Our last class of the semester was probably on of my favorite classes we have had this year. Class was very informative and engaging. It was unlike any other class we have had this year, it was very different from a “normal” class. Both readings by Cixous and Butler had to do with the feminist’s idea of “Herstory”.
We started class off first by discussing the term logocentrism that Derrida talks about and how it is everything that is revolved around words. Then we briefly talked about phallologocentrism and how it is the language itself that is somehow or another driven by the masculine. It is dominated by the masculine gender chief argument behind feminists.
Dr. Casey asked the class, “ How can we reframe history and make it, “herstory”? Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty—“you cant conduct the experiment without influencing the experiment yourself, because you become part of it. It is impossible for a male teacher to teach, because it could be suspect, he has a masculine voice.”
Dr. Casey handed over the class to the females as the guys were silenced in class in relation to woman’s equality. At first I thought that it was really awkward and I was a little timid of speaking up. Thanks to Louisa for speaking up and getting things started I started to feel more comfortable and after a while wasnt scared to speak up and say my opinion. I actually really enjoyed speaking in front of the class and for the first time felt like whatever I said was going to be heard. I thought that there were many interesting things that were brought up in class and one thing I thought was most interesting was when the quote, “writing is woman’s” came up. We talked about how we tend to assume that what we read is written by man. I think that we just assume this because males are the ones that have most of the voice in our society, so when we are reading an article or something we tend to fall under the hegemonic ideology of male domination, assuming that it is a male providing us with the information.
I also thought a good point that was brought up of how men don’t really ever write novels because of their fear of becoming emotional, which is related to women. They fear of not living up to their “manhood” and falling under the lines of being gay. Everything that defines the masculine identity is in opposition to women. For example, you many be good enough to play with the boys, but you cannot be better then them.
So how do we (females) want this to be different? Feminism wouldn’t even be an issue; there wouldn’t be binary oppositions. It would just be normal for women to be dominant like males .It is a privilege to be one of the “guys,” but the guys never want to be one of the girls. No matter what, people are still going to find something to complain about. Our society gives the males authority, we feel more comfortable with a male walking down a dark alley… these are things that I believe are never going to change and are always going to be the same. However after an hour and fifteen minutes of females being able to have the authority to talk and not be interrupted may have reinsured ten people on what we believe and although that is not many it still is an extra ten people that are now more aware of our opinion and who know maybe they will spread the word to another ten other people.
I really enjoyed CMC 300 this semester with Dr. Casey, and I would have to say that this class is by far the best CMC class I have taken as well as, one of the most interesting classes I have taken here at Rollins. As I continue on my journey through the rest of my college years I hope to use the information that I have learned about all of these theorists and their ideas daily studies.
Thank you Dr. Casey and Louisa for everything!!!
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Penny Lane-Adorno Late
Advertising impacts opinion at both a conscious and unconscious level. Most people recognize that a product is no substitute for natural ability. Higher value is assigned to objects that promise us something more than the ordinary. Brands often perpetuate this divergence of prescribed worth. Adorno states: “That is the triumph of advertising in the culture industry: the compulsive imitation by consumers of cultural commodities which, at the same time, they recognize as false.” For instance, it is logical to assert that two prescription drugs (one brand name and the other generic) are made from the same chemical compounds and produce the same effect. Despite this conclusion, society still designates more worth to the first producer. We hold them to be more knowledgeable or reliable when buying drugs. I was recently at the grocery store with a friend and we began talking about this exact subject. Coincidentally, her brother works for Unilever and she was able to provide me with some much needed clarity on the subject. If you have ever been to Publix or Walgreens, than you have probably noticed that they frequently sell their own brand of products that compare those produced by large brands. This practice is applied to everything from cough medicine to saltine cracker. What I did not realize is that these distributors are selling literally the exact same product. Companies often over produce their own product, leaving them at a loss if they cannot sell it in the marketplace due to over saturation. In a situation like that, they would sell the excess at bottom barrel prices to the same sellers that buy their name brand product. So next time you are trying to decide whether you should buy Nyquil or Publix nighttime (the exact situation I was in when our conversation arose)…remember that it is all Nyquil regardless of the packaging. Differentiation through branding is an excepted ideological fallacy due to the vast influence of advertising.
Penny Lane- Dorfman Late
Disney is a destination unlike any place in the world. It attracts all walks of life, making it a cultural unifier. According to Dorfman: “Disney has been exalted as the inviolable common heritage of contemporary man;…Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other.” It suspends all notions of history and natural limitations, creating an unbound alternate universe. Modernism and technology aided in making fantasy a reality. The contemporary man lacks a solid cultural identity, so he is quick to accept ideology and fallacies. The post-modern era is defined by imitation and reproduction, so Disney is the perfect representation of this construction. This forum is ideal for communication because we seem less threatened by hegemonic influence, despite its latent presence. Dominant discourse is embedded in the experience, reaching out to visitors in a vulnerable state of ease. The narratives portrayed in ‘Disney-terms’ often negate history in order to tell a more commodifiable version. In our previous reading of Macherey, we learned that it is often most important to focus on what is missing from the text. Disney represents an ideal destination of escape that ignores the conflicts and suffering of our world by sprinkling a little sugar and magic on top of everything. It praises imagination and innovation, leaving out the exploitative nature of development. For example, Disney’s Pocahontas was a romanticized tale that neglects to show the horrors of genocide, rape, and disease that impacted the Powhatan Nation upon the arrival of European settlers. Furthermore, filmmakers took a poetic license when writing a romantic relationship between the protagonist and John Smith into the script. Historical records indicate that Pocahontas was merely ten or eleven when the two first crossed paths. The storyline implemented a complete distortion of history in order to produce a marketable franchise. Sadly enough, even though the plot is almost entirely fictionalized, many people hold it to be true because it is their only reference on the subject.
Penny Lane- Benjamin Late
Today we live in a culture of mass production and reproduction. This influx of copies and merchandise makes distinguishing the original/authentic version of anything almost impossible. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of the authenticity. According to Benjamin, we must be in the presence of the first in its original condition to have an ‘authentic’ experience. His statements on the topic focused almost entirely on art, but the idea translates to many other aspects of the modern world. Fashion, music, movies, and texts are almost always inspired by an outside source, whether it be another artist, plot, or time-period. We frequently see forms of reproduction in the media, blending various styles and ideas to create a new adaptation from the past. Lyotard stated: “Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture.” Post modernity is almost oppositional to the idea of modernity. Modernity was founded in the enlightenment when art, music, literature, and architecture were all inspired by new ideas from freethinkers. Post-modernity is simply a rethinking or combination of old ideas. Bricolage is an eclectic style defined by Lyotard as a Post-Modern method of artificial creation. This technique takes mismatched sources and juxtaposes them to deliver a new sentiment. Nothing is new, just recycled or imitated. The Daily Show has used this Post-Modern technique to reevaluate American media and politics. When news sources are isolated in delivery, it is difficult to pick out the hypocrisy from the mix. John Stewart relies on simple comparison to make his points. The footage is not altered, but it exposes what goes unnoticed by an inconsistent viewer. He shows us the ironic truth that lies beneath the surface of our media coverage, redefining perspective through enlightened humor.
The following link is a D.S. review of the past week:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-december-4-2009/recap---week-of-11-30-09
The following link is a D.S. review of the past week:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-december-4-2009/recap---week-of-11-30-09
Captain Outrageous, Hooks
Hooks and Derrida are a great team, talking about difference and such. As well as Hebdige and commodifying the subculture.
Hooks makes very valid points. I our relatively dull culture anything to spice it up is an instant commodity dream and we most certainly buy into it. For example, the "taboo" world of sexuality is definitely an Other. Secret practices of the bedroom are things that other people do. Its regarded as a subculture and makes a ton of money. Pornography, for instance, makes more money than the NFL a year combined with other companies I can't remember so don't quote me on it. And why do people tip toe into these Other antics? Why it is exactly what Cosmo magazine covers read all the time : Spice up your Sex life!
Complacency is a horrid thing and that is just about all there is to contemporary white culture, horrid complacency. We Other what we can't have and call it what we don't want. We put Those things Over there in a tiny little marketable package then bring them home and display Them...Oh that? Oh no I don't believe in that, or oh no I didn't buy it for that or Oh no this that and the other excuse.
It is the very essence of these practices of experience Bordieu was talking about. We don't believe in that here or that would never happen under this roof so on and so forth. Practices of experience equals practices of lies. We lie to ourselves we enjoy this Other thing. We lie to the consumer world that it is different. I have those sex toys but that doesn't mean I'm, you know, a freak, the modest middle class housewife might say. Or she might admit over lunch some of her practices of experiences, we did this or we tried that, and still even in the very dialogue it will remain a practice of experience existent somewhere else other than here. Oh thats so scandalous her friends may say. Maybe she'll blush about it for a minute but she'll most certainly end by saying well we were only trying to spice things up but now it is fine. And end scene with a fade out to complacency again. But wait, roll the secret clip at the end of the credits. There she is with her hubby practicing experience again, and liking it. Why? We crave what we Other, for whatever reason, Freudian or not.
Who wouldn't want the tastes of the Orient, the primitivity of Tribal cultures, the liberty of a Dominatrix? Othering is liberating. It is an escape to something different without having to admit or commit to it entirely. And why should we as long as we can say we payed a price for it?
Hooks makes very valid points. I our relatively dull culture anything to spice it up is an instant commodity dream and we most certainly buy into it. For example, the "taboo" world of sexuality is definitely an Other. Secret practices of the bedroom are things that other people do. Its regarded as a subculture and makes a ton of money. Pornography, for instance, makes more money than the NFL a year combined with other companies I can't remember so don't quote me on it. And why do people tip toe into these Other antics? Why it is exactly what Cosmo magazine covers read all the time : Spice up your Sex life!
Complacency is a horrid thing and that is just about all there is to contemporary white culture, horrid complacency. We Other what we can't have and call it what we don't want. We put Those things Over there in a tiny little marketable package then bring them home and display Them...Oh that? Oh no I don't believe in that, or oh no I didn't buy it for that or Oh no this that and the other excuse.
It is the very essence of these practices of experience Bordieu was talking about. We don't believe in that here or that would never happen under this roof so on and so forth. Practices of experience equals practices of lies. We lie to ourselves we enjoy this Other thing. We lie to the consumer world that it is different. I have those sex toys but that doesn't mean I'm, you know, a freak, the modest middle class housewife might say. Or she might admit over lunch some of her practices of experiences, we did this or we tried that, and still even in the very dialogue it will remain a practice of experience existent somewhere else other than here. Oh thats so scandalous her friends may say. Maybe she'll blush about it for a minute but she'll most certainly end by saying well we were only trying to spice things up but now it is fine. And end scene with a fade out to complacency again. But wait, roll the secret clip at the end of the credits. There she is with her hubby practicing experience again, and liking it. Why? We crave what we Other, for whatever reason, Freudian or not.
