Postmodern Culture

Ron Burgundy, 12/3

2009-12-06T14:15:00.000-08:00

I found our final class to be extremely interesting and also somewhat frustrating. The exercise where only the women were able to talk demonstrating the dominance of masculine qualities of speech, proved to reveal several concerns of our feminist generation. Foremost, the women of the class seemed to be concerned with equality, specifically in the work and academic atmosphere. Several girls in the class felt that women were still often believed to be out of place in a successful business atmosphere, only able to "play with the big boys" but not supersede them. Many girls also thought that independent women were still frowned upon and considered to often be less feminine solely because of their career oriented focus. I found it interesting that as these concerns were brought up none of the men in the class had anything to say about them. Even though it was a bit more difficult for them to "voice" their opinions because they had to write them, I still felt that if they felt compelled at all to speak they would have done so. Therefore, it seems as though these issues that women are raising still may not be getting the attention and recognition that they deserve as represented in this experiment. I'm also concerned though at the effect that these types of exercises are having on women as a whole. I feel that in several of my classes similar types of experiments have taken place where women were the only ones allowed to speak and share their views. This leads to discussion of issues that are concerning them and often reveals alot about what are the leading concerns for females and often can be very helpful and insightful. However, because of the framing of these types of situations I wonder if these exercises are also perpetuating a sort of idea that women are only able to voice these types of concerns in these particular types of environments. Do these exercises discourage women to speak freely all the time? Just a thought.

Nemo, 12/6

2009-12-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

I really enjoyed the class discussion on the Cixous article. We started out the class like every other and then we came to this quote: "Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man”, at that point Dr. Rog made all of the women in the class talk and all of the men in the class be silent. It was interesting to hear what all of the women in the class had to say on the subject. We discussed how in Legally Blonde one of the characters wanted to petition the change of the term "semester" to "ovester" because she believed that it would help to equalize the power that women have with the power men have. Some of the other things we talked about in class were how men reject everything womanly for example: I was having a conversation over the phone with my guy friend about the Twilight Saga. It wasn't in detail because he had only seen part of the movie but when I continued to discuss it he told me that he would have to watch porn in order to "offset the gayness of this conversation". I found that interesting because he was using sex - in a media form where men usually dominate a woman - to become more masculine. I think its interesting how men think that sex, alcohol, and muscles defines masculinity. Where as feelings, and a sense of style are considered gay or homosexual. Guys that I know often use the phrase "no homo" in conversations where they are saying that a guy they know is a really good friend and understand certain things they are going through. The want to emphasize the fact that they are masculine and are not in any way womanly. We also discussed how women who are driven to succeed and who can stand up for themselves are either considered feminists or independent women and how we want to change that perception.
The men in this class had to write their thoughts down and hand it to a female. The girl could then choose to ignore what they wrote or read it out loud. The majority of the class was held this way but towards the end the girls in the class decided to allow the men to talk the majority of the time but if a female member of the class wanted to say something they could without writing it out loud. At the end of the class one of the men asked "What do you think men could do in order to change how women are treated or regarded as in society". It seemed as though when the men weren't allowed to talk they did not really listen to what the women had to say. This exercise, I believe, was to swap roles and have the women at the top of the hierarchy instead of the men but instead I think that because Dr. Rog told us we had to it wasn't actually a successful exercise simply because the man in power told us we had to.

Nemo, Cixous and Butler

2009-12-06T13:53:00.000-08:00

In this reading the main focus is on our society's ideologies dealing with hierarchy and the author's views on them. The most interesting concept I came across in this reading was Cixous' idea of Bisexuality. She gives two definitions of Bisexuality: “bisexuality as a fantasy of a complete being,” and “bisexuality as the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes.” In Psych classes we had discussed the idea that a woman who is bisexual could have some male like tendencies and a man who is bisexual as having some female like tendencies that have been pronounced due to a possible imbalance in the brain - IM NOT SAYING I AGREE - but i had never thought of bisexual to mean that a man or woman could have the best of both male and female sexes. I enjoyed the question she posed :“why do men fear being a woman?”. My mother always used to say that men are scared that we have the power to create a human - even though it takes a man to start the process. Cixous has answered this question but I cannot wait to hear what my peers have to say. I really think that this reading will be very interesting to discuss in class and I cannot wait to hear what my peers have to say on the subject.

Penny Lane- Bell Hooks

2009-12-06T13:52:00.000-08:00

After reviewing Bell Hook’s piece, I find that her thesis is very relevant to the concept of manifest destiny. During the colonial period, this philosophy justified our imperialism in order to conquer the land. However, this narrative could be expanded and applied to the rape and abuse of native women by European settlers. This form of domination and humiliation of the female served to establish authority over the tribe as a whole. ‘We will conquer your land and your women, and there is nothing you can do to stop us.’ The white male fascination with the exotic female remains in the social consciousness of modern society. Differentiation of race is creates a latent desire to penetrate the unknown. White females are safe, familiar, and innocent in comparison to the ‘other.’ By sleeping with an ethnic woman, a sense of power expands beyond the individual over the race as a whole. Hooks elaborates this thought by stating: “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, and sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” This power dynamic was show cased in the point system of the Yale Boys. Fucking the ‘Other’ became more than a game; it is a metaphor of exploitative gender, class, and race relations.

Nemo, Foucault - Make Up

2009-12-06T13:48:00.000-08:00

I found this reading to be very different than any we have previously read. He primarily focuses on the concepts of discipline, surveillance and power within a community. He discusses how the people who were sick were secluded and surveyed by others. It is interesting to relate this to our society now because everything we have allows other people to watch us - its almost as if we enjoy it. For example on Facebook you can update your status letting your friends know what is on your mind or what you are doing at the time. Also you can upload pictures so that other people can know what you have been doing. I know people who get upset when their friends don't post pictures up immediately after a night out. It is scary how our society has accepted this as normal. Girls put on make up and dress nice before they go out so people can think they look good. Everything we do can be recorded and watched again. Its a very scary thought that Foucault was able to accurately portray.

October 29th - pre-class Adorno, Serendipity LATE

2009-12-06T13:45:00.003-08:00

“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” 41
The first thing I thought when I read this quote is that it can be related to Habermas. He believes that nothing can actually ever be different because it gets swallowed up by main stream cultured and copied and reproduced (like Benjamins notion) immediately after. The largest section of music for example is “Alternative”. If it is so alternative and unlike anything else then why is it the biggest section and so many people listen to it thinking that they themselves are so different and alternative? Everything is fake. The way that we perceive a product and the aura it has because of the name brand and because of the image it gives you is the reason it makes you feel so special and different. For example, if you see an eyeliner that is by a Walgreens brand you will see it as just eyeliner. But if you buy one at a specialty store with a well known brand name with an ad next to it of a beautiful model you will feel that you are special and therefore different. When in reality, everything is made out of the same batch, and it is “fake” that you feel it is different just because of the name brand and the whole image associated with it, and therefore with you. You may feel like you are an individual but you are just following everyone else, just like there is no avant gardism anymore, and how much of what be we believe to be concrete is not even reality. He also explains that since everything is the same, we have to realize the hidden codes in them and not buy into it. This is why he says that if are entertained by something, you cant be critical of it.

Gwatter06, 12/6

2009-12-06T13:45:00.002-08:00

We had a very interesting class discussion this week to finish up our semester in 300. We’ve had a little streak of feminist theorists to cover for our past couple of readings and our “class” discussion followed in very well. Professor Casey decided to relinquish the teaching floor to the class, but not just anyone or everyone in the class, but only our female participants in class. In the sense that the men were not able to speak or had to seek permission somewhat to get a thought or point across highlighted what many would believe is a day-to-day situation with women. I think all three of the recent theorists, Hooks, Butler and Cixous would agree. Feminism is a theory topic that has been around for quite sometime now. Similar to masculinity, feminism to me, and many others I would believe, is quite an ambiguous topic. My question is, although I understand that women seek equality and indifference, how can society seek to change it anymore than it already has? I feel as though women have accomplished a lot over the years, almost as much as they can legally, but what more is there to seek socially that doesn’t dell into biological or physical aspects. I believe that men and women are different for a reason and can never be the same, I also believe that in areas of society such as the workforce, education and politics that women should be treated the same as men if they are capable of their work. Oddly I would relate this notion of striving for total equality to Lyotard’s concept of total metanarratives. I think that the ideologies of feminism are conforming individuals to seek or make sense of a world that cannot exist essentially in equating men to women on all levels and aspects. All in all I have gravely enjoyed our time in 300 and think we ended controversially, but definitely with a an enjoyable bang. This is Gwatter06 signing out of blogger indefinitely and saying thank God I don't have to worry about blogging anymore!!!

Pre class on Hooks, Serendipity, LATE

2009-12-06T13:45:00.001-08:00

Hooks explains the cultural significance of how white men want to have sex with the “other”. It makes them feel like they are superior to other men because of this experience, and it is exotic and makes them experienced. They also buy into the clichés of how colored women are supposed to be very experienced in bed. This is almost racist because those in lower class countries have to resort to prostitution a lot, and this may be the thought process in why woman of color are “supposed” to be promiscuous, as if it is in their blood. This really bothered me because it made me think of the objectification of women, and how these men are literally “shopping” for women like they are objects. This is part of todays commodity culture. More is better, new is better, and everything can be fixed with money. It also ties into the idea that society and advertisements are creating a very sexual and objectified view of women . For example, in pornography, it is mostly quiet violent and has the white males in charge of the women, whether they be black or white. It teaches men that treating women like this is acceptable, and it also makes them think it is the norm, and that this is the way it has always been and will remain. It also conditions them to act this way and be more violent in their own relationships. For my CMC 200 final paper I wrote about how violent pornography can lead to rape because of all the themes present in it. For example, the characteristics of women are almost not there and the violence and objectification are abominable.

