddenly had the ability to read and comprehend what they read to a relative level. They could feel emotion, they could interpret, however, they cannot express their findings or their emotions. This being given, do you think the domestic feline species would be offended by the "Garfield" comic series?
I ask this out of humor but also out of serious consideration for it drives a point as to perhaps why the linguistic system is so entirely complicated and 'lost'. We don't speak animal languages but as humans (and I am generalizing here) we mostly presume there is not a significant level of intellect or emotion (though studies on apes prove differently). Considering the flow charts and formulae regarding the signified and signifier etc., I think it is obvious that emotion and overwhelming additional input to language is what complicates things. I know this sounds like a "duh" sort of revelation but I at least find it to be a bit profound- are we gifted or burdened by the vulnerability of our language?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Penny Lane 8/30
During this week’s discussion the concept of normalcy truly came into question under my personal outlook. Today, we live in a world of pseudo-reality shows, both the glorified and defiled celebrity prototypes alike, news as entertainment, along with a constant perceived threat upon our national security. With all of these examples at the forefront of our media exposure, one must begin to wonder how to distinguish the real from the fabricated. Almost everything we are shown on television is postured for an anticipated result in the viewing public. We are constantly coerced into a perpetual cycle of fear that brings in new hysterical dilemmas as quickly as a revolving glass door. Fear tactics garner audiences, but most importantly keep them distracted from the greater issues. The American public has been intentionally left oblivious to almost all scandalous and or classified information throughout modern history. Unfortunately this pattern insures that the most pressing secrets of today will not be revealed for several generations, if that at all. For instance, the identity of Watergate’s “deep-throat” was only finally revealed in 2005 to guarantee the safety of William Mark Felt Sr. With this scenario in mind, I find now a more critical time than ever to learn about the subject of mass media. Enlightenment of the human condition in the new millennium as in the past is best paraphrased with the following quote from Plato’s Apology: I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. By accepting our ignorance to reality, we can begin to uncover the layers of fallacy that saturate our daily lives.
Bubbles 8/30
"Fear is the aesthetic dejour." Fear is what dictates our everyday actions and decisions. Is this statement true? Before this weeks discussion i never thought about fear in this manner. As i continue to reflect on the discussion i have come to realize that most of my everyday decisions are dictated by fear. I wear my seatbelt in the car because i'm afraid of getting into a car accident, i don't sleep with my phone near my head because I'm afraid of radiation, i walk around with Purell in my bag because I'm afraid of getting sick, i go to the gym for fear of being unhealthy when I'm older, i don't smoke because of fear of lung cancer. These are everyday decisions that i am used to making and have become reflexes, actions that i dont even think about doing anymore. The media has instilled this fear aesthetic in to our heads and use it at an advertising mechanism. We all buy Purell because of our fear of H1N1, we buy computer cases and cell phone cases cause of our fear of breaking them. Fear is what dictates our society. I hope to further discuss in class if this fear aesthetic is good or bad. It has only been the first day of class and i am already so interested in the topics that we have discussed. I am anxious to for our future discussions.
Ron Burgundy 8/30
This week’s discussion in class sparked many thoughts in my head about the social environment that we live in today. The discussion was based upon the idea of “postmodernism” specifically what it is, when it came about, and how it functions. At one point in the lecture Dr. Rog discussed the notion of “fear” that has played a prominent role in our lives, in a sense dictating our lives. This function of “fear” to drive the masses to do what you want them to do was a concept that was discussed in my CMC 200 class as we looked at the government in media and how they instill fear into the masses in order to get them to act or respond a certain way. Dr. Rog discussed how “fear” of nuclear warfare was in existence when he was a child in school and how he remembers the drills and warnings he was given in his classes on what to do in case of an emergency. Today we have a similar case of a prominent concept of “fear” that currently dictates our behavior and the way we live our lives today, exemplified in the chaos that is the Swine Flu. I first heard about the swine flu at the end of last spring semester and heard that it was something that was only in Mexico but that it was still a serious threat to America and that we all needed to be careful. At that point the only precaution I could think to take would be to not plan any trips to Mexico anytime soon, which wasn’t in my agenda anyhow. Fast forward to today though we see that the swine flu is a serious threat to the entire nation spreading quickly to all corners of the continent. A certain elevated level of fear is seen now not only in the media but in all our social environments as everybody’s lives our dictated by taking precaution from this sickness. For instance, on campus there are hand sanitizer stands pretty much in every gathering place for students to use which serve as a constant reminder of this notion of fear that is associated with the swine flu. Not to mention of all my classes when discussing the attendance policy have gone into in depth discussions about the great probability that our campus will soon be effected by this sickness and students will be sick and can expect to miss class. Looking at the two scenarios, Dr. Rog’s notion of fear with nuclear warfare, and today the fear associated with the swine flu, it looks like “fear” is what consistently dictates our lives. Now taking this and looking at the media its scary to think that they can play on this fear and possibly manipulate us to behave certain ways, in a sense also dictating our lives.