Who wouldn't want the tastes of the Orient, the primitivity of Tribal cultures, the liberty of a Dominatrix? Othering is liberating. It is an escape to something different without having to admit or commit to it entirely. And why should we as long as we can say we payed a price for it?
Penny Lane- Baudrillard Late
Baudrillard’s text makes many observations about modern media. He asserts: “the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.” This remark ties into his fascination with the blurred distinction between fiction and reality. The media offers images through a filtered lens, so no one can ever be entirely sure whether the ideas they are reproducing actually depict life and nature in an unbiased light. Furthermore, the industry of news has become sensationalized. Even programming of this sort is now subject to producing content primarily on the basis of entertainment value. Local news has suffered as a consequence, but what remains are tales of rape, murder, tragic accidents, and crime. This narrative is only expanded on a national scale, but the subject matter remains consistently morbid. News, like any other show, needs to garner ratings. This competition often breeds perpetuation of salacious and shallow stories that do little to improve social consciousness of the American public about significant global issues. Our media system is a fear factory. They sell panic on a massive scale, and we willingly consume the product. During 9-11 everyone in America saw the images of the twin towers collapse on repeat. But the footage could never capture the reality of the event. Afterward, the saturation of coverage on the attack and terrorism kept us glued to the screens in fear of repeat. This method was used strategically for several reasons: 1) to keep us focused on the attacker 2) to keep us preoccupied with the thought of an impending threat 3) gain support for an offensive reaction 4) keep an active audience. In Benjamin’s writings, he claims that while the viewer may feel a connection to the actor on screen, the real connection exists between the audience and the camera. This is relevant to news media because we see the images they choose for us, nothing more nothing less. The angles and perspectives of a captured event only address a fraction of the full occurrence. The question I am left with is who. Who controls our knowledge?
Penny Lane- DeSaussure Late
In our reading by DeSaussure, he emphasized that language is arbitrary. Sounds that designate meaning are culturally assigned. In order to make an observation, one must use comparison to separate it as an independently differentiated notion from another. “In language, there are only differences.” You cannot understand the concept of please without experiencing pain. DeSaussure’s statement is similar to the message of the ying-yang. Positive defines negative and vice versa. In contemporary culture we often utilize the concept of branding to prescribe difference to identical objects. Under this construction, variation is conceptual not meta-physical. Creating divergence is an industry in and of itself. Without advertising and logos, objects would only be worth their utility. Why does Chanel make-up evoke a reaction distinct from the generic? The answer is found in the signifier and the signified. Simple objects can denotes luxury or quality without any real justification for its understood value. Macherey often discusses the notion of varying interpretation between every individual. The meaning of a text to the Author is entirely separate from that of his/her readers. Understanding is based on perspective, which is vastly dependent on life experience. Differences in people, much like language and commodities, generate meaning through contrast.
Penny Lane- Jencks Late
Jencks commentary on post-modern architecture is extremely relevant to several of our readings. Neo-classicalism follows Benjamin’s conception of the original vs. the copy. Benjamin asserts that nothing is authentic anymore because reproduction is so pervasive throughout our mass communicated society. Everywhere we look, something familiar can be identified and critiqued. This is especially relevant in architecture. Neo-classicism is a stylistic rethinking of Greek and Roman aesthetics. Large columns, white wash exterior, statues, and even artificial aging of the structure is often applied to achieve a more realistic look. American culture is especially guilty of this perpetual duplication and dilution of foreign culture. The United States is such a relatively new nation that we tend to adopt other influences as our own. Another one of the structural patterns Jencks discussed was the absent center. This term defines a building that is missing a large segment from of the structure in order to create a focal point from the exterior. I find that this stylistic choice is closely paralleled by the writings of Macherey. He asserts that what is absent from the text is more important that what is present. This same notion applies to the absent center form because the missing portion ultimately becomes the most prominent feature of the structure. These connections indicate that the ideas found in post-modern theory are relevant to anything and everything. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, and even the food you eat has all been defined and constructed through some type of ideological force.
Penny Lane- Lyotard Late
“Let us wage war on totality”
Lyotard constantly reiterated in his writings, the importance of questioning authority. In a modern day paraphrase, this statement would be similar to the token rage against the machine’. He urges his readers to leave a state of passivity in order to break free of our constructed reality. The sentiment of this advice reminds me of a quote from shock jock Bill Maher: “The younger generation is supposed to rage against the machine, not for it. They're supposed to question authority, not question those who question authority.” Our entire lives we have been conditioned to obey the rules. But who defined these boundaries, and why are we subject to follow them? The answer to this question is seemingly simple. Those in power make the laws, and we follow them because the consequences are unfavorable. However, this framework fundamentally contradicts the principles America was founded upon. Freedoms that grant us the right to speak out and be heard have been strategically silenced, especially in the mainstream. Our consciousness is isolated from exposure to the tragic and gruesome reality of war and poverty. Our attention is shifted toward issues of lesser significance: which celebrity just over dosed, weight loss solutions left and right, and the perpetual threat of terrorism. We lack recognition of this distraction because are forced to look away from happenings that are unpleasant by nature. We are conditioned to follow the focuses chosen for by ruling forces. While our complacency is blatant, subversive movements have and continue to occur. This relates to Habermas’ commentary on the Avant Garde. Off-beat and counter culture trend serve to question and contradicted dominant thought. But our system is clever, and soon even these anti-establishment trends become commercialized. Being a hippie or a punk is so much more than presentation and clothing. It’s a state of being. Today’s generation often try to adopt the nostalgia of these subcultures unsuccessfully. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything; and it seems that this proverb now largely denotes the mindset of the American public.
Lyotard constantly reiterated in his writings, the importance of questioning authority. In a modern day paraphrase, this statement would be similar to the token rage against the machine’. He urges his readers to leave a state of passivity in order to break free of our constructed reality. The sentiment of this advice reminds me of a quote from shock jock Bill Maher: “The younger generation is supposed to rage against the machine, not for it. They're supposed to question authority, not question those who question authority.” Our entire lives we have been conditioned to obey the rules. But who defined these boundaries, and why are we subject to follow them? The answer to this question is seemingly simple. Those in power make the laws, and we follow them because the consequences are unfavorable. However, this framework fundamentally contradicts the principles America was founded upon. Freedoms that grant us the right to speak out and be heard have been strategically silenced, especially in the mainstream. Our consciousness is isolated from exposure to the tragic and gruesome reality of war and poverty. Our attention is shifted toward issues of lesser significance: which celebrity just over dosed, weight loss solutions left and right, and the perpetual threat of terrorism. We lack recognition of this distraction because are forced to look away from happenings that are unpleasant by nature. We are conditioned to follow the focuses chosen for by ruling forces. While our complacency is blatant, subversive movements have and continue to occur. This relates to Habermas’ commentary on the Avant Garde. Off-beat and counter culture trend serve to question and contradicted dominant thought. But our system is clever, and soon even these anti-establishment trends become commercialized. Being a hippie or a punk is so much more than presentation and clothing. It’s a state of being. Today’s generation often try to adopt the nostalgia of these subcultures unsuccessfully. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything; and it seems that this proverb now largely denotes the mindset of the American public.
Graham, 12/2
I thought that the class activity that we did on Bell Hooks piece was really interesting. By forming multiple groups, it was nice to get various interpretations on the reading. From the reading, the main point I understood was that she was saying men are dehumanizing African American women by making them into a commodity that they are ultimately “shopping for”. This strips these individuals of their extensive histories and makes them into simple individuals that are used for sexual purposes by white men.
While meeting with the groups, I found that the piece related a lot to Habermas and the idea that people are always looking to have things that are new and modern. The fact that the white men are trying to experience something new by having sex with the black women shows that they are trying to have a new experience, because it is something that they are not used to. However, my group also concluded that what is currently modern will soon be changed, and then individuals will continue to look around for something else that they can call new. We aggressively pursue what is currently modern, making it a thing of the past in a short period of time.
In my CMC200 class we discussed the idea of “othering” people, and making them seem different just because they look different. I think that this was a main idea of the article, because it is assumed that people are more exotic or sexual based on the color of their skin which is not the case. When we looked up “exotic women” it brought up a large selection of basically every single race except for white women. So what is exotic? Is everyone exotic if they are not white? The term exotic was a term created by society, and it has multiple meanings. I do not think that there is one certain type of woman that is exotic, it is anything that is different, new, or interesting to people.
While meeting with the groups, I found that the piece related a lot to Habermas and the idea that people are always looking to have things that are new and modern. The fact that the white men are trying to experience something new by having sex with the black women shows that they are trying to have a new experience, because it is something that they are not used to. However, my group also concluded that what is currently modern will soon be changed, and then individuals will continue to look around for something else that they can call new. We aggressively pursue what is currently modern, making it a thing of the past in a short period of time.
In my CMC200 class we discussed the idea of “othering” people, and making them seem different just because they look different. I think that this was a main idea of the article, because it is assumed that people are more exotic or sexual based on the color of their skin which is not the case. When we looked up “exotic women” it brought up a large selection of basically every single race except for white women. So what is exotic? Is everyone exotic if they are not white? The term exotic was a term created by society, and it has multiple meanings. I do not think that there is one certain type of woman that is exotic, it is anything that is different, new, or interesting to people.
FloRida, 12/5
I really LOVED Thursday’s class. It was so interesting to have so many people in the class change roles. It really stirred up discussions. Something I have learned this semester specifically is to learn to be aware of what you say and how you say it. It is still hard to believe that even though our society is advancing so quickly, there are still distinguished stereotypes that are applied to specific groups. Women would be considered to have less of a voice than men and Cixous makes that clear in the article we read for class. Lots of points were proving what the article said. Many women in our class still feel that the stereotypes affect them. Women are not given the same opportunities as men. There is still the feeling that they are not viewed on the same level as men. When women are too proactive, even in our society, they are considered crazy feminists and when women are subordinate they are considered incapable. There are so many socially constructed norms that are put into place separating males from females. There is much that can be done to help alleviate some of the problems but it appears as if there will always be some form of domination from men. Although it appears that women in our class all talk all time, it was extremely different to have the men completely silenced. The women appeared much more open and honest about their feelings and personal lives. They shared stories and ideas. I think the men were much more surprised about the things the women were saying because in our day and age it seems less common for women to feel inferior. Having the men have to write everything down made their ideas seem much less important. In a male dominated culture, I believe this was a great, eye-opening experience for everyone involved.