Nemo, Jameson - Make Up

2009-12-06T13:39:00.000-08:00

The quote that I understood the most in this reading was "depth is replaced by surface". To me this quote shows how our culture had moved from needing to know every single remote detail to only wanting to know the gist of something. We only see things as they appear, we no longer look for the underlying meaning of something. No one wants to explore what is underneath the surface and enjoy the full experience, instead they want to just take a short cut and get some kind of experience. This is an example of how our society has become so obsessed with bigger is better and the only way you can reach that is by going quickly. Society just wants the best end results with the least amount of work as possible. Another quote if found interesting was "THe end of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal". To me this meant that style is no longer an accurate reflection of ourselves, but rather a refection of the popular style at the time.

September 20th, Post Class Jenkins, Serendipity, LATE

2009-12-06T13:36:00.001-08:00

“People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication” 556
This basically is related to how media has converged and how now our culture is almost completely participatory and “do it yourself”. For my theory praxis essay, I used Jenkins as a lens to look at the concept of Facebook. In it I realized how due to the advertisements, the groups, and the “friends” it is a completely relevant participatory cultural gadget. People can now make up their own opinions about something they never would have even known about, and also be bombarded by advertisements tapered to their interests through technology. We can relate this also to Baudrillard and how the media is part of the problem, the reason that things have lost value and are so blown up is because of the media, for example 9/11, if there was no media to show it everywhere, much less people would have known, and maybe the terrorists would never have chosen to do so. Also, the protest signs in a different language, they knew English speakers were watching their protests so they wrote the signs in English and tapped into our culture and our lives. Since we have so much power now about our image, about who we talk to, and about the opinions we have and have created through facebook, we are now the critics and therefore the experts. This relates to high culture vs low culture, the masses have much more say now than they ever did.

Penny Lane- Butler and Cixous

2009-12-06T13:31:00.001-08:00

After reading Judith Butler and Helene Cixous’ writings, I began to reflect upon the evolution of feminism. In CMC200 we learned that post-feminist theory asserts that the feminist movement is now obsolete because there is no longer inequality between men and women. I believe that our theorists would agree that two dangerous narratives have arisen from this perspective: (1) the commodification of feminism; and (2) liberation from sexual ethics. The first scenario insinuates that financial independence equates to power. A woman’s ability to buy whatever she wants whenever she wants, without answering to a man, denotes autonomous social influence. However this construction is a slippery slope, because it reinforced the hegemonic notions of commodity fetishism. Under a critical lens, one could argue that emphasis on consumption only serves to entrap both the individual and society in this detrimental pattern. The second example of post-feminist philosophy is sexual freedom. Cixous states: “we turn away from our bodies.” I believe that to a certain extent this applies to the loosening of sexual ethics. Following the sexual patterns commonly demonstrated by men, women can be promiscuous, unemotional, and casual about sex without facing certain public criticism. Furthermore, women are free to use and expose their bodies for personal gain or satisfaction. This framework for acceptable social behavior is hazardous to the ambitions of feminism. While such actions are prefaced as being in the control of the woman, external factors may influence sexual liberation to become sexual exploitation

Nemo, Horkheimer and Adorno - Make Up

2009-12-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

"Culture today is infecting everything with sameness". I took this to mean that the media is affecting our culture which in turn causes everything to be commercialized and essentially making everything the same. For example when some one wants to go against the norms of society they could start wearing a specific style of clothing and if that person happens to be a celebrity there will probably be photographs that are easily accessible on the Internet and in magazines, there will probably be a segment devoted to that celebrity on E! or another 'gossip' TV station. As a result people will start seeing this 'look' and will say "I want to be different too" and will start wearing the same kinds of clothing as a result they will no longer be different but instead they will be the same - the exact thing that they were trying to get away from to begin with. "The standard forms were originally derived from the needs of the consumers". This quote basically is saying that everything that we currently have, did not exist at one point or another - it was however in demand by the public so it was created and has now been reproduced in so many different ways it is ultimately creating the same thing. Which is related to the previous quote. I agree that our culture has cause us to all like the same things, I feel that people do this in order to create a connection with other people in our society.

September 15th, Serendipity, Pre Class Habermas LATE

2009-12-06T13:20:00.000-08:00

The reading on Habermas was once very confusing to me, but reading it over again I understood it so much better since we had the whole semester to talk about it. His two main ideas (avant gardism and Cult of the New) have actually been incorporated with the other theorists from the rest of the semester. He explains that nothing is ever really different or new. Firstly, because of bricolage. We are just taking old things and making them seem new again because we are putting them together in a different way. However, once something is a little different (because of the way it has been put together again and recreated) it automatically becomes normal again, and gets swallowed up by mainstream culture. Example: the urinal in the museum. It becomes not such a big deal once a couple of years go by and people have started putting even stranger things in museum, and the cycle starts up again. This is also similar to fashion. People first think that what they are wearing is so different (for example, punks) but as soon as people start copying them and it becomes just another group, they all start to look the same instead of looking different. These are little subcultures. There is a stereotype with each, but no one thinks “wow punks are so different from anyone else” because there is a whole group of people that are exactly the same and they end up trying to mimic and imitate each other in order to fit in.

Nemo, Marx - Make Up

2009-12-06T13:13:00.000-08:00

Marx discusses the concepts of Ideology and hegemony. This is a concept that we have discussed in previous CMC classes so I am somewhat comfortable in discussing the reading but I did have some confusion in some parts. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." It is common knowledge that money rules society, but here I believe that Marx is trying to say what determines our being. This is an example of the world wide debate of nature vs. nurture. Their nature or social determines their awareness of society and the world. The consciousness determines the class that will have the ruling force and vise versa. "The Ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. THe class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production". Here Marx is illustrating how the ruling class develops the 'norm' of society - or the rules that the rest of the society has to follow. He emphasizes that the class that has more economic wealth will be have more of an influence on the rules that society has to follow - they will chose those that will allow them to benefit the most. This was my take on Marx, I could have missed some points but overall I believe that this illustrates what he was discussing in our reading.

Penny Lane- Foucault Late

2009-12-06T13:11:00.001-08:00

Foucault asserts that our culture is one of ceaseless inspection. Surveillance has expanded exponential in the last twenty year, eerily paralleling the George Orwell’s premonitions in 1984. Cameras are everywhere in the public sphere. Even when we are not being monitored in the physical sense, we still continue to leave an electronic paper trial. Wherever we travel, spend money, or work, data is left behind telling a mini-story of our life choices. In fact, satellites can even track any cell phone location in off mode, as long as the battery is in place. The patriot act also permits wiretapping with any reasonable cause in order to monitor any illegal activity. Many believe this is related only to terrorism, but it is simply not the case. Anyone and everyone is subject to this invasion and it goes largely unnoticed. “We are neither in the amphitheatre nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism.” Even though these invasive tactics impact us all, we often dismiss the overstepping of boundaries as a means to a protective end. If the bad guys are getting caught, then we should be satisfied, right? Wrong. Basic civil liberties are falling to the wayside, and it seems these measures may only get more severe in the future. Big Brother is watching.

Nemo, 10/4 - Make up

2009-12-06T13:02:00.003-08:00

In class we were able to go over Baudrillard's concept of simulacra and simulation. I was able to understand the theory a little bit better after the discussion. We discussed how our society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs. As Dr. Rog said the human experiences are of the simulation of reality rather than reality itself. The media has caused this 'problem' (you could call it) by having TV shows or Movies that explore the fantasy world, an example of this is the movie The Matrix. Our society is obsessed with the idea of an alternate reality. The world we live in is a world of pretending, a world of Simulation. Whether it is simulating a presence or an absence we have completely replaced reality. Baudrillard says that we need to have fear in order to allow our society to get back in touch with reality. I relate this to when I was younger and people would always say "Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming". My belief is that we need pain and fear to keep us in touch with reality.

Capri Sun, All Semester Blogs

2009-12-06T13:02:00.002-08:00

CMC300 Blogs (some were late but I also incorporated ones I finished on time)

Capri Sun, Machery

Throughout reading Pierre Macherey’s text I was constantly confused, I had an idea of what he was talking about but I am not completely sure I grasped what he was trying to get across. The article talks mostly silence and its importance. He says that what is not said is more important then what actually is being said. I understand this concept by thinking about the news and media and how we are presented an image coming from a certain perspective. Without thinking we do not question what we are witnessing and instead just take everything we see and subconsciously apply it to our lives. The importance of looking at what is not said and the silence in this case is because it is avoiding what people should know. I think about the news and who is controlling it, they then broadcast the news through their particular lens that protects the audience from knowing what they ought to know. This reminds me of a sociology class I took last spring called The American Dream. In this class we talked about how the media has defined for us what a criminal looks like, we hear about different street and blue collar crimes but we are unaware of certain white collar crimes that are devastating a large number of people. I take what Macherey says about silence and the importance of what is not said and you can apply this directly to the fact that the news paints a picture they want the public to know about society. By looking past what is said, we are challenging and questioning to find out the truths about our culture. I think Macherey’s point he is trying to make is people should look into what is not being said to fully understand what is taking place.