Captain Planet 08/30/09
Fear is the aesthetic du jour… what does this mean, and is it true? Saying that fear is the ‘aesthetic du jour’ means that fear is the current trend. Our society has monopolized on fear - making it the center driving force in our lives. All the mass media we encounter during an average day is anchored by this ‘fear du jour.’ Today’s headlining stories on the news are about the new greatest threat, the H1N1 flu – followed by kidnapping, crime, al-Qa’ida, and natural disasters. Everything we read evokes that feeling of fear. Even blockbuster films use fear to sell tickets. District 9 earned the top spot in the box office, raking in $30 million in the first weekend it was out. Other movies like, Gamer, 9, and Surrogates, are driven by the same idea of fear that District 9 used… the fear of the future. Movies are now even making us fear girls. Sorority Row, a movie about a group of sorority girls that kills one of their sisters hits theatres in early September, and Jennifer’s Body climaxes on the fear of teenage girls with a plot about a girl that eats boys. It really does seem that fear is the ‘aesthetic du jour.’ An interesting point to note is that although fear is the du jour, this sense of fear goes unnoticed by the everyday individual. We, as a culture, have become accustom to living in this world driven by fear. It is because of our gained knowledge through the CMC classes that we all can so easily see that fear is the underlying force in mass media. People outside of this major are viewing advertisements, and watching the news, and going to these movies, and soaking in all the fear that is instilled in them without knowing that the fear is placed there for a reason. And so when asking is it true that fear is the aesthetic du jour, I say yes absolutely.
Gwatter06 8/27
Postmodernism: fact, fiction or surrealism? These are the daunting complexities that come to mind when I think of this fairly unprecedented neologism. I was introduced to the term in CMC100 and it seems there are similar questions upheld behind the term. In our previous class meeting I enjoyed our introduction to the term and it opened up a new light on understanding what postmodernism actually is and pertains to. The assumed time period in which the era began makes sense to me because I believe, like most conformed eras in history, it had to begin with one major change into another. In this sense, fear is that notable change. We noted that postmodernism is believed to be an era that began some time around the creation of nuclear weapons and the beginning of the Cold war. This was a time that people realized that man had the power to destroy and change everything in the world. I could only imagine the effect this had on society as a whole. Many people must have lost faith in their religions, changed lifestyles, and it may have even created more hate towards unfamiliar nationalities and ethnic groups. It is also very similar to the scare tactics used by current governments around the world. Keeping people in fear helps the government to keep control. One that most Americans should be familiar with is the color code introduced after the recent “terrorist” attacks on home soil, constantly stirring the emotions of the citizens. Another topic we covered that intrigued me and is very prominent throughout the CMC framework is the mass effect and explosion of media that helps constitute postmodernism. These areas of media consist of social networks such as facebook, myspace, and twitter in which has swept the world and enslaved our generation to an insufferable death of soul. They are not just everyday commodities, but they are more like every minute commodities. Used to stay connected and or express individuality, which to me is a new type of conformity within itself. I had an interesting first two days of class and look forward to the rest of the course semester.