Captain Outrageous, 11/24
“Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences.” (127)
When we did the dictionary activity in class I was really amused. I've always found this concept frustrating in dictionaries...one word leads to another which means either entirely the same thing or different thing. In the end you really end up with a bunch of nothingness. So that's what our language is, nothingness. A bunch fo strung together nothingness that we somehow make sense out of.
What if nothing meant what we think it means? If we did the honest break down of every word in a book and the way it was put together with all the other words, how different might the end result be? Symbolism and that sort is all workings of the mind and semiotics. We really don't have any major construction of language.
Derrida was a complete reinforcement of DeSaussure and Macherey even. What is language really? What is communication? Its no wonder no one really ever understands one another.
When we did the dictionary activity in class I was really amused. I've always found this concept frustrating in dictionaries...one word leads to another which means either entirely the same thing or different thing. In the end you really end up with a bunch of nothingness. So that's what our language is, nothingness. A bunch fo strung together nothingness that we somehow make sense out of.
What if nothing meant what we think it means? If we did the honest break down of every word in a book and the way it was put together with all the other words, how different might the end result be? Symbolism and that sort is all workings of the mind and semiotics. We really don't have any major construction of language.
Derrida was a complete reinforcement of DeSaussure and Macherey even. What is language really? What is communication? Its no wonder no one really ever understands one another.
Elmo, 12/5
Something I found really interesting this week in class was our conversation that went along with our reading of Bell Hooks. Her essay on the “other”, and our conversations following, brought up a lot of issues that I hadn’t really previously spent much time contemplating. I guess being brought up in America we are all used to seeing everyone who isn’t like us as “others”. It seems that many Americans goal in life is to over come the other and dominate them, in more ways than one. The issue of being avant-garde with regard to the other is something we talked a lot about and how a lot of times bringing race to the forefront is seen as new and different. At the end of class we started to look at the United Colors of Benetton ads, which have stirred up a lot of controversy around the world. Having discussed these ads in other classes, I found them quite interesting to look at again. The ads usually portray people of different ethnic backgrounds being together in harmony. This to us is seen as “shocking” or “different” we see these people as others and are caught off guard when they are in images with Caucasians; for example, the ad with the white woman and the black woman holding an Asian baby. (http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/asianbaby.jpg) This ad gets a lot of people talking. First it plays into the issue of same sex couples which is very controversial in itself, and second it plays into the same sex couple adopting a baby, furthermore, all of these people are of different races, which many people think is “not normal”. Another ad of theirs, which I really like, is the one that shows three hearts with the word “white” on one, “black” on the next, and “yellow” on the next. (http://linda03.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/media-blog-nenet.jpg) I think this ad is really touching on something interesting and important, showing us that while we all may have different skin colors we truly are all the same at heart. Overall I think we need to get over the fact that we all are a little unique and stop labeling each other as “others”, it really isn’t helping us anywhere. What really could help is being unified and realize that no one is the same and no one ever will be the same and this just needs to be accepted.
Captain Outrageous, Bordieu make up
In the movie "Anchor Man" the news teams fought for the best position to see a Panda give birth.
In the movie "Bruce Almighty" Bruce used his Godly powers to create rating-exploding stories like meteors and dead bodies.
In real life Al Gore stands outside in a hurricane and its particularly incredible if he comes close to getting blown over.
Danger, the scoop, the spectacle, the experience, the competition- the lack of intelligence, originality, and criticism; these things are what the TV news does and does not come down to. People don't like to think about what people don't want to think about, but we'll spend consecutive days on end discussing the shock factor of Michael Jackson's death or Britney Spears shaving her head. We'll end everyone's day on the local news networks with crime and death. Scandal sells as reality because true reality is too scandalous. This makes no sense! Somewhere along the line some hegemonic powers decided the general news consuming public wasn't smart and from there on out a dumbing down of the news and news topics, or censorship as Bordieu refers to it, has taken place. There are no experts, there are no educated writers because they are manipulated, competed with and broadcast. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WORLD OF RECOGNIZED ACCOMPLISHMENT? WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE RECOGNITION OF INTELLIGENCE, WHETHER AGREED WITH OR NOT? WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE NEWS?
Does News even truly exist anymore? I can pick up twenty different newspapers that have all the same stories. I can flip through thirty different news stations and see all the same stories. What I hear on the 5 o clock news I'll hear on the 11 o clock news and I can read it in tomorrow morning's paper. Oh, but of course, none of it is the same. The Sentinel will say something different than The Post. Fox will say something different than MSNBC. These media relationships Bordieu describes are not due to competition or criticism it is all MONEY, RATINGS. He makes an incredible point discussing the differences (vive le differance!) for example big popular shows on Broadway and avant-garde off-broadway productions. I took a playwrighting class once. I read tons of scripts for plays I had never heard of before. Why? It is exactly what Bordieu says, Symbolic Expression, Symbolic Revolution.
LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN! Wage war on totality...in this case total stupidity!
Revolutions are caused by the minority, the organization of those unsatisfied with the status quo. This minority exists in those off broadway shows, in intelligence and intellect. Symbolic revolution changes the way we think according to Bordieu. Damn right it does. There's nothing revolutionary about your new reality TV show concept. Boundaries are only boldly crossed until the second step is taken. (And I hope you all make the theorist references in here without my having to say their names)
I don't watch the news. I don't read newspapers. I may not know what's going on, but I know I can form my own opinion on them once I find out.
In the movie "Bruce Almighty" Bruce used his Godly powers to create rating-exploding stories like meteors and dead bodies.
In real life Al Gore stands outside in a hurricane and its particularly incredible if he comes close to getting blown over.
Danger, the scoop, the spectacle, the experience, the competition- the lack of intelligence, originality, and criticism; these things are what the TV news does and does not come down to. People don't like to think about what people don't want to think about, but we'll spend consecutive days on end discussing the shock factor of Michael Jackson's death or Britney Spears shaving her head. We'll end everyone's day on the local news networks with crime and death. Scandal sells as reality because true reality is too scandalous. This makes no sense! Somewhere along the line some hegemonic powers decided the general news consuming public wasn't smart and from there on out a dumbing down of the news and news topics, or censorship as Bordieu refers to it, has taken place. There are no experts, there are no educated writers because they are manipulated, competed with and broadcast. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WORLD OF RECOGNIZED ACCOMPLISHMENT? WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE RECOGNITION OF INTELLIGENCE, WHETHER AGREED WITH OR NOT? WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE NEWS?
Does News even truly exist anymore? I can pick up twenty different newspapers that have all the same stories. I can flip through thirty different news stations and see all the same stories. What I hear on the 5 o clock news I'll hear on the 11 o clock news and I can read it in tomorrow morning's paper. Oh, but of course, none of it is the same. The Sentinel will say something different than The Post. Fox will say something different than MSNBC. These media relationships Bordieu describes are not due to competition or criticism it is all MONEY, RATINGS. He makes an incredible point discussing the differences (vive le differance!) for example big popular shows on Broadway and avant-garde off-broadway productions. I took a playwrighting class once. I read tons of scripts for plays I had never heard of before. Why? It is exactly what Bordieu says, Symbolic Expression, Symbolic Revolution.
LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN! Wage war on totality...in this case total stupidity!
Revolutions are caused by the minority, the organization of those unsatisfied with the status quo. This minority exists in those off broadway shows, in intelligence and intellect. Symbolic revolution changes the way we think according to Bordieu. Damn right it does. There's nothing revolutionary about your new reality TV show concept. Boundaries are only boldly crossed until the second step is taken. (And I hope you all make the theorist references in here without my having to say their names)
I don't watch the news. I don't read newspapers. I may not know what's going on, but I know I can form my own opinion on them once I find out.
Captain Outrageous, 12/3
This last class was a great way to end with a bang. It actually helped me fuel some conversations I had with some people later on about eating disorders and body image. I came to a cynical and somewhat unsettling conclusion when it comes to feminism, body image, power of the media, oppression and so forth...we are only controlled by the media images and societal boundaries pushed on us as far as we care to be. True we can't change the minds of everyone, but we can live with the knowledge within ourselves and if we can do that than certain 'accomplishments' will come in the right place time and way for us personally. For example, in this discussion I was having, someone mentioned how the pretty girl always gets the job. That's social and media construction for you. So the pretty girl gets that job. That should be a great symbol to you that the people and mindsets running that job really aren't what you wanted if they operate at such a level. I can almost guarantee that the job you will get, with the people who think outside of these silly boxes, will be much more rewarding in the end, financially or not.
What this really comes down to is I think I agree somewhat with Butler's cynicism... concepts of women and feminism and the like are up to us to perpetuate. Its our fault. In a sense. There's people with REAL eating disorders, not the eating disorder of what can i eat in the cafeteria so I don't get fat. People who could die from impact, not stress over it and fluctuate a few pounds and sizes. What we emphasize in our daily lives in regard to this is what is emphasized on TV and in movies and in advertisements. Therefore, we are playing their game. We aren't being critical of any type of reality. Yes, the reality is these advertisements and messages exist. But they don't depict reality, and we know that or we should by now. Yes, the reality is that there are men who will run on these stereotypes forever in the worst of ways, but these aren't the men we should desire, these aren't the men, the structures, the professions, that will respect us. In our own respect, in our own reality, there should be no fear, no oppression forced upon us by these powers, these controlling mechanisms.
Image and Beauty should equal health and confidence
Voice and Opinion and Validation should equal knowledge, intellect and authority
Respect comes when earned, not when male dominated powers say ok you got it. I realize that even when you deserve it the most you don't get it but remember, you don't want it from there anyway.
Its all a big Catch 22. Look good to feel good, work hard for success, respect and self respect blah blah blah.
Be you.
Be happy.
Be in charge.
And don't give a second thought to any other image.
What this really comes down to is I think I agree somewhat with Butler's cynicism... concepts of women and feminism and the like are up to us to perpetuate. Its our fault. In a sense. There's people with REAL eating disorders, not the eating disorder of what can i eat in the cafeteria so I don't get fat. People who could die from impact, not stress over it and fluctuate a few pounds and sizes. What we emphasize in our daily lives in regard to this is what is emphasized on TV and in movies and in advertisements. Therefore, we are playing their game. We aren't being critical of any type of reality. Yes, the reality is these advertisements and messages exist. But they don't depict reality, and we know that or we should by now. Yes, the reality is that there are men who will run on these stereotypes forever in the worst of ways, but these aren't the men we should desire, these aren't the men, the structures, the professions, that will respect us. In our own respect, in our own reality, there should be no fear, no oppression forced upon us by these powers, these controlling mechanisms.