Capri Sun, Benjamin

I found Walter Benjamin’s article to be one of the more interesting theorists we have read thus far. Throughout his piece, he talks about the authenticity of the original and that because it is reproduced it loses its initial identification. This is done by “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (21). Therefore, the more something is replicated and imitated it no longer is what it once was. We see this in our culture constantly throughout the media. By having infinite amount of copies of something it makes it possible for everyone to have similar experiences. When I think about this it reminds me of how paintings can now be replicated to the point where one can have famous pieces of art hanging in their living room. We no longer have to travel to the Louvre to find the Mona Lisa; instead we can just travel to our local poster store and have a plethora of famous art to choose from. Benjamin also talks about how art is no longer being used in a creative aspect for appreciation but instead it is a way to gain money and capital. He also talks about how today; in art we witness motion pictures. This is a very realistic form of art and people are associating what they see as realistic even though its just ones relationship to the camera. We examine what we watch but we do so in a very poor way, he calls us “absent minded.” We are absent minded because we are assuming everything we witness on screen as being a reality when it is really only created to make money. Artists have lost their sense of credibility but they are still making money. This reminds me of the fact that our world is getting more and more filled with trash. YouTube videos are becoming sensations but there is little talent behind them.

Capri Sun, Lyotard

Throughout Lyotard’s article he talks about the concept of realism. One of the major points he makes discusses the difference between different pieces of artwork. He talks about “photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism” (40). I took this as meaning that with the technology of the camera, viewers look at pictures, either photographs or motion pictures and they portray a very realistic view. These types of art, unlike paintings or even cartoons, show the characters and settings within the frame in its exact state. Because the images we see are so realistic it is hard to differentiate the real from the fiction. When going to the movies or watching television shows, we seem to be well aware that the plot and story lines are fictions but subconsciously we assume that what we are watching happened exactly how we are witnessing it on the screen. Lyotard talks about how we portray television and films and need to start looking at it as nostalgia or mockery. People believe they have experienced what they see, so there is no more intent to experience it themselves. One thing that I found most important about what Lyotard was saying, was that artists that create these forms of media need to start evoking more realistic thoughts toward their audience. Those that do in society have lost all credibility. When reading the quote “artists and writers need to be assigned the task of healing the community,” I thought about the Global Peace Film Festival. These filmmakers are artists that sole goal are to spread awareness about the problems within our society. Lyotard explains that this type of media is the fastest and most effective way to achieve the public’s attention. Therefore, if more filmmakers worked to better the global community rather then gaining income and popularity these issues either slowly diminish or at least create a broader awareness. Half the problem is that people no longer challenge what they are told, like what Macherey says what is not said is more important then what is.

Capri Sun, Habermas

Throughout Habermas’ article he talks about modernity and the fact that nothing can stay modern. In today’s society, people are constantly trying to be different and once they achieve that difference it becomes a trend or normal. At first it seems shocking because it is going against the traditional. This concept is called avant-gardism. Because “culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (101). This makes me think about teenagers dressing and going against what their parents tell them because it is the first time they have the freedom to express themselves. They do this by rebelling what they know as normal in their own family homes. This is why modernity is always changing because there is constantly something new. I think if I were to ask someone what their definition of modern was, they would respond with the newest and latest technologies and looks. Habermas talks about the “cult of the new” and how American society is constantly looking for the new trend. I feel like whenever I buy a computer, only months later there is a new and improved one. People will never be satisfied with their old, even if it’s their traditions, therefore they will continue to search for the new and improved. What troubled me about this piece is that he talks about a constant change, however, we rebel against the traditional values of our culture. What I do not understand is where does the traditional start? Is it traditional, as we know it in our lifetimes? And if so, wouldn’t our idea of traditionalism be different then those of our parents. In a way, I find this a natural part of culture and how we progress in society. There are some disadvantages to this in the sense of consumerism, but I also think about it in regards to feminism. Women working and stepping out of the family role, was once considered different. Would those original women been considered avant-garde, because now it is widely accepted for this to take place. Overall, I think that society changing is for the better.

Capri Sun, Boudrillard

Throughout Boudrillard’ article he talks about images and how they portray reality. Within the media, especially photography, scenes are captured within a frame and at times the viewer is unable to differentiate what is really taking place in the photos. Boudrillard talks specifically about photographs and the different levels of danger that they can possess. He explains that an image that depicts the truth is good and the less realism within them causes more and more concern. Boudrillard uses the concept of simulation to rate these images. I think what confuses the public the most about this is we assume what we see visually is also real and telling the truth because we have proof of its existence through the photograph. Throughout the media we see pictures of war and we see symbols of pride, honor, and camaraderie. However, in reality these pictures are telling a false story, because behind war there is death, violence and hatred. We are confused of the realities of war by the images are presented to us. I would relate this to Macherey and Althuser because when we see these images we should look at what is not being shown. The images create a picture from a specific perspective, the hegemonic perspective, therefore we do not see the whole reality of it rather a reality created behind a certain lens. I think the government does this to glorify war. In this sociology class I took last year called The American Dream we talked about the film Born on the Fourth of July directed by Oliver Stone. This film reminds me of what Boudrillard is saying in his article because the beginning talks about how the government would go to high schools and recruit boys into the army. They would do this by praising war and becoming a hero for ones country. By the end of the film, we witness how destructive war can be on individuals both physically and emotionally. However, we would never know this through what we see in the media and news because of the certain images presented. Boudrillard would say Born on the Fourth of July would be considered good because of its realistic portrayal of war even though it is a motion picture.

Capri Sun, Zizek

What I found most interesting about Zizek’s talk and article was when he said “on today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties” (231). This means that when there are so many things in society that we know are not healthy for us or the environment so companies create products that are without or with less of their bad qualities. They make “diet” Coca-Colas or “hybrid” cars and market the fact that they are not as bad as the original. We as a society are concerned about the problems but we are unwilling to give them up completely.

Another concept that Zizek explained was the fact that throughout our history of media we are told about the global problems. We see starving children in Africa and war in third world countries but they are always issues that take place far away, as if it is as distant as what we see in the movies. He related this to September 11th and the fact that the damage we witnessed was something we are entertained by when we witness them on screen in the media. It was a shock that something that devastating could actually happen even though it was something that we would watch daily through fiction. Zizek’s understanding of September 11th tells us that we got what we deserved and “he ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). The images that we saw on the news during that period were the same images we have seen in action films. I think it poses the question: how can we as mankind be so accepting of this devastation through fiction when in reality it would be a horrible experience? It is as if we are entertained by drama that we assume will never take place.

Capri Sun, Eco

Throughout Eco’s article he talks about the imitation of cities within the United States. I know that I have witnessed this throughout my different travels across the country. Especially places like Disney World and Las Vegas. These places create replicas of different places across the globe. When you go to Disney World and visit Epcot people will even believe that they have experienced different cultures and countries. The fact that you can go “around the world” and not even leave one city shows the damage this can cause. Children dream about going to these places and how can we expect them to differentiate the fact that this is only an imitation. Everyone has a certain image of nations across the world and where do these images come from? Places like Epcot and Las Vegas filter our portrayal. People could never travel to Paris, France or London, England and they have an idea of what these places look like, what type of food is served and how people dress. Eco talks about how technology can give us more reality than nature. I took this quote as meaning with the advancement in technology we can now create a representation of something that would not exist in its natural state. At Disney World’s Animal Kingdom, there is an imitation Mount Everest. For starters, Disney is located in Central Florida, where the climate and overall environment is naturally extremely different, and if not opposite, of Nepal where Mt. Everest is located. With today’s, technology we can now create something that could never exist naturally but gives those that visit an experience as if they were really there. Eco could be related to many different of the theorist we have read in class but I think most primarily has to do with Benjamin and his ideas on reproduction. Disney World reproduces the original and therefore loses its authenticity. People are witnessing representations that they assume to be identical to the original.

Capri Sun, Dorfman

Dorfman throughout his article talks about the “common cultural heritage” within our society. I took this as meaning even though we as people are all very different with various backgrounds we all still share similar beliefs and ideas about the culture we are living in. He talks about Disney and its effect on people and how it would be difficult to meet someone that is unaware of Disney and its attributes. When you are flying to Orlando, you are surrounded by children and families that are making there exciting journey to Disney world. It has become a cultural phenomenon that few people have not experienced. You could turn to just about anyone and bring up this topic and they would have knowledge and response toward it. I think that having this sort of place in the United States brings the community as a whole together and this has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that people are connected through this theme. There is a public understanding but it is based off a false reality. So the majority of the public is affected by something that exists purely off of fiction. You can relate this to Horkheimer and Adorno and the fact that there is a cultural “sameness.” Everyone is the same because the media and places like Disney are “the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other” (123). Communication has become so easy, even if one has nothing in common with the other, because we all know and are aware of the same things. We unconsciously are assigned to believe and think in a certain way so that all people are the same. I think that the problem with this is we lose our own personal identities and culture becomes one with the same because we have all witnessed or experienced life similarly.

Capri Sun, Marx and Althusser

This week we read about Marx and Althusser’s thoughts on ideologies within society. Marx believes in two types of classes that make up a whole, the class with more material is the intellectual class. This class makes the rules and dominates society by creating ideologies. Because these ideologies are in their interest and work to their advantage they can also be considered hegemonic. Marx says that there are two different groups but each are apart of a whole. Therefore the “lower” class abides these rules that are enforced on them and are taught not to question.