Kiwi, 8/30
Talking about our generation and how it is affected by the media and new technology was very interesting. Roger's comment that “the technology and aesthetic of speed”,in our culture is dictated by this notion that… faster is better, enforced the idea that we as a culture are always looking for the next best thing in technology. Media is constantly informing us of the fastest, easiest approach that will make our lives easier, so we “have” to have it. However it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest technology at the rate our generation is moving. I could go to the store and buy the newest, latest, greatest phone and in a week see the next best version. I remember when I got my first phone it was, so "in;” it had a camera on it! Now… four years later they’re coming out with phones that can take pictures, videos, e-mails, etc… This just comes to show how fast technology is moving and all that you can do on a little device that was years ago was meant for one thing; sending and receiving phone calls. Who knows what they will have twenty years from now? Like Roger said, “I can guarantee you in twenty years they will have little mini cameras you can carry around with you in your pocket and people can see where you are and what you are doing at all times.”
This past week I decided that when I turned on the news I was going to keep track of all the terrible, dreadful, hazardous things that our society needed to be aware of in order to live a safe and healthy life. At the end of an hour I was shocked by the total count of eighteen. Eighteen different ways the media made our society fear health, robbery, death, security, finances etc.
Turning on the news has become a part of our daily live. But are these things what really need to be stressed? A bear seen in a women’s backyard? Or a women saved by her weave from a bullet shot? Is all of this stuff really necessary? Is the media saying that you have a higher chance of being shot and killed if you do not have a weave? Often the news makes things a lot more dramatic than it really needs to be. I find it hard to watch the news now and take everything seriously because of all the ridiculous things that are said only to alarm us.
Overall I think that class was very interesting and I have already learned so much. I look forward to the rest of this year and what is yet to come.
This past week I decided that when I turned on the news I was going to keep track of all the terrible, dreadful, hazardous things that our society needed to be aware of in order to live a safe and healthy life. At the end of an hour I was shocked by the total count of eighteen. Eighteen different ways the media made our society fear health, robbery, death, security, finances etc.
Turning on the news has become a part of our daily live. But are these things what really need to be stressed? A bear seen in a women’s backyard? Or a women saved by her weave from a bullet shot? Is all of this stuff really necessary? Is the media saying that you have a higher chance of being shot and killed if you do not have a weave? Often the news makes things a lot more dramatic than it really needs to be. I find it hard to watch the news now and take everything seriously because of all the ridiculous things that are said only to alarm us.
Overall I think that class was very interesting and I have already learned so much. I look forward to the rest of this year and what is yet to come.
Daisy 8/30
Thursday in class we spoke about living in a culture of fear. In class Dr. Rog said that fear is what sells in our culture and nothing else. I 100% agree with this statement. Fear has become normalized into our everyday lives and we don’t even realize. The media is the main advocator of fear and the more it is present the more we become fearful. The more I think about it, the more I realize that my everyday life is propelled by fear, every action I do seems to have some motivation of fear behind it.
I fear the recent economy and job market so I do my homework and get to class on time so I can get a college education in hopes of getting ahead and getting a better job than the average college graduate. I’m fearful of getting overweight and eating the wrong food so I buy a health magazine while I’m at the grocery store stocking up on healthy labeled food and then I go to the gym. I fear the h1n1 flu so I keep hand sanitizer in my pocket and am suspicious of people coughing and sneezing. I fear dying so I buckle my seatbelt every time I get in the car. I fear getting pulled over by the police so I stop at every stop sign and follow the speed limit. All of the things I just mentioned are part of my normal everyday life and I unconsciously do them. Why do I do them? Well, mostly because somewhere throughout my life I have learned from an aspect of the media that this is what I am supposed to do. I don’t think about doing these actions because I am fearful, I just do them and a good majority of the country follows the same social constructs as I do.
I can remember the day 9/11 happened, I was in 7th grade art class. We weren’t allowed to turn the televisions on and the whole school was sent home early. At the moment I didn’t fully realize what had happened, I didn’t even know what the World Trade Centers were and had never heard the word terrorists. I can remember getting home and my parents said how the world was going to change. The images of the planes crashing into the twin towers, people running away from the clouds of dust, and heartbreaking pictures of victims flashed across the news. Families sat glued to the media hoping that survivors would be found. I grew so used to these images on the news, on the front page of the newspaper, on talk-shows and in magazines that it didn’t even phase me. At the time it was a life-changing moment, little did I know that it would dominate my life from that moment on.