Image and Beauty should equal health and confidence
Voice and Opinion and Validation should equal knowledge, intellect and authority
Respect comes when earned, not when male dominated powers say ok you got it. I realize that even when you deserve it the most you don't get it but remember, you don't want it from there anyway.
Its all a big Catch 22. Look good to feel good, work hard for success, respect and self respect blah blah blah.
Be you.
Be happy.
Be in charge.
And don't give a second thought to any other image.
Mongoose, 12/3
This last class of the semester definitely put a different and unique twist on things, both in the classroom and in life. I guess I never really thought that we were still in a time period where women would be considered to have less of a voice than men until reading this essay from Cixous. Even when I was reading her I kept having thoughts that she might be a little off base in some of her assumptions, that most women wouldn’t really feel that they have any less voice than men; that is, until I heard the women in our class speak. In my four years of college, I never felt that girls felt less compelled or any inhibitions about speaking up in class, in most cases the girls are the ones doing more speaking in class than the guys. I think the girls in this class held that same thought but obviously felt that there were othe areas of life where they were still held behind the eight ball. Overall it still appears that women are not given the same opportunities as men or still feel that they are not viewed on the same level as men. My thought as to why feminism is sometimes looked down upon is because of the radical views taken on by some; I don’t believe that there are very many men who would say that women are not equal to us or anything along those lines but many look down on the word feminist because of those who take it to extremes. My example of this is women who push for words to be changed, like our example of ‘history’ and ‘herstory’, these are the kinds of things that give feminism a bad name and people get turned away from it because of this, not because they feel that women are below us.
The one thought that kept going through my head during this class exercise was how much this related to the movie ‘what women want’. In this movie a man hears all of the thoughts of every woman he comes into contact with, good and bad. With us men not being allowed to speak, it forced us to hear the thoughts and opinions of women that we may not ordinarily get to hear in the classroom.
The one thought that kept going through my head during this class exercise was how much this related to the movie ‘what women want’. In this movie a man hears all of the thoughts of every woman he comes into contact with, good and bad. With us men not being allowed to speak, it forced us to hear the thoughts and opinions of women that we may not ordinarily get to hear in the classroom.
Ace Ventura, 12/3
Ending this course with these feminist readings was interesting because it broke away from the normal types of readings that we've covered during this course and offered a different perspective. And only allowing the girls to speak in class on Thursday was even more interesting. As Dr. Rog said, females are usually silenced in our society. But looking back over this semester, I think it's the girls that did the most participating during the course. Does this mean that the points made in the past two readings aren't valid anymore? Does this mean that our society has reached a level of equality for men and women? My personal belief is that we are still equal and much like I said in class, I think no matter how equal we become, people will still always find something to complain about. As a female, I don't feel unequal education wise, I don't feel unequal when it comes to job opportunities (unless of course I'm looking to be a professional football player, then I'm screwed I guess), and I don't feel unequal sexually meaning that I don't feel like I'm disrespected physically by males. I agree with the Hooks when it comes to 'the Other' in respect to talking about races though. No matter how equal different races have become, I think there is still a bit of taboo when it comes to matters of interracial dating and other similar issues. Look, for example, at the uproar that was created at the idea of a black president. For many people, this was the only issued that they looked at instead of looking at his qualifications. So when it comes to equality and respect, I think we need to spend less time on feminism and more time on making 'the Other' 'the Same'.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
ESPN, 12/3
As the semester came to an end, we finished in a slightly different way than usual with the idea of phallologocentrism and the work of Cixous and Butler. As all the guys were silenced in class in relation to women equality, I felt quite weird. It was a different feeling, one that I have not felt before. It was almost as I was a kid in time out and was punished from talking. There were many ideas going through my head but felt stuck in that I could not say anything unless I wrote it. Writing it seems to make ones ideas much less important and enables them to be written off or pushed to the side. I think it was good for me to get that perspective as I got a new insight to feminist ideas and feelings. My reaction in the equality debate is that yes women’s rights are equal but do agree in that they are undermined by a male dominated society. There was question purposed that asked what a female recommends we do about it. There was not many specific answers that where both specific and could potently solve the problem on a bigger scale. I find it to be because on that bigger scale the male dominated culture is so embedded in to not only America but the world in that it does not ever seem it will be able to entirely be changed.
We have come a long way as years ago the class we had on Thursday would not have even been thought. I am all for equality but hard it find to believe that there will ever be 100 % equality because after all we are different by nature. There are also so many socially constructed norms that are put in place that separate a male from female. I do believe there is certainly room for improvement but no matter who dominate male or female there will always be a difference and room to argue who has more control. This class has taught me so many things usefully in understanding the world and a new better idea of feminism is just an example of one of them.
We have come a long way as years ago the class we had on Thursday would not have even been thought. I am all for equality but hard it find to believe that there will ever be 100 % equality because after all we are different by nature. There are also so many socially constructed norms that are put in place that separate a male from female. I do believe there is certainly room for improvement but no matter who dominate male or female there will always be a difference and room to argue who has more control. This class has taught me so many things usefully in understanding the world and a new better idea of feminism is just an example of one of them.
HOLLA! 12/6/09
Today’s class was actually very informative and entertaining. I like when we get to learn in a way that is not “normal”. The readings by Cixous and Butler were based around the feminist’s idea of “Herstory”. As we spoke about in class, the girls in this case were able to speak their minds whereas the boys had to keep quiet, they could only write. Dr. Casey said this was following the idea of Phallologocentrism and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. Through our class today I realized that we are fights for equality over social structures, which have been set up by women and men. As females we want equality, we want to be like the boys, but yet how can we follow these social structures still if we are intending to do this. Like we’ve talked about with Althusser and ISA’s…only a few are the ones in power that rule over the masses with no power. Why don’t these masses over throw the small group of individuals in power? I feel this is the same question I raise with femininity and social structures. We say we want to be treated equal like men and respected and there are a few men in the world that agree with this, but why don’t we over throw the social structures that hold us in place? I feel we do not over throw or object to these ideologies or social structures in this case, which hold us in place, because they’ve become so normal. I would love to be treated equal, but I’m fine with how my life is now…I like being protected by my boyfriend etc…maybe the masses aren’t ready for a change, maybe these social structures will be in place until we die and on until our children have children, we do not know. All I know is times are changing, times have changed, and maybe one day women will be equal to men in all mental and emotional aspects of life. I think all we can do is live with it and do what we personally can to change things…maybe one day someone will rally everyone to over throw these social structures (even overthrow the ideologies that keep us in place) but until then we’ll never know.
BiegieGo, 12/3
In class on Tuesday we talked about female theorist Bell Hooks, how she felt about the OTHER and why our gaze goes for the other. Professor Casey asked a good question in class that described where Hooks was coming from. Dr. Casey asked someone what they would want to eat if he were to go eat with them. The first person said pizza but the second person said Italian. We always associate food with another ethnicity such as Chinese, Asian, and Mexican. We also looked at photos at the end of class that would be shocking to see in our culture and I think that is why they were taken. One picture was of a black woman feeding a white child. To that person, it would not be crazy but in our culture it brings up controversy and gets people talking about the image. Another picture was of a white woman and a black woman wrapped in a blanket together and an Asian looking baby in the arms. We look at this and we see skin color, race, and two lesbians with a baby that looks like they may have adopted. These are the otherness kinds of things that stay discussions in our society. Bell would argue that “it is within the commercial realism of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression.” Like I said before it is what we don’t see that is shocking to us. But on the other hand what is exotic just becomes normal after awhile and our society does not acknowledge what was once known as different. We can relate this exoticism to Hebdige. He brings up the notion that something is different in some society and in another culture someone else does a similar thing as the one seen in the previous culture and it becomes normal. We are all different in the same way.
In class today, we talked about theorist Butler and Cixous. They both looked at how men are seen as having hierarchy in our society and power over the women. The male is seen as oral and women are seen as written. We can look at the quote “Writing is women’s” as women creating this fantasy land such as harry potter or the new film twilight to get away from this world of hierarchy. Masculinity is the opposite of femininity so whatever defines the masculinity then it needs something to go against it such as, women being seen as soft and men are being seen as tough. Said by a student in class “You can always play with the big boys but you can never be better than them” we must look at it though it in sport or in the work field. Femininity should be normal, not something we should be fighting for our talking about like this. Women are always welcome to feel like one of the guys but when men are invited to be one of the girls then it’s seen as out of the norm and is question as why would you even think that. Are we just put on this planet to be this kind of male gaze??
In class today, we talked about theorist Butler and Cixous. They both looked at how men are seen as having hierarchy in our society and power over the women. The male is seen as oral and women are seen as written. We can look at the quote “Writing is women’s” as women creating this fantasy land such as harry potter or the new film twilight to get away from this world of hierarchy. Masculinity is the opposite of femininity so whatever defines the masculinity then it needs something to go against it such as, women being seen as soft and men are being seen as tough. Said by a student in class “You can always play with the big boys but you can never be better than them” we must look at it though it in sport or in the work field. Femininity should be normal, not something we should be fighting for our talking about like this. Women are always welcome to feel like one of the guys but when men are invited to be one of the girls then it’s seen as out of the norm and is question as why would you even think that. Are we just put on this planet to be this kind of male gaze??
Nemo, Lyotard -Late
Lyotard discusses the idea of totalizing metanarratives. A metanarrative is a commonly shared set of believes or stories that people use to make sense of their world or their lives. A totalized metanarrative has total control of how society views the world. Lyotard believes that it is important to get rid of these metanarratives because they are bad for society. He says that metanarratives prevent us from being critical thinkers. A way of challenging the metanarratives is through forms of artistic expression, (writing, painting, drawing, fashion design, ect.) that push the boundaries of what is accepted as the social norm or the status quo – the avant-garde. Avant-garde is anything (usually forms of art work) that is new, unconventional, or experimental. Lyotard says, “eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture” (42). People are always looking for ways to be different, to find their own identity. The only problem, now a-days, is that it is extremely hard to create something ‘new’ or ‘original’ and once that has been achieved, Lyotard says that the people who have questioned the rules “are destined to have little credibility”; “they have no guarantee of an audience” (41). In this excerpt he is discussing how someone who goes against the norms of society is taking a risk because people may or may not agree and want to follow them. I think that this is no longer true because in our society everyone is always trying to push the envelope and be different. The problem however is that once someone creates something ‘new’ and ‘different’ it will be marketed and consumed by society making, whatever it was in the first place unoriginal. This is why Lyotard argues that nothing can be new anymore. These are just my personal opinions so feel free to disagree with them.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Nate Dogg, pre-class on Zizek lecture - Late
The lecture with Zizek helped to highlight his readings for me. I've seen Zizek before and while I enjoy hearing him, I find it very hard to understand him speak. Zizek's thoughts on morality and film are so brutally honest that it's hard not to like him. Writing a piece on how the U.S. got what it asked for when 9/11 happened is not an easy thing to do, but it has truth to it. The fact that American's pay money year after year to witness their own destruction should tell us that we have an un-natural obsession with watching death. I think Zizek chastises the media for preventing us from seeing death because that's exactly what builds up the want to see it. We always want what we can't have, and in this situation, we can't see death. Television in particular has always made it a point not to show us the ugly truth behind war or terror. There exists footage of the people who were forced to jump to their death from the towers in 9/11. We have conventions about what we consider obscene and things in poor taste, but in hiding this are we doing justice to the true horror of what happened? The true problem lies in the area between reality and entertainment. We have no qualms about witnessing death and destruction on a colossal scale... so long as it isn't real. As soon as those ideas enter into reality, the only way to experience the complete terror and understanding of those situations is to be on the scene and part of the horror. We cannot see the truth because we have people who moderate "the truth" for us. Zizek must see this as the ultimate failure of the media, particularly news media. For us to hide anything in situations surrounding death, it only serves to confuse us and fear death more.