Althusser, however, is interested in two different types of societies. One is the ISA (ideological state apparatus) where the people in the community are not to question or challenge the current system. The second is a RSA (repressive state apparatus) society, where ideologies should be questioned. Marx and Althusser’s theories go hand in hand because either way certain ideas are enforced on society as a whole, its whether that society is open to challenging or not that differentiates the two. Ever since becoming a CMC major, I feel like I have focused on figuring out if America is an ISA or RSA society. I think, the average person would say an RSA because of the very first Amendment within the American Constitution. However, I personally would say an ISA because I have been taught in my classes to question every idea that is presented to me from institutions. These beliefs are actually hegemonic because they are coming from the “ruling” class that Marx talks about in his article. It is interesting because ideologies are controlling people, but the people in charge of that society control the ideologies of that society. It is a never-ending cycle because we are taught we can question but we don’t because we believe the ideas and laws imposed on us are for the greater good of the society as a whole.

Capri Sun, 10/25/09

So this weekend, my sisters came in town and we decided to go to Disney World, so I figured it was an appropriate topic for today’s blog. Let me premise, that my eldest sister had not been to the most ‘magical’ place on Earth in 10 years and lets just say, she was more than looking forward to this trip. I, on the other hand, have spent the past two years studying Disney World and its effect on society so there were quite clashing perspectives. On Thursday, we talked about education and whether or not it is an ISA or RSA and it was really hard for me to come up with a definite answer, especially after this past weekend. Education is a perfect way to liberate people from ideologies because we are taught to question the “ruling force” but aren’t the teachers within our classrooms the “ruling force.” So with that being said, how do I know to believe everything I learn in a classroom as the truth? This did not really come to me until I tried to explain the negative effects of Disney World to my sister. She had a very different view point because of her education and passion toward the beauty and happiness within the park. So, who was right? Weren’t we both just following what we had learned? Education makes us question but we still follow what we are taught. I still do not know if education is an ISA or RSA, but what I do know is that in order to become closer to an RSA, we as students should question what we are even being told to question!

My second connection with Disney World and Thursday’s class was when I was walking through Epcot experiencing “Around the World.” In class we were shown an image of a Guinness and asked to explain what it represented to us. Our answers were fairly stereotypical: “Irishness,” clovers and St. Patrick’s Day. These came from the associations we had with that image. So, when I went to Ireland at Disney World, I ordered a Guinness…

Capri Sun, Horkheimer and Adorno

Horkheimer and Arorno talk about the mass media within American society, primarily Television, Film and radio, and its effect of the public. Although, only a select few individuals control the Media, their way of production has created certain images that society, as a whole believes as normal. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call “sameness” which is the belief that even though America is made up of people with many different backgrounds they all have an identical idea of how something should be or what something should look like. Media alone is an easy way to spread ideologies and when the media becomes such a monopoly that it is controlled by only a few major corporations it becomes even easier to perpetuate these hegemonic ideologies. I felt that this article was a lot like other theorist we have read about in CMC 300. For starters, I thought about Walter Benjamin and his theories regarding images and reality. Everything we see, we assume is real for the most part, especially the more realistic the image. “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. The familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production.” (45) People are unable to differentiate the real from the fake even though the movie is an imitation because of how realistic it is perceived. Because movies have such an influence on people, the people filtering their ideas are creating hegemony. Another issue that came to my attention while reading this article was the principle of “sameness.” Last semester I took a sociology class and we talked about how America has this belief in the middle class, that we are a middle class nation. However, this is a false interpretation because there really is no such thing as the middle class. The economic disparities within the United States show that there is a huge division between rich and poor and barely any people living in the middle. Why would we believe in the middle class if it were not realistic? One of the major factors in this preconceived notion is the fact that most movies and television shows are based around the idea of a middle class lifestyle. If we assume everyone is middle class, we all are living in “sameness.” Movies that demonstrate this idea is another way of creating a public belief of the way life is and how it should be
Capri Sun, 11/1/09

Today in class we reviewed the Horkheimer and Adorno article and a few things came to mind that I did not think about when reading it the day before. For starters, I began to connect the idea of “sameness” to Jenkins. In Jenkins’ article he explains: “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication.” (556). This means that you could randomly meet someone on the street and you will most likely share similar knowledge. In class that day, we talked about how people who follow sports could talk about it to anyone even if they had never met before. Jenkins, Horkheimer and Adorno, all share similar beliefs in the idea of “sameness.” Culture today is heavily influenced by the media and pop culture and because of this the majority of the people feel the same way. Even mindless pieces of media like YouTube have become sensations, however we all share an interest in it.

In class today I was suppose to define pseudo-individuality reigns and I decided to break up the term and define it. “Pseudo” meant pretending or trying to be followed by individuality, I took this as meaning a made up identity. “Reigns” is defined as the dominative force. So without even reading its context within the Horkheimer and Adorno article, I felt that this meant people create fake identities based off the dominant images seen within society. A famous musician has a sleeve full of tattoos so people take this image and base their own false identity from it. I feel like identities have become a commodities, even when people try to be different they actually just reproducing an already before seen image. Which further perpetuates the idea of sameness within the identities of the mass culture.

Capri Sun, Herman and Chomsky

Throughout reading the Herman and Chomsky article, many of their ideas reminded me of previous theorists we have talked about in class. The article talks about how the media is constructed and who is constructing it. I think the most important part of understanding media and its influence on society is realizing who is controlling it. Because it is only a small minority of wealthy individuals everything the public views is being filtered through their eyes. We assume that the various forms of media, especially the news, are unbiased however this is impossible. Marx talks about how the dominating class is created through money therefore money controls the media. The media provides the mass public with images of what life is supposed to be like and what is “normal.” What the average American does not realize is that what we see on television or listen to on the radio are actually hegemonic ideologies that are produced to advance the people in the ruling class. Last semester, I wrote my CMC200 paper on advertisements and the effect is has on its viewers. After researching I learned that the more an advertisement has to do with ones lifestyle or if it succeeds the image one is looking for the more effective the advertisement has on production sales. This made me realize, that we are living in an on going cycle. People buy what they see on advertisements because of the pre-existing ideologies that Americans believe and trust. So, when a man sees an ad regarding Nike running shoes, where the male in the image looks strong and masculine they will be more likely to buy the shoes because society has told him his whole life that in order to be a man one must be strong. Advertisements sell products because they are selling the images we see in the media. And because the media is controlled by an elite group of people these images are only ideologies not reality. If you turn to someone and ask them if they think advertisements work most likely the person will say no but they also most likely will be wearing Nikes. Benjamin would agree with Herman and Chomsky by explaining that the American public is absent-minded viewers, even when we do not think its effecting us, it actually is and in order to stop this cycle we must start questioning and challenging where our media comes from and what are its motives.

Capri Sun, Foucault

Throughout reading Foucault’s article, it reminded me of Althusser and the belief in the structural issues created by authorities. Throughout this semester we have talked about the public being submissive to the people in power. We witness in class, students obeying our teachers and taking everything we learn as the truth. Culture is made up of different levels of superiority ranging from within the family to the government. There are various systems that create rules, laws, and just everyday social constructions. We follow because as a whole we are a passive society; he explains that we are unwillingly and unconsciously caged. Foucault says, “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). As a public, we are aware of the authority around us but we do not fully know why or what we are being told to do. This relates to Marx because he talks about how those in charge are ruling in a certain way that keeps them in advantage. In America, we have this belief in the American Dream that tells the public that we live in a meritocracy. The average person believes this because they are ruled in a way where they assume it’s for the greater good of the public. However, the inequality in the United States does not represent this dream. Part of the population is born into an advantaged lifestyle where they will always be ahead of others with fewer opportunities at birth. However, our government is based off democratic ideals that trick people into believing a myth about the American lifestyle. I think that Foucault’s article does a good job describing the public but it should pose more answers to the problems. Answers that we have read about it in class that is to challenge authority either through questioning or evaluating what is not being said.

Capri Sun, Derrida

Jacques Derrida’s piece on language and communication was very difficult to understand and fully grasp the concepts he was saying. I realize he is trying to explain that language is created around differences. One speaking can interpret what they are saying in a completely different way then those that are listening. Even changing words around in sentences or even letters within a word can create a new meaning. Different languages cannot be completely translated with identical meanings because of the cultural significance of language. This concept can be related to both de Saussure and Macherey because they discuss language and its importance in communication. I think because everyone is different and have all experienced life differently through their family background, education and just all around lifestyle everything we read, write, and listen to is interpreted differently. I have even noticed with my peers at school their major even changes their opinion on social issues today. There will be times, I will be watching television or reading a magazine and my perception of what is being portrayed will be very dissimilar to those that are Political Science or Economic majors. I believe this is what Derrida is saying about how everyone is different therefore they interpret things differently. We can also look at this in an opposite way, by thinking about Horkheimer and Adorno and their belief that as a culture we have all become the same. That is why for the most part we believe the same things that are presented to us by the government. Our overall interpretation is similar until we start learning about the problems within them. A lot of things I see now after being a CMC major, I witness the issues within what is being said or framed. However, before I would not like the majority of the people that were never taught to challenge.