Now, I’m used to picking up the newspaper and seeing headlines about terrorist attacks, the Iraq War, the avian flu or swine flu. I’m used to walking through airport security and seeing the threat level as orange. None of these things bother me anymore, and it bothers me that they don’t. I’m tired of living in fear of so many things and not realizing it, but how do we change this. It has become such a driving force, why would the media stop it when it sells? Well unfortunately I’m not sure if it will ever stop but continue to get stronger.
I fear the recent economy and job market so I do my homework and get to class on time so I can get a college education in hopes of getting ahead and getting a better job than the average college graduate. I’m fearful of getting overweight and eating the wrong food so I buy a health magazine while I’m at the grocery store stocking up on healthy labeled food and then I go to the gym. I fear the h1n1 flu so I keep hand sanitizer in my pocket and am suspicious of people coughing and sneezing. I fear dying so I buckle my seatbelt every time I get in the car. I fear getting pulled over by the police so I stop at every stop sign and follow the speed limit. All of the things I just mentioned are part of my normal everyday life and I unconsciously do them. Why do I do them? Well, mostly because somewhere throughout my life I have learned from an aspect of the media that this is what I am supposed to do. I don’t think about doing these actions because I am fearful, I just do them and a good majority of the country follows the same social constructs as I do.
I can remember the day 9/11 happened, I was in 7th grade art class. We weren’t allowed to turn the televisions on and the whole school was sent home early. At the moment I didn’t fully realize what had happened, I didn’t even know what the World Trade Centers were and had never heard the word terrorists. I can remember getting home and my parents said how the world was going to change. The images of the planes crashing into the twin towers, people running away from the clouds of dust, and heartbreaking pictures of victims flashed across the news. Families sat glued to the media hoping that survivors would be found. I grew so used to these images on the news, on the front page of the newspaper, on talk-shows and in magazines that it didn’t even phase me. At the time it was a life-changing moment, little did I know that it would dominate my life from that moment on.
Now, I’m used to picking up the newspaper and seeing headlines about terrorist attacks, the Iraq War, the avian flu or swine flu. I’m used to walking through airport security and seeing the threat level as orange. None of these things bother me anymore, and it bothers me that they don’t. I’m tired of living in fear of so many things and not realizing it, but how do we change this. It has become such a driving force, why would the media stop it when it sells? Well unfortunately I’m not sure if it will ever stop but continue to get stronger.
ESPN12 8/27
In just the first week of class I can already tell I am going to enjoy the class. It was very thought provoking for me and I already have learned new things. As we research this post modern world of ours it is nice to just take a step back from it and really look at what is going on. I find that I learn new things of myself and people around me. The post modern world breaks down social boundaries as we are able to connect more with people from all over the world with programs such as Facebook. However, with that luxury comes a few changes. We now live in a world where everything must be as fast as possible leaving us with the question, why don’t we just slow down for a few and really enjoy what’s going on? Yes, there is something to be said for enjoying the conveniences of speed and the opportunity to get more things done with that extra time, but why not slow down once and a while?
Besides the speed factor in the postmodern world, one is able to see how all generations are changing. Just recently I found out that 4 of my good friend’s parents all have Facebook and my dad now wants it as well. Just two years ago my parents really didn’t even know what it was and certainly 5 years ago they where no using text messages as they are now. The technology in the post modern era has swept through the world and people are just try to keep up, has they do so though, the way we live our lives and communicate is dramatically changing.
The post modern world is not an easy thing to step out of either. Whether one likes it or not, it’s part of our world. Even now that I am able to look more critically at our world, I still find myself being in the thick of it which I don’t believe is necessarily a good or bad thing. Either way, I hold true to what the media advertises and buy their products and I too am guilty of wanting a faster and a more technology filled, socially connected world no matter how it seems to affect us.
Besides the speed factor in the postmodern world, one is able to see how all generations are changing. Just recently I found out that 4 of my good friend’s parents all have Facebook and my dad now wants it as well. Just two years ago my parents really didn’t even know what it was and certainly 5 years ago they where no using text messages as they are now. The technology in the post modern era has swept through the world and people are just try to keep up, has they do so though, the way we live our lives and communicate is dramatically changing.