Nate Dogg, Cixous
This article focuses on how men and women see themselves, what roles they are taught to fulfill, and the cultural "normalities" that define these roles. As a guy reading this piece, it makes me wonder what misconceptions I myself have regarding masculinity and femininity. As much as I consider myself to be an average nice guy, do I still carry around as much contempt for woman as men are described in this piece? The part of this Cixous essay that caught me off guard was the suggestion of being homosexual as anti-woman. I had never really thought about homosexuality in that context. I do believe that guys grow up surrounded by affirmations of heterosexuality. Even as a child, I remember watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and if you look at the cast, you'll see masculinity over femininity. 3 Male Rangers to 2 Female Rangers. Scooby Doo has 3 Male characters and 2 female characters. Even this simple sighting of higher ratio of men to women has to affect the mind in some way, shape or form. When you combine these little hints here and there all throughout someone's lifetime and especially during the years when they are growing exceedingly fast mentally, they start to add up. I truly believe that these little anti-woman suggestions build up to men unconsciously hating women.
With all of the discussion regarding the Other from tuesday's class, I started to see a connection with The Other and hate. If we take the male perspective regarding The Other and the male perspective regarding woman, we can start to see how men view females as the other. We do not understand the other, and we rely on sex to defeat this misunderstanding. In order to eat the other, to become a part of the other and understand it, we have to literally and figuratively insert ourselves into The Other.
I enjoyed Cixous because her writing style is very unique. While I still find words that I don't understand here and there, I think that throughout the blog posts and readings in class I've gotten better at reading texts. Not necessarily in the word for word sense, but it's gotten easier to see what the author is trying to convey, what change they are trying to make by sharing the information they've discovered.
With all of the discussion regarding the Other from tuesday's class, I started to see a connection with The Other and hate. If we take the male perspective regarding The Other and the male perspective regarding woman, we can start to see how men view females as the other. We do not understand the other, and we rely on sex to defeat this misunderstanding. In order to eat the other, to become a part of the other and understand it, we have to literally and figuratively insert ourselves into The Other.
I enjoyed Cixous because her writing style is very unique. While I still find words that I don't understand here and there, I think that throughout the blog posts and readings in class I've gotten better at reading texts. Not necessarily in the word for word sense, but it's gotten easier to see what the author is trying to convey, what change they are trying to make by sharing the information they've discovered.
FloRida, Cixous
Men and women have specific “roles” in society that are mainly created through media portrayals. Many ads we have studied throughout Critical Media classes have been for products targeted towards males, like car or alcohol commercials where women are dressed provocatively and in ways that are subject to the male gaze. Cixous’ message that men are in the dominant position and define the ways in which women are portrayed definitely connects to this idea. “If woman has always functioned ‘within’ man’s discourse, a signifier referring always to the opposing signifier that annihilates its particular energy, puts down or stifles its very different sounds, now it is time for her to displace this ‘within,’ explode it, overturn it, grab it, make it hers, take it in…(165)” This reminds me of Lyortard and his ideas about totalizing metanarratives. Cixous clarifies specific ideologies that we need to rid of, mainly ones that stifle women. Men and women are considered polar opposites, especially between what active roles men are supposed to acquire and passive roles that women “accept.” Cixous’ article states that women are not taken seriously when speaking. “Her word almost always falls on the deaf, masculine ear, which can only hear language that speaks in the masculine.” Roles women play have been considered those of shame. Cixous wants woman to gain recognition through writing. This is a mode praising of characteristics of the feminine. Cixous states , “That is why writing is good, letting the tongue to try itself out—as one attempts a caress, taking the time a phrase or a thought needs to make oneself loved, to make oneself reverberate.” Women are characterized by their nurturing and patient qualities. “A man is always proving something; he has to ‘show off,’ show up the others. Masculine profit is almost always mixed up with a success that is socially defined.” There is a major misconception that women are equal to men in our society. Cixous wants women to make their voices heard.
Serendipity, Cixous
Cixous describes some people as being "bisexual". Not in the sexual sense, but regarding the characteristics of their personality, what is "masculine" and "feminine". I have taken several gender related courses, and what immediately came to mind is how these notions are completely constructed by society and by culture. The fact that a girl gets a pink blanket at the hospital when she is born and a boy gets a blue blanket seems like second nature to us but in reality (whatever that is) it is completely arbitrary. This continues on with women being portrayed as weaker, not very athletic, sweet, interested in their looks etc. Men are portrayed (mainstream) as stoic, strong, determined, and unemotional. This type of thinking spills over onto our lives everyday, especially in the media. All of these notions are being regurgitated to us in billboards, movies, and magazines daily. It is all an image, just like the beautiful photoshopped people in these forms of media. This goes along with the PostModern idea of "what is real?" and it seems like it is fairly obvious that gender stereotypes are a harsh reality in our society but are not in fact true. This also spills over into many cultural problems such as the belief that women should be objectified because it is their role. This also is portrayed in many pornographic materials, and therefore conditions men to associate sex with violence and domination. A person should be considered human first, instead of such a stress being put on "male" and "female" attributes. It is a silly creation of culture, and just like many of the things portrayed to us through the media, is not real.
Ron Burgundy, Butler
The second section of the reading by Judith Butler discussed the difficulties of gender and representation, particularly with feminist theory. It seems as though the subject of "women" is no longer an easy topic, as the word no longer is able to encapsulate all that individuals are. Butler points out that "there is a political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity (193)". What she is explaining her is the exploration and transformation that womanhood has undergone and the therefore problem that exists as the term women has become more arbitrary. This ties in with De Saussre explanation of language, particularly with signs, signifier, and the signified as the word woman no longer can signify a particular quality or individual. For example, in the past womanhood was made a bit more simpler because of the political and societal structures that limited a woman's existence. At one time to be a woman meant to not work, to not have the right to vote, and to do little more than tend to the man and children. This was the structure of the woman and anything outside of that was considered not right and not correct. In today's society however, with the exploration of sexualities and greater freedoms and equality among men and women, the signifier woman becomes a bit more obscure. If I asked you today what to be a woman would mean most people may say that it only denotes a physical quality of the individual. But even this explanation becomes difficult with the idea of transexuals, particularly individuals born with male parts who consider themselves to actually be women. Butler explains this issue perfectly by stating that the term woman "rather than [being] a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term" (193). In my opinion, this piece solidifies De Saussre's argument about the arbitrary nature of language and signs, revealing that our language, with it's inabilities to fully encapsulte ideas, causes many problems in a highly political and structuralized society.
Mongoose, Cixous
Bisexual; when I first read this headline I had a completely different notion as to what the word meant than what we actually read about. The only context I had ever heard this word used in was to describe an individual who had both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual relationships. Cixous used the word in a completely different context; she used it to describe an individual with both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ attributes in their personality or lifestyle. She starts out by calling bisexuality “a fantasy of a complete being” (Cixous 159); what I took from this was that she feels that in order to being a complete person, one must posses both feminine and masculine qualities. Although this is her view of how a complete person should be, she believes that there are very few of this type around; she also believes that it is more likely for a woman to be ‘bisexual’ than it is for a man. She gives several reasons that women are more apt to such a lifestyle, one being that men are looked down upon if they have ‘feminine’ qualities. She says that men live a life in which they are constantly sizing up other men and being sized up at the same time, we always have to compare ourselves as to who’s more masculine in the group, while women are more concerned with getting ahead and doing what is best for them. Also men are afraid of ‘being female’ because they do not want to be considered a homosexual, while if a woman posses masculine qualities it can actually help her in the business world. The most relevant theorist that I can relate this to is Barthes and his concept that language gives us meaning; in this case the words ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ have given us meaning for our lives. For men it is a constant struggle to maintain masculinity and never being considered feminine, making it to where these words and our perceptions of them continually shape our lives.
Graham, Cixous
This piece focused a lot on what is ideologically feminine, and what is masculine. Not only did the author discuss mannerisms of the individual themselves, but even stereotypical associations such as words and gestures were included in the writing. We have read stories about this in my other media classes, and it reminded me a lot to something we read about the way that men are often afraid to be viewed as feminine, therefore they often overcompensate which ultimately makes them become viewed as being barbaric human beings.
Although men are ideologically superior to men and they often act “tough”, the article mentions that they are very afraid to be viewed with these feminine traits, therefore they fear women in a sense. This allows women to feel some sort of power that we do not often feel in society, because society often deems women as incapable and inferior. This power that women gain from the fear that they inflict in men confuses me, because I have never really considered these points before. However, I do see the way that men attempt to act “manly” when they get around groups of girls. I guess this could be because they are trying to impress the girls, or maybe it is because of what the author discusses…men fear being women.
This relates a lot to previous discussions that we have held in class about ideologies. Who has created the image of a man, and decided what is manly? These ideologies are so ridiculous, because it has society feeling like they have to look and act a certain way.
And why are men always viewed as the dominant figures? We just read a book in my cmc200 class about pornography and the way that men dominate women in the sex industry. Why is it okay for women to be treated so inferior to men…it doesn’t make any sense.
These ideologies are going to continue to exist because "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud...because for women speaking-even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression." This is saying that women are not speaking up about what is happening. And if the woman speaks up will anyone listen? Maybe not, and that is a harsh reality of the way that our society operates. This article was really interesting to read.
Although men are ideologically superior to men and they often act “tough”, the article mentions that they are very afraid to be viewed with these feminine traits, therefore they fear women in a sense. This allows women to feel some sort of power that we do not often feel in society, because society often deems women as incapable and inferior. This power that women gain from the fear that they inflict in men confuses me, because I have never really considered these points before. However, I do see the way that men attempt to act “manly” when they get around groups of girls. I guess this could be because they are trying to impress the girls, or maybe it is because of what the author discusses…men fear being women.