Capri Sun, Cixous

Cixous’ article talks about how society has created gender roles and why men are the superior sex. She says that men are considered the providers and breadwinners in most American families. In our head we have an image of what a typical family would look like and the men are the successful workers. While reading this article it reminded me a lot of my CMC 200 paper, which talked about the concept of masculinity. In society, the fact that there are certain ways men and women should act is the reasons there are gender roles. Men are told to be men by being masculine and masculinity is defined in many different aspects of our life. When studying masculinity, I learned that being successful was a major part of being a man. Cixous explains in her article that men are suppose to be the providers and they fear when women achieve more success then them. This is because of the already preconceived notions that take place today. Certain words that describe masculinity are successful, strong, wealthy, and dominant. Words that would explain femininity would also be considered an insult if called that to a male. This is what Cixous described as oppositions. The male is opposite of female. When doing my paper for CMC 200, I realized that in order for a man to feel like a man he needed be masculine. Masculinity can change depended on the culture being studied, therefore masculinity is not apart of the biology that make up males rather it is what society makes of it. The media and other systems create the gender roles, which are usually hegemonic ideologies. Advertisements, television shows, and films are a huge factor that shapes our perspective of the male and female. Boys grow up witnessing these forms of media and it becomes an expectation for them to portray masculinity because there whole lives they see men as the dominant gender. I think that this is something that is more difficult for boys to break away from then girls, because a girl can be successful and work outside of the home and at times may be looked down upon; but when men become the “stay at home” dad, he is observed negatively by society.

Nemo, Baudrillard -Make Up

2009-12-06T13:02:00.001-08:00

In this reading Baudrillard discusses the effect that images have on our society. I do not know if I was the only person but I found this reading to be somewhat difficult. I especially had difficulty with his theory of Simulacra. Baudrillard discusses his theory of Simulacra, which I interpreted as replacing reality with signs or symbols that simulate reality. Baudrillard believes that our society has become dependent on simulacra and can no longer relate to the real world. “To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. One implies a presence, the other an absence.” I think that here Baudrillard is saying that in our society we live in a world of pretending, or a fantasy world. He believes that the media (TV, movies, internet, etc.) is responsible for blurring the line between reality and fiction. I agree with this argument because when people watch specific reality TV shows they think that what they are seeing is ‘real’ and they can associate with the situations the people are in. However what the masses do not know is that reality TV shows can often be scripted or edited in certain ways to make things seem more important or dramatic than they actually are. I had great difficulty understanding this article but I feel as though I was able to get somewhat of a grasp on his theory of Simulacra.

September 6th, Serendipity, Post Class DeSaussure, LATE

2009-12-06T13:01:00.000-08:00

Language is only difference. DeSaussure explains how completely arbitrary a slice of sound given to a specific concept is. This alone makes everyone think of something different since we all are subjective creatures that are molded by our environment and experiences. When someone says something, it is not only what they DO say, but it is also what they don’t say, like Barthes and Macherey explains “The Gap”. The fact that someone is saying mean things to someone else, it is also important to realize, that due to the way language works, it is also the fact that they are NOT saying nice things. This is the way I interpreted the reading, but I am not sure if this is completely the idea he had. There is the signifier, and the signified. A whole theoretical basis behind every word. The word dog. D-O-G. Signifies a living breathing creature, and not a cat. But if the word cat was always connected to the concept “dog” we would find that normal and not understand how it could be called something else. This portrays the concept of how the environment and society completely molds us into not thinking how anything is created by man. This is the whole point of CMC I realize, to criticize the media and things that seem so normal to us but actually have a whole system behind them.

Penny Lane- Bourdieu Late

2009-12-06T12:50:00.000-08:00

Bourdieu constantly reiterates his concern with media responsibility. Our news coverage is limited and prevents exposure of larger unexplored problems in society. Programming is primarily concerned with inconsequential stories rather than the issues that actually impact viewers and the world on a global scale. He claims that “the farther a paper extends its circulation, the more it favors such topics that interest ‘everybody’ and don’t raise the problems. The object-news-is constructed in accordance with the perceptual categories of the receiver.” This excerpt brings to mind the coverage of both Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson. The media claims to give us ‘what we want’ and the consequence is a vicious cycle of shallow dramatic storytelling, prompting us to look at a spectacle rather than reality. Channels also try to one up each other with frivolous sensationalism, which only lengthens the amount of time and attention designated to the relatively insignificant subject matter. “TV networks have greater and greater recourse to the tried and true formulas of tabloid journalism…The focus is on those things which are apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis, especially in the political sphere.” This distraction is intentional; we are blind to our own conditions of poverty, class struggle, internal corruption, and misconduct abroad. Marx would agree with Bourdieus conclusions because it is how our system prevents social reform. “Ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” Ownership of ideology insure ownership of the mass perspective.

Serendipity, Pre Class Lyotard Sep 8th LATE

2009-12-06T12:45:00.001-08:00

Serendipity, Pre Class Lyotard Sep 8th
In the Lyotard reading, he tries to ask what is Postmodernism really, and what Realism is. Is it reality? Turns out that, probably not. Art that is reproduced (like Benjamin is interested in) in tweaks reality. Not only does it tweak our perception of it, but it makes us think that it is really that way and we start to compare our real lives to it, therefore skewing reality. But if something feels real to us, isn’t that what reality is? This is what my dilemma was the entire time I was reading the article. I think that it is very closely related to what Benjamin says about reproduction and film. It takes you out of the situation and creates false feelings of “knowing” an actor or being in a situation, when in reality, since the movie was fake and you were not there, you will never truly know, since you are sitting in a movie theater. This relates to Lyotard because he claims that nothing is really real and especially this is the case with entertainment. We count on critics to tell us who is the best actor, what movie was the highest rated, what restaurants are the highest rated. This makes us feel that we should be educated in certain subjects in a certain way, for example “art appreciation” classes, and “music appreciation” classes. A person should be able to create their own reality without the societal normative and expectations.

Nemo, 9/29 – Make Up

2009-12-06T12:28:00.000-08:00

Nemo, 9/29
In class this week we went to the Cornell Museum on campus where we saw many different exhibits including: Andre Kertesz’s On Reading and Andy Warhol’s Personalite, among others. I found this class trip to be very interesting and helpful in understanding post modernism. We have read many works by different theorists but we had yet to experience and generate our own opinions on what they were talking about until this week. I found Andre Kertesz’s On Reading exhibit very fascinating and an appropriate topic for this class. Each photograph displayed people reading or a reference to reading and literature. The subjects were not all reading the same thing and they were not all in the same setting. There were books, magazines, newspapers, street signs, etc. So of the subjects were in their homes, but the majority were outside reading. Each person seemed to be in their own comfort zone where they can escape their reality and get lost in the written word. As an observer we are not able to personally know what the subjects were feeling at the time the photographs were taken but we are able to imagine. I am going to attempt to relate this to a quote by Barthes, it may or may not be a correct fit but I believe it is relevant. “It is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes?” (108). We are attracted to the mystery of what is hidden behind something – in this case we as observers were engrossed in what could have been going on at the time the photographs were taking. How was the subject feeling? Why had they chosen that specific place to read? Why did Kertesz choose to photograph this specific scene? We were yearning to find out more about the circumstances that enabled the photographs to be taken.
In Andy Warhol’s exhibit Personalitie consisted of Polaroid’s that pictured both ordinary people as well as celebrities dressed and styled in the same manner as if to make it difficult to determine the subject’s significance. It seemed as if Warhol was trying to make the subjects in the photographs seem like ‘ordinary’ people or as close to ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ as possible. This exhibit could be related to the ideas expressed by Lyotard such as verisimilitude. Verisimilitude something that has the appearance of being real, in this case it is artwork. In class we said the goal of the artist is to capture as much ‘real life’ as he or she possibly can in their art. I believe that Warhol’s exhibit exemplifies this idea as perfectly as possible.

Nemo, Zizek – Make Up

2009-12-06T11:51:00.000-08:00

This reading was somewhat confusing but I believe that I understand the main ideas that were discussed. “We find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties…” (231). Zizek starts this article by discussing how in our culture we are given the option of consuming the real product removed of its core – making the product a simulation of the real thing – which gives us this pretense that we are experiencing the real product. He then relates this idea to the idea that as a culture we believe that we have experienced certain things because we have seen them in TV shows or Movies. It is this sense of a Virtual Reality. “Virtual reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance…Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being so…What happens at the end of this process of virtualization, however, is that we begin to experience ‘real reality’ itself as a virtual entity” (231). I interpreted this passage to mean that as a society we are sheltered from what is really going on. We see events in history happen through the screen of a television. For example when someone talks about 9/11 and the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center I immediately play the image that I saw on TV – the smoke and the buildings crumbling to the ground. At the same time, however, TV has the ability to force us to “experience what the ‘compulsion to repeat’ and jouissance beyond the pleasure principle are: we wanted to see it again, and again…” (231). Once we experienced such a tragedy be became transfixed with those images and could not help looking at them – a guilty pleasure you could say. Before 9/11 I believe that Americans lived in a bubble where they believed that nothing remotely close to that kind of catastrophe could ever happen in this country. However Americans had seen catastrophes of different sorts for decades. “The authentic twentieth-century passion for penetrating the Real Thing through the cobweb of semblances which constitutes our reality thus culminates in the thrill of the Real as the ultimate ‘effect’, sought after from digitalized special affects, through reality TV…” (232). We had all seen movies and TV shows that simulated such events but we did not perceive them to be real.
Zizek, from what I understood, believes that our culture is sheltered from the horrific images of the horrible events that are taking place currently around the world. He believes that we should be shown the horrific images from the wars, the genocides, and the fight against poverty and deadly infections, so that we understand that those things are actually happening and they are real. But he fears, as do I, that Americans will continue to believe that nothing like that could ever happen in the United States – even poverty which affects about 12 to 13% of the nation. I believe that 9/11 was a wake up call for Americans, it was a horrible tragedy I do not disagree with that, but in a way I unfortunately feel like something of that magnitude had to happen in order to show Americans that we are a country that can be vulnerable at times.