The post modern world is not an easy thing to step out of either. Whether one likes it or not, it’s part of our world. Even now that I am able to look more critically at our world, I still find myself being in the thick of it which I don’t believe is necessarily a good or bad thing. Either way, I hold true to what the media advertises and buy their products and I too am guilty of wanting a faster and a more technology filled, socially connected world no matter how it seems to affect us.
FloRida, 8/30
Our class on Wednesday was extremely eye-opening. Postmodernism is something that had been unclear and not easily definable to me for a long time. New ideas, concepts, and technologies are bombarding our generation and this last class portrayed that very well. The connection with past, present, and possible future societal problems really connected the dots. With all of this new knowledge and speed we are all enhancing our future but also fearing it. The slide that stuck out to me was the one with all the different media company logos. It made me feel somewhat claustrophobic just looking at it. I could not even fathom to what extent media companies are being produced and how rapidly. This constant enhancement created so many “What ifs?” We all watch the news and hear the terrible things that are happening around us. This is creating an even greater state of fear. At one point, Dr. Rog, made it known that at least three or four people have reapplied hand sanitizer throughout our Wednesday class discussion. I am one of close people who have the sanitizer holder that attaches to a bag. Professors are receiving emails EVERYDAY about H1N1 and how our school is probably going to have an outbreak. We do not seem to have any control over our own lives anymore. They have been signed away to new technologies and media manipulation. We believe that what we see and hear in the media must be true because how can someone write on the internet or tell the country something on a news station that is not true. Why do we believe it? This can be an extremely hard question to answer. We have reality shows that are not really reality. We have facebook to keep us updated on everyone of our “friends” lives. We have twitter to send us constant updates from not only our friends but celebrities as well. We have television series to occupy our time with the lives of fictional characters. We have cars that are equipped with all functions so that we can have our homes on the road with us. Lastly, we have Prozac to calm us down!
HOLLA! 8/30/09
During Wednesday’s class we stumbled across the familiar topic of fear and how the media uses it to get their points across to viewers. Why does the media continue to instill fear in us on a day-to-day bases and why do we still allow this to happen? Maybe fear has become the driving force of all forms of media and advertisement? Anyways, I have pondered these questions myself as I’ve become more aware of the surrounding media with age. I feel as if every time we turn on the television we are told to fear everything! For example a simple Clean & Clear commercial comes on telling viewers zits are not attractive and to fear zits because you will not be popular if you have them. Clean & Clear is using the fear of being unwanted as a means to sell their product! Another more obvious example of the media using fear is the nightly news we all have grown up watching. This summer I interned at a news station and clearly saw that the only news stories that were really going to get on the news were ones that would instill fear. For example, the Swine Flu is here in your neighborhood or there is a child molester on the lose keep your children in doors! It was very rarely that the news would put on something like Grandma Pat turned 100 today or here’s a better one, there was 1 case of Swine Flu which is under control, please do not fear but take the necessary precautions. As we explore different critical theorists I hope we touch base on this specific area and the scare tactics the media uses to number one get their point across and number two sell their products to us as viewers of this WORLD OF MASS MEDIA!
Ace Venture 8/27
While discussing Post Modernism in class on Thursday, I was most surprised and intrigued by the concept of "system failure" within our generation. System failure is the idea that systems can not make changes, it is people that make changes. Dr. Rog said that my generation is much more likely to volunteer and to want to incite change. This came as a surprise to me because I've always seen my generation as somewhat lazy because of all the luxuries we have like the internet and new technologies coming to us every day. I see previous generations as harder working and because they seem to be the ones that have gotten us to where we are today. While I'm glad to hear that people my age are willing to volunteer and help for change, our lack of trust in the government and systems is disappointing. Perhaps all these negative events that we discussed when attempting to define post modernism like 9/11 and the Columbia protest are part of the reason that we've lost faith in systems to make effective changes. What is confusing for me is that our systems and government are made up of people, so why can't we trust them to make change? Why when we are asked to vote on a policy or sign a petition we are less likely to do that, but when asked to volunteer and give our time to create change we are willing to do that? It may go back to the "aesthetic of speed" idea that was discussed in class. When we volunteer our time and are actively participating in making a change, we can almost get that instant gratification of seeing the change that we have made. But signing a petition or casting a vote doesn't really give us that gratification. We have to wait until a vote is passed and then wait for a system to process this and then continue to wait to see a change that may not even come. It is not only technology that we want to be faster, we want changes made in the world and in our society to be faster as well.