This relates a lot to previous discussions that we have held in class about ideologies. Who has created the image of a man, and decided what is manly? These ideologies are so ridiculous, because it has society feeling like they have to look and act a certain way.
And why are men always viewed as the dominant figures? We just read a book in my cmc200 class about pornography and the way that men dominate women in the sex industry. Why is it okay for women to be treated so inferior to men…it doesn’t make any sense.
These ideologies are going to continue to exist because "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud...because for women speaking-even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression." This is saying that women are not speaking up about what is happening. And if the woman speaks up will anyone listen? Maybe not, and that is a harsh reality of the way that our society operates. This article was really interesting to read.
Gwatter06, Cixous/Butler
Cixous’ reading at the very least was a bit difficult to grasp, it was almost as if the reader knew what concepts she would bring up but the exposition was definitely difficult to follow. One of the first interesting concepts that I was able to grasp came early on in the reading when Cixous states, “thought has always worked through opposition” (157). This is a concept that does not come strange to us, as we have covered similar concepts in the past. This most closely relates to the concept of binary opposition in which we define things by their opposites, or as de Sausser would have it, “in language there are only differences.” Cixous also speaks of differences but those that pertain to the separation of men and women. She attacks this notion in a peculiar way by looking at bisexuality. Cixous explains that bisexuality is “a fantasy of unity. Two within one, and not even two wholes…that is to say the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes…” (159). What I believe Cixous is explaining here is that to encompass bisexuality, which men despise due to conformity in masculinity, is to essentially be whole and have an understanding of the other.
Butler on the other hand was a much more straightforward read. She tackles the concepts and problematic situations with women in society in a feminist matter. Butler states, “For feminist theory, the development of a language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women. This has seemed obviously important considering the pervasive cultural condition in which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all” (191). I think this sums up a lot of what Butler then goes on to deconstruct. What I believe she is saying here is that feminism exists and is necessary because society has conformed our hegemonic ideologies to undermine women and relinquish their ability for properity through, what she later calls, “universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination.” I would relate Butler’s feminist ideals closely to those of Bell Hooks in the sense that they both refer to women as being forcefully subordinate in a masculine based society. All in all, both authors take up some strong positions in constructing different notions and concepts pertaining to societal inequalities and feminism.
Butler on the other hand was a much more straightforward read. She tackles the concepts and problematic situations with women in society in a feminist matter. Butler states, “For feminist theory, the development of a language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women. This has seemed obviously important considering the pervasive cultural condition in which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all” (191). I think this sums up a lot of what Butler then goes on to deconstruct. What I believe she is saying here is that feminism exists and is necessary because society has conformed our hegemonic ideologies to undermine women and relinquish their ability for properity through, what she later calls, “universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination.” I would relate Butler’s feminist ideals closely to those of Bell Hooks in the sense that they both refer to women as being forcefully subordinate in a masculine based society. All in all, both authors take up some strong positions in constructing different notions and concepts pertaining to societal inequalities and feminism.
Capri Sun, Cixous
Cixous’ article talks about how society has created gender roles and why men are the superior sex. She says that men are considered the providers and breadwinners in most American families. In our head we have an image of what a typical family would look like and the men are the successful workers. While reading this article it reminded me a lot of my CMC 200 paper, which talked about the concept of masculinity. In society, the fact that there are certain ways men and women should act is the reasons there are gender roles. Men are told to be men by being masculine and masculinity is defined in many different aspects of our life. When studying masculinity, I learned that being successful was a major part of being a man. Cixous explains in her article that men are suppose to be the providers and they fear when women achieve more success then them. This is because of the already preconceived notions that take place today. Certain words that describe masculinity are successful, strong, wealthy, and dominant. Words that would explain femininity would also be considered an insult if called that to a male. This is what Cixous described as oppositions. The male is opposite of female. When doing my paper for CMC 200, I realized that in order for a man to feel like a man he needed be masculine. Masculinity can change depended on the culture being studied, therefore masculinity is not apart of the biology that make up males rather it is what society makes of it. The media and other systems create the gender roles, which are usually hegemonic ideologies. Advertisements, television shows, and films are a huge factor that shapes our perspective of the male and female. Boys grow up witnessing these forms of media and it becomes an expectation for them to portray masculinity because there whole lives they see men as the dominant gender. I think that this is something that is more difficult for boys to break away from then girls, because a girl can be successful and work outside of the home and at times may be looked down upon; but when men become the “stay at home” dad, he is observed negatively by society.
Teets, Cixous/Butler
Father/Mother
Head/Heart
Logos/Pathos
Man____
Woman
Binary oppositions.
“Always the same metaphor: we follow it, it carries us, beneath all its figures, wherever discourse is organized” (Cixous 157). Men and women are viewed as opposites in a way. Society holds this view due to a long-standing ideology set in place years ago. However, Cixous argues that this opposition is not entirely true. “There is no invention possible…without there being in the inventing subject an abundance of the other, of variety…” (Cixous 158). She does not say a little of the other; she says an abundance of the other.
Women tend to seek the other more than men because men are viewed as the dominant sex in society. “In a certain way woman is bisexual – man having been trained to aim for glorious phallic monosexuality” (Cixous 159). Monosexuality could be replaced with masculinity there also. Althusser would say that these ideas come directly from the ideologies instilled upon our society. Women are taught two different life motives; strive to be as good as men, or act and behave like a woman. Men have it easier, taught to simply be as masculine as possible. I would argue that a combination of these three ideas would be the most beneficial. Going back to the binary oppositions, it is much better to use your head and your heart, rather than just one. Same goes for logos and ethos. In order to understand one’s self you need to understand what you aren’t, which relates to Macherey’s notion of what is not said.
Butler discusses the topic of feminism, which in my mind is just beating a dead horse. Women have it substantially better today than they did 50 years ago. Family has become much less of a Patriarchy than in prior years, while women have also seen a steady increase in terms of employment. Feminism achieved many goals, but I believe it has hit the glass ceiling. Women do exist, and are more equal now than in the past. Will they ever be completely equal to males? Probably not. However, going back to Cixous, women need to understand that the other (Men) is the more dominant sex.
Head/Heart
Logos/Pathos
Man____
Woman
Binary oppositions.
“Always the same metaphor: we follow it, it carries us, beneath all its figures, wherever discourse is organized” (Cixous 157). Men and women are viewed as opposites in a way. Society holds this view due to a long-standing ideology set in place years ago. However, Cixous argues that this opposition is not entirely true. “There is no invention possible…without there being in the inventing subject an abundance of the other, of variety…” (Cixous 158). She does not say a little of the other; she says an abundance of the other.
Women tend to seek the other more than men because men are viewed as the dominant sex in society. “In a certain way woman is bisexual – man having been trained to aim for glorious phallic monosexuality” (Cixous 159). Monosexuality could be replaced with masculinity there also. Althusser would say that these ideas come directly from the ideologies instilled upon our society. Women are taught two different life motives; strive to be as good as men, or act and behave like a woman. Men have it easier, taught to simply be as masculine as possible. I would argue that a combination of these three ideas would be the most beneficial. Going back to the binary oppositions, it is much better to use your head and your heart, rather than just one. Same goes for logos and ethos. In order to understand one’s self you need to understand what you aren’t, which relates to Macherey’s notion of what is not said.
Butler discusses the topic of feminism, which in my mind is just beating a dead horse. Women have it substantially better today than they did 50 years ago. Family has become much less of a Patriarchy than in prior years, while women have also seen a steady increase in terms of employment. Feminism achieved many goals, but I believe it has hit the glass ceiling. Women do exist, and are more equal now than in the past. Will they ever be completely equal to males? Probably not. However, going back to Cixous, women need to understand that the other (Men) is the more dominant sex.
Elmo, Cixous
There has always been the debate, or discussion, about the differences between men and women; about equality and about their binary opposition. An interesting quote from Cixous is when she says, “through dual, hierarchical oppositions. Superior/inferior. Myths, legends, books. Philosophical systems. Everywhere (where) ordering intervenes, where a law organizes what is thinkable by oppositions (dual, irreconcilable; or sublatable, dialectical). And all these pairs of opposions are couples “ (157). I found this quote to be particularly interesting and particularly good at explaining the relationship between males and females. There always seems to be this sort of competition between the two, there always has been. The words of “superior” and “inferior” make it seem that one is better than the other, usually the male. This is very peculiar because other words, which oppose each other such as, light/dark, and day/night, don't seem to compete with each other. Why then, do male/female have to constantly be in competition? Why can’t they be seen as two unique entities on their own? Cixous touches on many unique and interesting aspects of masculinity and femininity and the struggle they have with one another. It seems that Cixous is trying to prove or debate about the fact that females should be seen as a neutral opposition to the male such as night is to day. I found this article to raise a lot of interesting points along these lines and am curious to see what everyone else got from the article. I think our class is going to spark a lot of great, intellectual conversation about this topic. Can’t wait!
HOLLA! Cixous
Man vs. Woman…why not Woman vs. Man? Father/Mother…Day/Night… Speaking/ Writing…why is it that what comes second represents women? This reading was very wordy and confusing at many points, but I think what Cixous was getting at is this hierarchical structure which compares men to women and where men are at the top. An interesting quote I pulled from the reading was, “Traditionally, the question of sexual differance is treated by coupling it with the opposition: activity/passivity” (158). This quotation is a perfect example of this hierarchical structure and metaphors Cixous is looking at. There is so much to pull from within this reading but I am going to focus on women and writing. As Cixous states, “I will say: today, writing is woman’s” (160). This means that unlike men who keep to themselves (the speakers) and really are one dimensioned emotionally wise, women can admit that there is more to life or there is “another.” I feel Cixous is saying that women have not forgotten who they are or where they came from and they are open to this otherness; writing is a form of allowing women to reach this otherness. Men only gravitate around themselves, their own desires, there is no “other” in their eyes. So a woman being labeled as the weak and passive…maybe this is mans term coined to cover their own insecurities in not recognizing their own otherness. I can tell Cixous believes in the feminist ideas and values, but she brings some blatant and valid points up in the reading that I’ve already addressed. If I had to relate this reading to a previous theorist I’d have to tie her ideas to DeSaussure or Derrida, considering these metaphors are developed by a shared meaning in this case a meaning started from men. The fact that “we” can develop these shared ideas of thought through metaphors shows how much woman are held down and below man hierarchically.