Penny Lane- Zizek Late

2009-12-06T11:36:00.000-08:00

In Zizek’s analysis of the 9-11 aftermath, he states: “America finally got what it had always fantasized about, and that was the most shocking part.” Our culture has long been obsessed with the idea of destruction and catastrophe in entertainment, but designated it as part of a fictional alternate universe. The scene of the twin towers was similar to that of an epic disaster film, but it was actually occurring with real world consequences. However, Zizek argues that our understanding of real devastation and suffering is absent from the social consciousness. “It is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see…in clear contrast to reporting on third world catastrophes…the real horror happens there not here.” The third world and impacts of war are out of sight and out of mind, so we rarely think of their existence. The idea of suffering abroad is so far removed and infrequently covered in our media, it is as if it does not even exist. DeSaussure’s descriptions of meaning and understanding are relevant to our blissful ignorance because our reality is socially constructed. My concept of hunger and suffering is vastly differentiated from an individual living in the squalor of a third world slum. The concept of intertextuality asserts that what I already know through personal experience and education defined my subjective reality. My world has been vastly sheltered from the tragic nature of humanity, so my perspective is stunted in comparison to reality.
The first 3 links are destruction scenes from Independence Day, Armageddon, and Knowing. The fourth clip is footage of the 9-11 attack:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK75ZqUtDns
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8nuUVByrU
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8yZf5IJtw0
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

Penny Lane- Hebdige/Jameson Late

2009-12-06T11:35:00.000-08:00

Ideology is a mechanism used to subdue or dilute oppositional expression. Differentiation defines subcultures. A subculture is a sect of people that vary from the dominant behavior to a noticeable degree. Furthermore, there is always a motive inspiring said action, which is the desire for change. The mainstream stops these initiatives by assimilating the subcultural-identity with the popular. Hebdige believes that “as soon as the original innovations which signify ‘subculture’ are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen.’” By incorporating aspects of the subversive into the common ground, the potential of counter culture movements is halted before any real damage is done to the dominant perspective. The exotic is found, rejected, adapted, accepted, and eventually diminished. According to Jameson, commodities are now defined by surface: how they look; how much they cost; what company produces them; and where they are sold. You can create a façade of a particular image you want to project through attire, but the social connection remains vacant. Commodities sell an idea as well as a product. They can range from products on a self to the ideas enforced by media outlets. If you look much deeper you will find one of two things, both of which are oppositional to the goal of capitalism. First if you look passed the external presentation of an object, it becomes generic. The extra value allocated to a high-end brand is usually related less to the cost of production, and more related to the cost of advertising initiatives. Without the packaging and label, it is culturally insignificant. Second, if you look beneath the surface, you might find something you don’t want to see. Injustice, corruption, and abuse of power are frequently ignored to prevent a shift in the hegemonic order. For this reason, journalism no longer tackles difficult issues with far reaching implications. We are provided with an idea of justice, but this shallow representation only serves to pacify the public. Constructive cultural criticism falls to the wayside with the groups that aim to challenge the mainstream.

Nemo, 9/20 – Make Up

2009-12-06T11:14:00.001-08:00

I decided to write about the class discussion on Habermas because I would like to see how I have begun to understand the article a little more now that I have heard what Dr. Rog and my peers had to say about it. We discussed how Habermas is discussing traditionalism vs. avant-gardism. Traditionalism is when things have value because they have always had value. The Avant-gard is what is ‘in’ for a short period of time. I believe that our society is in a constant struggle with the balance between traditionalism and avant-gardism. Habermas nails it perfectly with the quote - “the cult of the new” (99). We believe in our culture that if it is new it is better and we have to have it because it must be better simply because it is new. We feel as though because of the advances in scientific research and technology everything that is new has to be better than the previous model. I do not know where we got this notion, probably through advertisements, but the majority of society believes this to be true. One of my friends is obsessed with the advances in technology and whenever he sees that a new type of TV, or computer is coming out he immediately starts researching everything about it and constantly talks about how he needs the new TV or computer. Even if it is a type of software for his iPhone he immediately downloads it when the new version comes out. It is sad to think that our society is just throwing away everything symbolizes our journey to this point in history. This class discussion made me more appreciative for what my generation has had the opportunity to have.

Nemo, Habermas – Make Up

2009-12-06T11:01:00.001-08:00

I found this reading to be extremely difficult which is why I did not post on it, but I am determined to figure him out so that’s why I am now writing about this reading. The main focus of Habermas’ article is the subject of Modernity and how it affects culture and the difference in its previous meaning and its current meaning. “The idea of being ‘modern’…changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge…” (99). The definition of what is ‘modern’ has changed with the increase of knowledge with the help of the advances in science. People now believe that things are better because we are making progress and are beginning to understand more things. They feel as though it is not important to know what has previously gone on in a society but to instead look forward and see how they can advance the society. This notion is more appropriately and accurately said by Habermas “the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical reference” (99). As I said before I believe this quote to mean that the vast majority of our society do not feel as though it is important to know anything about the history of the culture. We have some how come to believe that new is better and old is, not necessarily bad but unimportant. I know that when I see an advertisement for a new computer or cell phone I immediately want one of the advertised products. I do not care about who invented the first computer or cell phone, and it does not matter if my computer or cell phone is working perfectly they are still ‘old’. This is what I took from the reading my interpretation of the text could be completely off but this is what I understood.

Nemo, 9/13 - Late

2009-12-06T10:32:00.001-08:00

In class this week we discussed the theorists Benjamin and his thoughts on the waning affect as well as authenticity. “What happens to the work of art when it is constantly reproduced” was a question Benjamin asked, in class we were asked the same and were shown a picture of a McDonalds sign. When we were show the signs we were asked what we thought of or felt when we saw it. Immediately everyone said either McDonalds hamburgers, chicken McNuggets or some type of food on the menu. We discussed how we no longer appreciate the sign as a piece of art, but instead a symbol for the fast food chain we often frequent when hungry. Dr. Rog explained that the impact of the picture has lessened because we have seen it so many times in our life – the waning affect. Since we have seen the replica of the golden arches everywhere the authenticity of the McDonalds Arches is gone. We discussed mechanical reproduction, which is what happens to a work of art when it is constantly reproduced making the original extremely expensive.
We were then shown an advertisement for Harvey’s that displayed multiple pictures of hamburgers and read “Free original hamburger”. Which one is the original hamburger? Is it an authentic hamburger? We understood that this advertisement is a sign conflict because it is saying that everyone will get an original hamburger but is showing multiple and making it difficult to figure out which one is the original hamburger. We discussed that there could only be one ‘original’ hamburger and that would be the very first hamburger that was every made at and for Harvey’s. Thus making it impossible for everyone to have an original hamburger. In our society we have more trouble trying to decipher what is the original and what is merely a replica. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). The presence implies that I am physically here and the object is physically here with me. The quote can simply be interpreted, as unless a person can have the original, unless it is physically in front of the person, the object is not authentic. I related this to seeing posters of the Mona Lisa compared to seeing the actual painting by Leonardo DaVinci. The sensation that you have when you are physically in front of the original authentic artwork is incomparable to the sensation you have when you are looking at the replica.

Teets, 12/6

2009-12-06T10:14:00.001-08:00

Reflecting back on Thursday’s class makes me laugh a little bit. I know the point of the exercise was to give women the chance to speak up,, but that is a pretty ridiculous notion in itself. I normally don’t talk that much in class, but there were so many points during the discussion I wanted to interject, but I “couldn’t.” I think the women did a great job of flushing out some ideas that Cixous and Butler had, but I think the topic of feminism is something that is discussed far too much in theory. Women have achieved so much in the last century and I believe they won’t achieve that much more in terms of being equal with men. Somebody made the point in class that society has constructed male dominance since essentially the beginning of time, therefore it would take extremely long for things to even out.

As I was silently sitting there, laughing hysterically on the inside, I couldn’t help but relate the exercise to Macherey. The body language and facial expressions on the male students said more than their words could. The men, including myself, looked eager to talk and interject, but didn’t have the license to, which is I guess how some women feel. I think feminism created the ideology that women’s voices are silenced amongst the general population. I think that that claim is simply false, as women are equal in most facets of society. Maybe women will never be viewed as completely equal, but you just have to play the hand you are dealt. Women and men are different creatures for a reason, in my opinion. Without difference neither gender would have any benefit to the other. I think the idea of trying to be both is not entirely worth it, because that defeats the purpose of getting married, which is one of life’s biggest and most sought after ideologies. Women need to just carry on and not partake in feminist meetings and protests, because they are pretty much wasting their time in my opinion.