Teets, 8/30
When exactly did the Postmodern era start? Or has it even started? Most times an era is categorized years later, so I guess for now we will have to answer those two questions with an "I don't know." What we all doknow, though, is that our society is becoming more and more obsessed with speed and efficiency. The invention of the internet has led to many new and exciting inventions, which allow individuals to perform tasks quicker. Networking sites, IPhones, online shopping, emails; all of these things have made it much easier to communicate and also perform simple tasks from your computer chair! The internet, in my opinion, opened doors for the technology boom. Our society has become faster and faster in recent years, and only time will tell just how much faster we can potentially get.
Nowadays if you don't have time to talk on the phone, you send a text message. If you don't have time to sit down and eat at a restaurant, you go through a Drive-Thru for a quicker meal. We make "speed based" decisions each day without even realizing it. If I don't have time to prepare lunch, I open the freezer, unwrap a hot pocket and put it in the microwave for a minute and 16 seconds. As I'm walking to class, I don't have time for a full conversation with my friend, so I send a text message instead. I don't park in the first available parking spot because I can find a closer spot that will allow me to get where I'm going faster.
The mini timeline we reviewed in class only covered events that took place in the past 60 or so years. As college students, we can assume that some of us will be around in another 60 years. It blows my mind to think of what our world will be like 60 years from now. It seems moronic to pose the question, "What next?", but I find myself asking it anyway. What will be the next great invention of our time? Will it really be a video based twitter site? Will it be navigation chips inside of everyone? Sometimes we have to put our individual arrogance aside, and reply with "I don't know."
Nowadays if you don't have time to talk on the phone, you send a text message. If you don't have time to sit down and eat at a restaurant, you go through a Drive-Thru for a quicker meal. We make "speed based" decisions each day without even realizing it. If I don't have time to prepare lunch, I open the freezer, unwrap a hot pocket and put it in the microwave for a minute and 16 seconds. As I'm walking to class, I don't have time for a full conversation with my friend, so I send a text message instead. I don't park in the first available parking spot because I can find a closer spot that will allow me to get where I'm going faster.
The mini timeline we reviewed in class only covered events that took place in the past 60 or so years. As college students, we can assume that some of us will be around in another 60 years. It blows my mind to think of what our world will be like 60 years from now. It seems moronic to pose the question, "What next?", but I find myself asking it anyway. What will be the next great invention of our time? Will it really be a video based twitter site? Will it be navigation chips inside of everyone? Sometimes we have to put our individual arrogance aside, and reply with "I don't know."
Graham
I thought that class on Wednesday was extremely interesting. I felt like it connected a lot with our generation, as we spoke a lot about the way that our generation is effected by the media and new technology.
I never really stopped and realized how much the media tries to intimidate us by constantly informing us of new things that could make our lives miserable, or possibly even kill us. This weekend I watched the news and heard about how the majority of the individuals in the United States will be infected with the Swine Flu, and other terrible diseases. They give lists of precautions and things that you must do in order to make sure that these things do not happen to you, and many people get so nervous about this media that they live their lives by these rules. They carry hand sanitizer everywhere, don’t shale hands or have contact with other individuals, or even wear masks in public places. The media has made us so fearful of death and sickness that we will ultimately do anything that CNN tells us to do. This has become a part of our daily lives. We are always learning about some new terrible thing that we need to fear, and we often make it a lot worse than it truly is.
I also thought it was interesting how we talked about the way that technology has taken over the world, and just when we think that things can not get more advanced, they do. I used to think that the little brick Nokia phone was the coolest invention, and just years later we have advanced to touch screen, camera and video phones that can hold all of your music and documents. Ten years ago we never thought that this would be possible, but they are always coming out with the next big thing to make money, and what they have created is incredible. It is weird to think that in 10 years we will probably look at the Iphone and discuss how technologically inferior it is to what we will have in the year 2020.
I can not wait to see what other interesting things we will discuss this year. If what is to come is just as interesting as the first day of class, then I am extremely excited.