Kiwi, Cixous/Butler
In Cixous text she discusses a lot of the differences of men and woman and emphasizes on how men are the dominant sex and women are inferior. In the reading she states that, “Traditionally, the question of sexual difference is treated by coupling it with the opposition: activity/passivity. “I think she is trying to say that our society has certain stereotypes of men and if they don’t live up to these expectations that we have for them, then they have failed their manhood and are looked down upon. Men are the ones that financially support the family, if the wife is the one that is financially supporting the family… then the husband is looked down upon. This is simply because of our media and the specific stereotypes that we have made of men and women. It is an ideology.
This idea can relate to both Alhusser and Lyotard. Lyotard because he says that we are living in total metanarratives, which is commonly shared set of beliefs or stories that people use to make a sense out of their world and out of their lives. He says that we need to get away from this however we never will because this is what our society continues to follow.
Althusser would say, that the hegemonic class sets these standards, that if not followed you are looked down upon for not following the rules that our society has set on how we should live our lives. But here is my question… is it fair that we have made these stereotypes about men and women? Is it fair to that women will never be credited for their hard work too? As Habermas would say, “we are all neoconservatives” he says that we are living in a world where we have certain beliefs that are this or that and that we will never be able to come together as one and compromise, it is impossible. Although I would not like to think that what he is saying is true, I do belief that he is right and we will never be able to compromise (men and women) therefore women will never win because the men are the dominant ones, therefore they will always win because they have more “power, more control.”
I thought that this reading was very interesting and I am not sure if this is Cixous main point or not however, I do believe that this is an issue and there needs to be more discussion about this within our society. As Jameson would say, “depth is replaced by surface.” Our society does not take the time anymore to look deeper it issues like this and perhaps this is why we have so many problems later down the road. I look forward to class tomorrow and seeing how others feel about this issue.
This idea can relate to both Alhusser and Lyotard. Lyotard because he says that we are living in total metanarratives, which is commonly shared set of beliefs or stories that people use to make a sense out of their world and out of their lives. He says that we need to get away from this however we never will because this is what our society continues to follow.
Althusser would say, that the hegemonic class sets these standards, that if not followed you are looked down upon for not following the rules that our society has set on how we should live our lives. But here is my question… is it fair that we have made these stereotypes about men and women? Is it fair to that women will never be credited for their hard work too? As Habermas would say, “we are all neoconservatives” he says that we are living in a world where we have certain beliefs that are this or that and that we will never be able to come together as one and compromise, it is impossible. Although I would not like to think that what he is saying is true, I do belief that he is right and we will never be able to compromise (men and women) therefore women will never win because the men are the dominant ones, therefore they will always win because they have more “power, more control.”
I thought that this reading was very interesting and I am not sure if this is Cixous main point or not however, I do believe that this is an issue and there needs to be more discussion about this within our society. As Jameson would say, “depth is replaced by surface.” Our society does not take the time anymore to look deeper it issues like this and perhaps this is why we have so many problems later down the road. I look forward to class tomorrow and seeing how others feel about this issue.
ESPN, Cixous and Butler
Cixous' states "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud ... because for women speaking - even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression (163). I found this to be interesting. From a guys perspective, I never really thought that women would fear speaking. However, it seems to be a universal feeling among women. It is sad as no one should fear the basic freedom speech but I guess it is true. It is hard understand from my side but I know if I were I felt that way I would want a change. It seems that more women are able to voice their opinion more today as we have come a long way but I guess there is still that hidden fear inside. I have never felt a fear to talk because of my sex but I guess that just shows some of the different feelings women may have. Feminism is a hard topic to conquer as there is so much to it in society. In CMC 200 we discussed the notion of how they are portrayed in pornography and that is just another aspect that adds to the hardship. Cixous also argues that a woman is not taken seriously when speaking because “her word almost always falls on the deaf, masculine ear, which can only hear language that speaks in the masculine.” Once again I feel that today everyone does listen to women more so then before. However, there seems to be this sort of unspoken tone that men still may be superior in the roles of society. While women may now have all the same rights there still feels to be a bit of a masculine control. I believe women have a lot of respect now but they tend to be undermined a bit. Men a kind of getting a bad rap here but from a women perspective it is understandable. As a male there is not a lot I feel I could do personally to change the roles in society but to respect and hear them so then they don’t feel that their words fall to deaf ears or are fearful to speak. It seems as if it is a greater issue hard issue to crack that is imbedded in our society.
Bubbles, Cixous/Bulter
In Cixous’ text she discusses our ideologies of hierarchy. Although the cultural hierarchal values that she discusses are not new concepts, she uses a very interesting way to discuss them: through opposition. Some of the oppositions she uses are sun/moon, activity/passivity, head/heart, and more. She uses these oppositions to the differences in men and women. Most of her oppositions show how the well-known ideas of how men are the dominant sex and women are inferior. I found her strategy to explain hierarchal through opposition to relate back to de Sassure’s concepts of difference. In the beginning of the semester we discusses that difference is the key to understanding meaning and language, we can only know what one word means because of its difference to the other. Similarly, we can see in Cuxous’ text that the opposition is what allows us to see what it means to be a male or female only in the opposition between the two.
I also found Cixous’ concept of Bisexuality very interesting. Before reading this text I had never thought of Bisexuality in this manner. I the past I only thought of Bisexuality as the attraction to both sexes and never as the person themselves as two sexes. Cixous gives two examples of what Bisexuality can mean-“bisexuality as a fantasy of a complete being,” and “bisexuality as the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes.” I believe that her first meaning of bisexuality she is portraying this complete being as having the best of both the male and the female sex in one being. Similarly the second one states that both sexes are present as well, but in full, just not the two halves placed together. Although I have not fully grasped what Cixous is discussing, out of both text this concept popped out to me and challenged my own ideas on the matter. I am eager to discuss the issue further in class.
I also found Cixous’ concept of Bisexuality very interesting. Before reading this text I had never thought of Bisexuality in this manner. I the past I only thought of Bisexuality as the attraction to both sexes and never as the person themselves as two sexes. Cixous gives two examples of what Bisexuality can mean-“bisexuality as a fantasy of a complete being,” and “bisexuality as the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes.” I believe that her first meaning of bisexuality she is portraying this complete being as having the best of both the male and the female sex in one being. Similarly the second one states that both sexes are present as well, but in full, just not the two halves placed together. Although I have not fully grasped what Cixous is discussing, out of both text this concept popped out to me and challenged my own ideas on the matter. I am eager to discuss the issue further in class.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
BiegieGo, Cixous/Butler
“Traditionally, the question of sexual difference is treated by coupling it with the opposition: activity/passivity.” When reading about theorist Cixous we see that she bring up a good question of “why do men fear being a woman?” well, before taking CMC classes I wouldn’t have ever thought about why men fear being a woman and now it all makes sense. It’s our society! This is why men are seen as the providers in our culture. Cixous tells us that “a man is always proving something; he has to ‘show off,’ show up the others. Masculine profit is almost always mixed up with a success that is socially defined.” It is due to the pressures of being a man or not being manly enough that our society holds on men. Men are the ones that put the bread on the table, support the family. In today’s culture it is seen as looked down upon if there is a family where the wife makes more than the husband. Why do we put so much pressure on something that should not matter in our society? We can blame it on the media! They form this image of what the American family should look like. It’s an ideology! We can relate this theorist to Althusser and his notion of ideology. The hegemonic class sets these standards that if not lived up to then looked down upon for not meeting the need of the society or what the society think we need in our life. When are men and women going to be seen as equal in our society?
Butler talks a lot of sex, gender, and desire. “One is not born a woman but rather becomes one.” Does this mean we have to work for our status in our society while a man just becomes a man without having to gain any respect from people? This is where our society need to stop and think of equality and what it’s really about!
Butler talks a lot of sex, gender, and desire. “One is not born a woman but rather becomes one.” Does this mean we have to work for our status in our society while a man just becomes a man without having to gain any respect from people? This is where our society need to stop and think of equality and what it’s really about!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Nate Dogg, Hooks
Bell Hooks's Eating The Other details for us the many ways that big media, through its various branches, has instilled in people a longing to become the Other. We have become so alienated in our efforts to live in a rapidly changing society that this "longing for the primitive" controls the way we read pleasure.
Marketing has altered it's original idea of "selling the sizzle, not the steak" by playing on viewers sexual fears and fantasies. In this very personal method, marketing has created the "commodification of difference". This creates problems for several reasons. When our entertainment society is highly dependent on advertising in order to function, that means that we are viewing advertising on a massive scale and on a daily basis. I really enjoyed the inclusion of the quotes from Lorraine Hansberry play Les Blancs, particularly Tshembe's lines. I think they contain an honest and accurate description of how race is used as a device for control and domination.
Ultimately I feel like this essay, more-so than the other essays we've ready, illustrates the need to read texts critically. It's painfully obvious given the amount of hyper-sexualized advertising and the millions of internet websites dedicated to pornography that we are a people very confused about their sexual identities. I could instantly relate to the way Bell described white youths talking and seemingly "shopping for sexual partners", because I know guys that act in a similar manner. I think that even beyond the boundaries of racism, the subject of pleasure must be approached critically. We should be concerned with what we consider pleasurable and understand why we find certain texts (especially if they have racially dominating undertones) pleasurable. Failure to do so will only result in more confusion on the subject, during a time where some clarity is desperately needed.
Marketing has altered it's original idea of "selling the sizzle, not the steak" by playing on viewers sexual fears and fantasies. In this very personal method, marketing has created the "commodification of difference". This creates problems for several reasons. When our entertainment society is highly dependent on advertising in order to function, that means that we are viewing advertising on a massive scale and on a daily basis. I really enjoyed the inclusion of the quotes from Lorraine Hansberry play Les Blancs, particularly Tshembe's lines. I think they contain an honest and accurate description of how race is used as a device for control and domination.
Ultimately I feel like this essay, more-so than the other essays we've ready, illustrates the need to read texts critically. It's painfully obvious given the amount of hyper-sexualized advertising and the millions of internet websites dedicated to pornography that we are a people very confused about their sexual identities. I could instantly relate to the way Bell described white youths talking and seemingly "shopping for sexual partners", because I know guys that act in a similar manner. I think that even beyond the boundaries of racism, the subject of pleasure must be approached critically. We should be concerned with what we consider pleasurable and understand why we find certain texts (especially if they have racially dominating undertones) pleasurable. Failure to do so will only result in more confusion on the subject, during a time where some clarity is desperately needed.