Daisy, 12/6

2009-12-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

During class this week the main topic was “the other.” On Tuesday, we discussed bell hooks, and “the others” were ethnic individuals. Hooks particularly explained the need for many white men to spice up their lives with women of a different cultural background. Sleeping with an African American woman for white men gives them experience, a sense of power and pleasure. Hebdige told us that a way we deal with the other is to exoticize them, and this is exactly what has happened to individuals of another cultural background. We discussed the idea of “sluming,” where individuals invade the territory of another socio-economic group. This occurs when white males look to women of a different cultural background for pleasure. In class we were able to see how googling the phrase “exotic women,” brought up many sites where women were featured as exotic. The ability to google exotic women further perpetuates the lost history of cultural backgrounds. The commodification of “the other” is problematic, especially when it is so present in the media. Lyotard would agree that there is a loss of avant-garde, exoticized women in many forms of the media have caused cultures to no longer appear different. It seems ironic that the reason cultures became exoticized was due to the fact that western cultures wanted to create different aspects of themselves and move away from sameness, and now the exoticized cultures can be lumped into a category as normal. As individuals trying to be different, we are ultimately hurting another culture for our own benefit.
On Thursday we talked about another type of “other,” women. Women appear as the other in comparison to men. It was really eye-opening to have only the girls in the class discuss the readings. Cixous and Butler are women who are trying to create herstory! In a phallologocentric world, it is hard for women to get recognized. “Writing is woman’s,” is a quote discussed in class, which is a way for women to gain voice. In a world where masculinity has dominated for centuries, and I believe it is still that way in some ways, women have had trouble gaining respect and being viewed as equal to men. How can we change this? Well I think everyday we are a step closer to being equal to men, during class we agreed that women just want to be given respect and treated as equals. Men and women are different, and I want it to stay that way to a certain extent. After studying Adorno and sameness I learned we need to embrace our differences and at the same time respect one another, because men and women being depicted as the same would lose aspects of themselves. Being considered “the other” in my point of view is good as long as we are all treated like equals.

Kiwi, 12/6

2009-12-05T22:02:00.000-08:00

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!!!

Penny Lane-Adorno Late

2009-12-05T21:34:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-05T21:33:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T19:40:00.000-08:00

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

Captain Outrageous, Hooks

2009-12-05T19:20:00.000-08:00

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?

Penny Lane- Baudrillard Late

2009-12-05T18:54:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-05T18:53:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T18:52:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T18:51:00.000-08:00

“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.

Graham, 12/2

2009-12-05T18:09:00.000-08:00

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.

FloRida, 12/5

2009-12-05T17:59:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-05T14:24:00.000-08:00

“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.

Elmo, 12/5

2009-12-05T14:06:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T13:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Captain Outrageous, 12/3

2009-12-05T13:38:00.000-08:00

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.

Mongoose, 12/3

2009-12-05T11:10:00.001-08:00

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.

Ace Ventura, 12/3

2009-12-05T10:30:00.000-08:00

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'.

ESPN, 12/3

2009-12-03T16:28:00.000-08:00

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.

HOLLA! 12/6/09

2009-12-03T11:44:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-03T07:33:00.000-08:00

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??

Nemo, Lyotard -Late

2009-12-03T05:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Nate Dogg, pre-class on Zizek lecture - Late

2009-12-02T21:33:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T21:10:00.001-08:00

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.

FloRida, Cixous

2009-12-02T18:57:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T17:12:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T17:09:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T14:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-02T14:36:00.001-08:00

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.

Gwatter06, Cixous/Butler

2009-12-02T14:04:00.001-08:00

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.

Capri Sun, Cixous

2009-12-02T13:50:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-02T13:46:00.001-08:00

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.

Elmo, Cixous

2009-12-02T13:37:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T12:38:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T12:11:00.001-08:00

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.

ESPN, Cixous and Butler

2009-12-02T11:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-02T01:22:00.000-08:00

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.

BiegieGo, Cixous/Butler

2009-12-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

“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!

Nate Dogg, Hooks

2009-11-30T19:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Daisy, hooks

2009-11-30T16:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-30T16:44:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-30T15:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Captain Planet, hooks

2009-11-30T15:04:00.001-08:00

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.’

ESPN, Foucault - late

2009-11-29T13:50:00.001-08:00

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.

Kiwi, 11,22

2009-11-22T16:34:00.001-08:00

This week I was only able to attend class on Tuesday because I was in Georgia for basketball… On Tuesday Professor cummings was there and talked to our class about Bourdieu. I have to say that I did not enjoy this class as much as class when Rog is there. No offence to Dr. Cummings but how she started class off and how she taught the class was not as interesting/exciting/fun as rog makes class nor was it taught in a way for us to have a better understanding. Having this class with a different professor really helped me to realize how happy I am to have Rog for a professor for this particular class and how much easier he makes things make sense just by the format of class as well as explaining and how he relates things to different ideas that I am more familiar with. Anyways… Dr. Cumming started class off first by giving a little background information on Bourdieu. She told us that Bourdieu argues that judgments of taste are related to social positions. She said that Bourdieu is a social scientist and he what he wanted to do was combine interviews, social science and methodology. He is listed as the second most cited author in the humanities, but he is a social scientist. It She said that is primarily because he is a public intellectual. And then explained that a public intellectual is someone who is recognized in actively engaging in public discourse. Bourdieu is recognized for his activism of Humanities( English primarily, philosophy, history) and social scientists ( sociology, anthropology, and political science.

After she gave some background on Bourdieu she then talking to us about how Bourdieu looks at TV and what it tells us. Dr. Cummings said that, “TV tells us what we already know and that is why networks like NBC,ABC, and CNN are as successful as they are. “ She then went in to discussing tropes and how tropes are made up of compacted information. After our class had this discussion I realized that what Bourdieu says also relates a lot to what barthes says and how he talks about tropes and how he also talks about structuralism. Boudieu can relate to Barthes notion of structuralism when he tells us that it is because of systems why we have censorship.

Overall I think that the structure of this class was different from previous classes we have had this year of how we learned the information and again not anything against Dr. Cummings but I am very happy for having Rog as my professor for this class because it makes me realize how this subject could perhaps be not as fun if it weren’t for Rog and how he approaches our class discussions with lots of spunk and questions that help us get more involved rather then just reading information to us.

Gwatter06, 11/22

2009-11-22T14:05:00.001-08:00

This week in class we went over two very different theorists covering some pretty compelling topics and concepts that, in some cases, felt quite familiar and in other cases, were quite different from what we’ve been going over in class. Bourdieu was a fairly short read and I found that he was a bit more comprehendible than Derrida. I have to admit it was quite the same going over the theorist without Dr. Rog, I’m not saying that Professor Cummings didn’t do a good job on covering for Dr. Rog, but it just didn’t feel the same and the approach was a little different. I think that is why some of us were a bit shell shocked in the beginning of class when we were somewhat bombarded with questions and we were as responsive as we usually are. Either way, from the two theorists, I think we came away with more from Derrida, especially after going over the theorist in class. Going over Derrida had a feeling of Lyotard, Barthes and especially de Sausser with some of the concepts that Derrida covered. One of these concepts that related to both Barthes and to Lyotard was the concept of “trace” in which Derrida explains is the experience of filling something in based upon previous experience. This directly relates to Barthes concept of tmesis/gap and also Lyotards concept of rupture, both of which we have previously covered in the course. Believe this concept of “trace” is inevitable when thinking of obtaining knowledge of anything. I think a lot of things in society relies on this concept, just as de Sausser explained that language is understood and created through both text that exist and text that is missing. Are ability to understand something, like how Dr. Rog put up letters on the board in a sequence with no meaning but we were able to fill in the blank and understand what the letters were trying to create is quite remarkable.

Ron Burgundy, 11/22

2009-11-22T13:59:00.000-08:00

This week we discussed one of the most complicated theorists, Derrida, and his concept of difference vs. differance. While reading the text I had an extremely difficult time understanding the points that were being made. In class Dr. Rog helped bring clarity to the concepts not only behind this single text, but to Derrida's theories as a whole. One of the most interesting things that we looked at in class was the idea of the "ur", or the beginning. Specifically we looked at the the "ur-text" which questions if we can trace a word or concept back to its beginning. We did this exercise to test this continually looking up terms in order to figure out the definition of "board". As we did this exercise we discovered the complexities of language, specifically english, where it is extremely difficult to get a complete understanding of a single concept. This is because the words that describe them often have several definitions and include concepts that when looked up, contain the same word we were originally trying to find. The dependency of language, words, on one another in order to understand, describe, them reminds me of Macherey's concept of intertextuality. According to Macherey, texts are only understood through their comparisons with other texts, their meaning is dependent on one another. We use other texts to understand the particular text we are reading, just as Derrida says we use other words, which are ambiguous signs, to understand a particular word. It seems difficult to grasp, and it is. But in a sense, a word is just a sign loaded with other words that explain its meaning. The english language is often the hardest language to learn because of this principle and the fact that most words in the english language have several meanings. Their correct meaning therefore, is only found through putting it in context, among other words. This once again connects to intertextuality as meaning is found through explanation of other words and among other words.

ESPN, 11/19

2009-11-22T13:58:00.000-08:00

In reading Foucault I found it very difficult and even after class it was still a little dense. He does not seem to be as straight forward as some of the other theorist we have been reading thus far. It seems I was off a little in my pre class post in the notion of difference. However I believe I did have the right idea about the notion of language and the shell gas station example. It is not only interesting to see how language works but also how are brains work and how we have been socialized to see and understand things in a similar way. The notion of difference is still quite complex to me. The exercise we did on the board was really interesting. It is crazy how much there is to language and the difference between them. The difference is what I believe was trying to be portrayed. Furthermore, the definitions themselves are different then the words may mean and there are many different words that are the same but have different meanings. There were many words all over the board and it they all essentially go in a circle in that each word can be linked to another. It is like the quote states. “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.” It may be a stretch but in regards to all the words on the board, I related it to Jencks instead of how one may have thought in relating it to DeSaussure, Barthes, or Macherey. I related it Jencks in his notion of disharmonious harmony in that there is a ton of things all different in their own way but they still come together and looks good and makes sense. It is like language in that that there are many different words in a definition but they still all come together and make the specific word make sense. It is also like in general conversation in that there are tons of different arbitrary words that come together to make conversation.