I never really stopped and realized how much the media tries to intimidate us by constantly informing us of new things that could make our lives miserable, or possibly even kill us. This weekend I watched the news and heard about how the majority of the individuals in the United States will be infected with the Swine Flu, and other terrible diseases. They give lists of precautions and things that you must do in order to make sure that these things do not happen to you, and many people get so nervous about this media that they live their lives by these rules. They carry hand sanitizer everywhere, don’t shale hands or have contact with other individuals, or even wear masks in public places. The media has made us so fearful of death and sickness that we will ultimately do anything that CNN tells us to do. This has become a part of our daily lives. We are always learning about some new terrible thing that we need to fear, and we often make it a lot worse than it truly is.
I also thought it was interesting how we talked about the way that technology has taken over the world, and just when we think that things can not get more advanced, they do. I used to think that the little brick Nokia phone was the coolest invention, and just years later we have advanced to touch screen, camera and video phones that can hold all of your music and documents. Ten years ago we never thought that this would be possible, but they are always coming out with the next big thing to make money, and what they have created is incredible. It is weird to think that in 10 years we will probably look at the Iphone and discuss how technologically inferior it is to what we will have in the year 2020.
I can not wait to see what other interesting things we will discuss this year. If what is to come is just as interesting as the first day of class, then I am extremely excited.
DoubleBubble:8/30
Our society is slowly becoming more and more technological and is depending more on technology for our everyday needs. For instance with the growth of facebook,it has now become a website that alumni are communicating through. The other day someone said to me how they find out about engagements and weddings through the facebook status' of their friends. I also have realized recently with the tragic deaths of celebrities that I am finding out through other people's facebook status' and since facebook started, it has shifted from college students to mothers, fathers and the older generations. What about the idea of how far cell phone's have come since their earliest days. I remember when car phones were the most technological device. It brings up the question of what is going to come next? From the Nokia black and white phones to the iPhone our society is starting to depend on these technological things in order to communicate. Now on Twitter you can update your status to exactly what you are doing and slowly our society is "updating" themselves with their friends through their 'twits' and through their facebook status'. Now a days kids in our generation rarely will call friends to catch up and instead use text messages to find out what they are up to. What i think is kind of funny is the idea that when you see a 20 year old typing a text message, most of the times they do not have to look at the phone and can type 60 words per minute. When you see our parents typing out text messages most of the times it takes them a minute to type out one word. Our society is so technologically advanced that we are slowly beginning to depend on these things for our everyday needs. In a second you can google on an iPhone or Blackberry an address or phone number, whereas some parents are still depending on the yellow pages. When a 20 year old loses their cell phone, it is the end of their life, because we depend on cell phones so much to do the everyday things faster and quicker. It kind of seems as though our generation in a way is lazy, doesn't it?
The idea that our everyday lives are being made easier and easier because of technology is something that interests me a lot. It seems like society is looking at the things we need to survive the everyday life and basically finding ways to make it easier simply by updating our society. For instance, i think it is very interesting that now you can have your groceries delivered to you because it is a hassle to go to the store and you can just do it online. The cell phone companies are beginning to have an "app" for everything and basically trying to fix every struggle just with the click of a button. As the iPhone commercials say, "there's an app for that". Our generation is lazy and the technology is beginning to come so advance that we are beginning to let go of the old and depend simply on the internet and cell phones for everything.
-DoubleBubble
The idea that our everyday lives are being made easier and easier because of technology is something that interests me a lot. It seems like society is looking at the things we need to survive the everyday life and basically finding ways to make it easier simply by updating our society. For instance, i think it is very interesting that now you can have your groceries delivered to you because it is a hassle to go to the store and you can just do it online. The cell phone companies are beginning to have an "app" for everything and basically trying to fix every struggle just with the click of a button. As the iPhone commercials say, "there's an app for that". Our generation is lazy and the technology is beginning to come so advance that we are beginning to let go of the old and depend simply on the internet and cell phones for everything.