Daisy, hooks
The article “Eating the Other,” by bell hooks brought together many ideas we have talked about throughout CMC, like otherness, sameness, commodification, and culture. Putting these words together, you are able to get a very surface summary of hooks; to combat sameness within our culture, “otherness” has been commodified as something obtainable and through this culture is lost. Using Jameson’s idea, our culture has replaced the depth of “others” with surface. As hooks goes on to say, individuals within our culture want to experience individuals of other cultures, particularly African Americans, because of the element, “otherness.” He gave an example of white males “shopping” for women of color and feeling “the need to be intimate with dark Others” (369). Within our society being different is popular, hooks said “difference can seduce precisely because the mainstream imposition of sameness if a provocation that terrorizes” (367). Throughout the article, hooks gave examples of media where the “other” is portrayed as exciting. Consuming the other allows white men to feel more “experienced” and powerful. However, as another culture is portrayed in the media, it loses aspects of it history, and is portrayed closer to a white culture. For example, hooks described how Pepsi capitalized on the fact that African Americans buy more Pepsi, by putting African Americans in the commercials. Viewing African Americans in Pepsi commercials portrays blacks as average Americans who enjoy soda. Adorno’s ideas demonstrated how our culture is infecting everything with sameness, and the main culprit of this is the media. Advertising has allowed companies to portray individuals other different culture backgrounds as the same. Bourdieu would say that the media is responsible for making everything ordinary. Portraying individuals, as being created equal is good, however in doing this, aspects of history are forgotten and individuals are portrayed closer and closer to “whiteness.” It is extremely hard to understand a culture today by the way the media portrays it as consumable to a white culture, which leads the important aspects of the culture to be missed and overlooked.
Ace Ventura, Hooks
In CMC, we often talk about all the different things that are commodified in the media such as sexuality or political views. Hooks talks about how race and the idea of "the Other" has now been commodified within our culture. "The Other" in general just represents difference, whether it be in ethnicity, political views, or background. Hooks specifically speaks on the topic of race and how white people are now adopting things like rap music or a "ghetto" sense of fashion with baggy pants and fitted hats. One thing that was particularly interesting to me was the story that Hooks shared about the white jocks from Yale that spoke about their sexual conquests over women of difference races. They were practically applying a point system to races, with black women accounting for the most points and then Hispanics and so on. Although they saw this has embracing culture and proving that they are not racist, Hooks pointed out that they do in fact view themselves as better than other races because they feel that they have control over them and can dominate them in a sexual form at least. Who says these women want to sleep with them? It doesn't seem like they even take into consideration that maybe these women have no interest or place no value in sleeping with white preppy jocks. I feel like this is somewhat of a catch 22. These jocks are on one hand demoralizing women of other races by looking at them as sexual conquests and on the other hand glorifying women of other races by placing a sexual experience with them to a higher standard than sleeping with a white girl. Commodifying "the other" causes us to see differences in people when what we should be trying to do is view each other as equal.
DoubleBubble, hook's
This article interested me because it shocked me and really caught my attention. This shock could have been because of my unawareness of this issue within society, or I could of simply just not seen through this idea into the deeper meaning that hook’s discusses. Racism is a topic that is very well known within our society, but now our society has found more subtle ways to express this racism. They do this through the media and the consumer society, just to benefit them. It is sad how selfish and unthoughtful our society can be sometimes. Like, we took racism and found a way to make it okay? & Now we are using media to express these ideas? Media is being corrupted, but yet we still fall into the trap.
Cultural appropriation causes the White Western male to thrive for dominance over the “other”. Their desire to be exotic and different is because of the desire to be dominant over the “other”. White Western Men do not want to simply be ordinary and instead they want to dominant and become powerful and successful, so they step outside of this ordinary ideals.
To start off the article, hook’s comments, "ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture.” (366). What hook’s means by this is that this idea and attraction can only be done by the white western male.
This whole idea relates into the media, because the media is what makes us buy into this idea. Media takes this idea and makes it so much bigger that it begins to become something we can accept and understand, which then leads to us believing these ideas are acceptable. According to hook’s, the media is able to do this because of the importance of “space and place in identity and cultural politics”. She demonstrates this importance by using the idea of these cultural commodities. Simply, characteristics of racism in the past are now being used again, but in different words. Since they are using these racist ideas in other ways they are not directly being racist, so the “other” is commodified in different words. So, is it now okay to be a racist if you are beating around the bush? Isn’t it sad to think that we have developed this new “language” to express things that are banned within our society?
When hook’s quotes, "acknowledge Other must assume recognizable forms"(368) it really had me thinking. Mainstream white culture has created these identities for the “other”. We can be talking about the other, but they would not know because they are not aware of these identities we have given them. The mainstream white western culture has given them these identities. Why are women scared of black men? Why are they instantly given the stereotype of being violent? When in an area with a black man walking towards you, most of the time someone will become scared. When hook’s mentioned this, I thought of the movie Crash. A couple is walking down the street to their car and walking towards them is a black male. The wife grasps onto the husbands arm when the black male walks towards her, because she has been given the stereotype that they are violent and something bad is going to happen. The black male notices this and says something about how she instantly grabbed onto him for protection.
This has sadly become our second nature and habits. This reading really got my attention and how media really can influence every little thing about us.
Cultural appropriation causes the White Western male to thrive for dominance over the “other”. Their desire to be exotic and different is because of the desire to be dominant over the “other”. White Western Men do not want to simply be ordinary and instead they want to dominant and become powerful and successful, so they step outside of this ordinary ideals.
To start off the article, hook’s comments, "ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture.” (366). What hook’s means by this is that this idea and attraction can only be done by the white western male.
This whole idea relates into the media, because the media is what makes us buy into this idea. Media takes this idea and makes it so much bigger that it begins to become something we can accept and understand, which then leads to us believing these ideas are acceptable. According to hook’s, the media is able to do this because of the importance of “space and place in identity and cultural politics”. She demonstrates this importance by using the idea of these cultural commodities. Simply, characteristics of racism in the past are now being used again, but in different words. Since they are using these racist ideas in other ways they are not directly being racist, so the “other” is commodified in different words. So, is it now okay to be a racist if you are beating around the bush? Isn’t it sad to think that we have developed this new “language” to express things that are banned within our society?
When hook’s quotes, "acknowledge Other must assume recognizable forms"(368) it really had me thinking. Mainstream white culture has created these identities for the “other”. We can be talking about the other, but they would not know because they are not aware of these identities we have given them. The mainstream white western culture has given them these identities. Why are women scared of black men? Why are they instantly given the stereotype of being violent? When in an area with a black man walking towards you, most of the time someone will become scared. When hook’s mentioned this, I thought of the movie Crash. A couple is walking down the street to their car and walking towards them is a black male. The wife grasps onto the husbands arm when the black male walks towards her, because she has been given the stereotype that they are violent and something bad is going to happen. The black male notices this and says something about how she instantly grabbed onto him for protection.
This has sadly become our second nature and habits. This reading really got my attention and how media really can influence every little thing about us.
Captain Planet, hooks
The reading, “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance” by bell hooks, looks at the issue of Otherness as it affects our culture and the way we view black people, specifically. The first section of the reading focused on the sexual relations between the dominant white male and the ethic Other female. In our society there is a “willingness to transgress racial boundaries within the realm of the sexual that eradicates the fear that one must always conform to the norm to remain ‘safe’” (376). The difference between the white person and the Other is what becomes seductive. hooks gives an example in the article about a group of white Yale jocks talking about ‘their desire to have sex with girls that or ‘Other’ to them. The boys list girls (African American, Native American, and Asian) according to how ‘easy’ they are. hooks says, “To these young males and their buddies, fucking was a way to confront the Other, as well as a way to make themselves over, to leave behind white “innocence” and enter the world of “experience’” (368).Furthermore, for these men “The direct objective was not simply to sexually possess the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter” (368). For white males, by confronting the Other they believe they are ‘accepting’ the Other. That by being involved with girls from another race or nationality they aren’t being racist. We live in a highly hegemonic society though, and although white males may believe they aren’t conforming to the idea of white dominance, the relationship of the oppressor and the oppressed only becomes absent when the ‘desire’ between the two individuals is mutual. This article was written in 1992, over 17 years ago. I want to believe that our society, and the way by which we function as a society, have changed in those years. Inter-racial couples are much more prevalent, and I would like to believe that white males no longer look at ‘Other’ females as ways to ‘enter the world of experience.’
Sunday, November 29, 2009
ESPN, Foucault - late
This is a pre class make up for Foucault
In reading Foucault, I became aware to a lot more things. Our society has become so used to being watched, moderated, monitored and controlled that we do not even realize how often this occurs in our daily lives. It happens every day of our lives, even if we do not step outside people can still even watch us on the internet. It interesting to see how Foucault writings are not only still true but are getting worst with the rise of new technology. As I mentioned, the internet is now a source for people to watch one another. Society both controls and watches us. We are controlled in many different aspects by many different things. We follow a set of legal guidelines that define what is legal and what is illegal. We do this because we are told that if we do not follow these guidelines then we will be punished and we fear punishment. This is related to the PANOPTICON. I had never heard about it before and it opened my eyes to see how people live according to how they think they are being watched. People in the prison follow a set of guidelines just as we do in society. They don’t break rules because they fear punishment just as we did. I found the example of the Panopticon to be very interesting. In a way Foucault is saying that society operates much like a prison in that we both live according to how we are watched. He says everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked. Furthermore, we don’t really think too much about being watch. Like Foucault says, Inspection functions ceaselessly. It just happens, we all do it. We go about reacted to things because we are watched but don’t really focus and constantly think about being watched. We just know that we are and react to it. We are a result of society and since society watches us, we are a result of always be watched.
In reading Foucault, I became aware to a lot more things. Our society has become so used to being watched, moderated, monitored and controlled that we do not even realize how often this occurs in our daily lives. It happens every day of our lives, even if we do not step outside people can still even watch us on the internet. It interesting to see how Foucault writings are not only still true but are getting worst with the rise of new technology. As I mentioned, the internet is now a source for people to watch one another. Society both controls and watches us. We are controlled in many different aspects by many different things. We follow a set of legal guidelines that define what is legal and what is illegal. We do this because we are told that if we do not follow these guidelines then we will be punished and we fear punishment. This is related to the PANOPTICON. I had never heard about it before and it opened my eyes to see how people live according to how they think they are being watched. People in the prison follow a set of guidelines just as we do in society. They don’t break rules because they fear punishment just as we did. I found the example of the Panopticon to be very interesting. In a way Foucault is saying that society operates much like a prison in that we both live according to how we are watched. He says everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked. Furthermore, we don’t really think too much about being watch. Like Foucault says, Inspection functions ceaselessly. It just happens, we all do it. We go about reacted to things because we are watched but don’t really focus and constantly think about being watched. We just know that we are and react to it. We are a result of society and since society watches us, we are a result of always be watched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)