-DoubleBubble
Serendipity, 8/27/09
Part of Post-Modernity is the invention of something that is not real in order to explain the unexplained, and to give the community a feeling of understanding. In class, these examples included TV shows such as “The X Files, Fringe, and Lost”. These shows explain periods in our lives where we feel like we have no control, so there must be people out there with magical powers and monsters. The unknown is no longer completely unknown, now there is a solution in the community’s minds, even though they realistically know it is probably not true. However, this practice of creating something to replace fear is not new. It dates back in time to several other occasions. One example of this is the creation of “magic”. In civilizations that could understand aspects of nature, they created “magic” or forces that use magic as a form of power. When people fell ill, they felt it was the god’s punishing them for something that was wrong in society, which was a much easier concept to understand than it happening for no reason, to both good and bad people. Also, the Salem Witch hunts are a good example as well. Using binary opposition ( describing ones identity in opposition to a common “enemy”, if you aren’t like us, you are a witch), many innocent people were killed as a means to control how the population acted. If the community feels at risk, they will create a reality that may not actually be real, in order to explain and control the fear from growing. A personal example during my childhood is “Sabrina the Teenage Witch”. It was a show about an awkward teenage girl in high school that happened to possess magical powers. I loved this show because it comforted me that even if my high school years ended up being troublesome, at the back of my mind I might be a witch to make my life easier. Even though I realistically knew this was not true, I still consumed all the media related to the show, including reading all the books and buying the “Sabrina The Teenage Witch” Barbie dolls. Most people in American culture will do anything to escape and numb reality. This tactic may be as harmless as a TV show about Vampires, or be as serious and dangerous as the Witch Hunts.
-Serendipity
-Serendipity
Mongoose, 8/27
One of the ideas that stuck out to me on the topic of postmodernism was how arbitrary an idea it really is. Many different time periods have been considered to be “postmodern”, but when exactly does the “modern” era begin and end? The reason that I interpreted as to why society is always changing and thus moving deeper and deeper into a postmodern era is the cultural obsession with speed. We are always looking for ways to speed things up; we find out news and other information as soon as it happens, have to get wherever we are going as fast as possible, sacrifice quality of food in order to get it quicker, and send text messages, rather than picking up the phone and calling someone, in order to deliver a quick message. Everywhere one chooses to look in our society “speed” is all around us. One of the main aspects of speed that stuck out to me was the way that it continues to “modernize” our culture in the aspect of communication. Nowadays it is possible to perform every aspect of business on a cell phone that used to require a desktop computer; this makes it possible to accomplish things a much higher rate because you can answer emails or balance bank accounts on the go while running errands necessary to run your business. The obsession with speed has also lead to technological advances making it possible to keep up with people and let your friends know what you are doing all at one time with the click of a button. These things are made possible through the developments of social networking pages such as Facebook and Twitter. Many people chose such networks as their outlet to news information, weather, sports as well as conversations with friends, again stressing the aspect of speed by getting all of this information from one easy to access page. Although these things have seemingly come about at an alarming rate, they will undoubtedly be outdated in our near future because of our unsatisfied desire for speed and advancement.
Elmo, 8/30
The “fear du jour” discussed in class is a term which I found very interesting and very applicable to our lives. It seems that whenever we turn on the news, pick up a magazine, or browse an online newspaper the headlines are always filled with fear. I personally feel that all I hear about these days is the “failing economy”, the “threat of swine flu”, or that I have a “75% chance of developing skin cancer in my lifetime”. The media has a way of instilling fear in the American people; it essentially dictates our daily lives. Hollywood also plays into this fear by producing scary movies by the dozen per year. People enjoy seeing these films because subconsciously we actually do enjoy being scared. Some days even the news seems to be its own mini scary movie. Because living in fear has become a part of our daily lives, there have become many ways in which to cope. There is more sunscreen being advertised than ever, talking about condoms and birth control are no longer a taboo, and terrorism has become a part of our everyday vocabulary. Even here on Rollins campus there is hand sanitizer around every corner in order to try and beat the swine flu outbreak. Our society has also become a very medicated society in which there seems to be a drug for everything so that it is easier for people to cope with their everyday lives. Society tells us we don’t have to feel the stress or pain of day to day life because there’s a drug for that. Being scared has become a normal feeling and when we turn to the media there is always the underlying curiosity of what the latest frightful issue may be. During and after class this week I thought a lot about this issue of fear and the “fear du jour”; I realized that fear really IS presented to us on a daily basis and it truly is all around us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)