Teets, 11/22

2009-11-22T13:49:00.001-08:00

Derrida was a confusing theorist to read, but Thursday’s class helped me understand it a little better. The exercise we did with the dictionary was one of the more hilarious/clarifying ones this semester. We took the noun board and looked up the definition. It came to pass that the definition was very redundant when we proceeded to look up the definitions of the words within the definition. This exercise reminded me of a quote by De Saussure. “Language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (7) You cannot define a given word without the existence of others words to do so. Language is completely dependent on itself to function properly.

The area, or word even, where De Saussure and Derrida really come together is difference. “In language, there are only differences” (DS 10). When my classmates were reading the definitions to words Dr. Rog was purposely misspelling them to drive home the point of Derrida. By sound you cannot determine how to spell a certain word, because there are many cases where two words spelled differently sound exactly the same. It is the context within language that determines how a word can be spelled, so we have to recognize the difference between these like-sounding words. Dr Rog. Posed a queston in class that asked what the first thing you need to know to communicate with someone effectively. Many people replied the person’s name. We were wrong, the most important thing to know first is what language a person speaks. Some people were asked to define words from a Hebrew or French dictionary, which obviously was meant to make a point. The differences between different languages create a barrier, a road block. I still feel like I would understand Derrida better if I understood or spoke French, but I feel like I can at least make a connection to De Saussure now.

FloRida, 11/22

2009-11-22T13:48:00.001-08:00

Derrida was extremely difficult to understand the first time around and continues to be somewhat difficult to comprehend. After Dr. Rog explained not only quotes but the ideas behind what Derrida thinks and says. I really loved the explanation using the word HELL. When we saw the shell sign and then the word hell, almost the entire class felt as if there was the letter “S” missing from the beginning of the word. It really proves to me how closely images and words are interconnected and their relationship really corresponds to the way we learn and interpret things. There is also major interconnectedness between words with other words. The dictionary activity proved that. Almost every definition has one or more of the same words in the explanation of the meaning of the word. Derrida states that, “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name” (140). Every word can be related to another word and end up connecting through what they mean. A word missing a few letters is still understandable when related to something else, especially through a visual aid. We know what the word says and what relation it has to its meaning. Derrida speaks about the idea of “the trace.” The trace is a process of filling in information based on prior knowledge. Every signifier in our culture has traces of others. We use what we already know in order to fill in the missing gap. Previous knowledge is what allows us to be able to understand things within words. Derrida also talked about “logocentrism” which literally means being word centric. Everything in our society involves the use of words. Words give us meaning. This relates to DeSaussure’s notions about language. Language and words are what gives life meaning.

DoubleBubble, 11/22

2009-11-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

In class on Thursday we talked about Derrida and difference. We also did an exercise in class with the word board. How do we know what this word means from the definition in a dictionary? We know because we know definitions of all of these other words. in order to fully understand it without knowing these definitions we would have to look up all the definitions of each word. this could take hours and hours or even days. throughout our lives we have gained the knowledge of all of these words in order to understand it. in a way we have already spent these hours of looking up words everyday.

Everyday within the lingo of AIM or Facebook we develop these new words with new understandings. For instance, LOL. That’s known as laughing out Loud, but how would we know that if we don’t know what laughing, out or loud meant right? we understand these new languages and words that we develop because of previous knowledge and education of these words.

This concept relates to Derrida because he talks about The Trace. We fill in new ideas and experiences based up on our previous experiences and knowledge. We wouldn’t know what LOL means or is without previous knowledge of what Laughing, out or Loud meant. If we did not know these from previous experience the concept of LOL would not mean anything to us.

Within the slide show there was a slide that said HELL and then we were shown a picture of a Shell station sign. When we see that image and then reflect back to the idea of what we see when we see Hell we now see Shell. I thought about this with the concept of how we use that in everyday life. What about when we are driving and see a store but the store letters have some of them missing because the light bulbs have blown. We still see the logo or some of the word and we understand, although some of the sign is blown out, what the store is. Our previous experiences and knowledge of the logo or lettering we understand what it means with someone missing. If we were driving and saw a sign for a store we were not familiar with we would not be able to put together the store if the lights were blown.

Our everyday experiences and knowledge allows for us to understand the everyday life things we either create or see, even if in a different way.

BiegieGo 11/22

2009-11-22T12:33:00.000-08:00

"All good things got to come to an end"--Jackson Browne
We are very close to ending this wonderful journey of theorist. In the beginning of this class I had a very bad feeling that I was not going to understand a lot of what was going to take place but now late in the semester I am a confident student that has learned a lot! It funny to think back and see the entire list of theorist that have been learned and be able to relate something in my everyday life to one for them. I believe I am going to leave this class feeling brighter than everyone else in our school. :P. this week we learned about theorist Bourdieu and Derrida. Al though I was only able to attend one of the classes this week I learned that Bourdieu looks at TV and what it is telling us. Professor Cummings just reiterated what dr. Rog had told us in the beginning of the semester and that is that TV tells us what we all ready know and that is why networks like ABC, NBC, and CNN are so successful in the business.
People don’t like to hear what they don’t know. We feel I like it goes against our belief system and is challenges us and we don’t like to be challenged. We discussed what a trope was and it is some compact information. We also discussed systems and Bourdieu tells us that it is because of systems is why we have censorship. He also looks about how there is so much not being said on TV that our society does not see. What is the real? What is the truth? As Barthes would say, where is the structuralism in our world???

Ace Ventura, 11/22

2009-11-22T12:19:00.000-08:00

Since I was unable to come to class this week due to the dreadful H1N1, it makes it a little difficult for me to write a post-class post. I looked over the power point presentations at the images that Dr. Rog provided and tried to imagine the connections that he would make between the images and the readings. While my connections were probably not as creative or accurate as the ones he made in class, hopefully the connections I made between the images and the meaning of the texts related in at least some sort of accurate way. On the Derrida powerpoint, the three images of symbols representing another language show the value of difference. (If these are even from the same language) they represent a culture even though they are drastically different in their form. One seems to be a traditional plain text image, another is a more modern interpretation by placing the text in a tattoo, and another is a large reproduction of text used on a rug of tile floor of some sort. All of these images and uses of the text differ but they all relate to a similar general idea and give the viewer an interpretation of the same kind of culture. The idea of deconstructing these images to see their similarities instead of their differences allows you to make the connection. If you only looked at them for how they differ you'd say "what does a rug, a tattoo, and tile image have to do with one another?" This relates to the symbol of the shell and the word Shell. Obviously they appear to be different, but they give the same meaning to the person that is interpreting them. This can be taken one step further and the image of the shell can also turn into something that our culture interprets as gas because of the Shell gas stations that we have become accustomed to. Clearly shell and gas have nothing to do with one another in reality but when you make a connection between differing things, you can create a meaning.

Elmo, 11/22

2009-11-22T12:05:00.001-08:00

Something I found very interesting from class this week was that we are almost to our last theorist and a lot of the material is relating back to some of the first theorists we have learned about, it seems that we have almost traveled in a loop. Derrida’s idea of “the trace” seemed very familiar when we started discussing it in class. Derrida explains the trace by saying that within every signifier in our society is a trace of something else, something that has been left over some something else. This concept was exemplified when Dr. Roj showed us the word “shell” and then “s ell” and we still recognized it as “shell”. The trace of the “h” was leftover in our heads therefore enabling us to recognize “s ell” as “shell”. This is very similar with what we had learned at the beginning of the year with Barthes and Macherey’s ideas of rupture or the gap. They say we make meaning out of the gap by filling in what’s missing, similar to what we did in the “shell” example. Something else that Derrida talked about that seemed familiar was “logocentrism”. Logocentrism means being central around words, basically that everything in our society revolves around words and how we need words in order to make meaning. This concept relates to DeSaussure and his ideas about how words and their meanings help us to make meaning out of our lives and help us to better understand, without words we wouldn’t be able to know about or explain much of anything. Another relation I found was when Derrida said “there never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name” (140). I saw that this concept closely relates to the one of Adorno’s idea of sameness. Adorno says that everything today is the same and this is what Derrida is touching upon in his quote. It’s really cool to me that though all of these theorists are vastly different yet they still all have some similar ideas to relate upon.

Daisy, 11/22

2009-11-22T10:06:00.000-08:00

It is amazing how we are able to see the glimpse of a logo or a word missing a few letters and able to fill in the missing information. We can tell exactly what the logo stands for and exactly what the word says. Derrida calls the process of filling in information based on prior knowledge, the trace. The trace is like Barthes idea of the gap, created by the writers and interpreted by the readers.
The trace is made possible by our previous knowledge. Derrida built on this idea of using previous knowledge by indicating that every signifier in our culture has traces of others. We can see this by how we use what we already know to fill in the missing gap, without the previous knowledge we would not be able to understand. In class, the dictionary exercise was a perfect example of the signification of words containing connections to hundreds of other words. To be able to understand the definition of one word, you have to know the definition of many. Derrida called this the “metaphysics of presence,” the possibility that every word has the potential to represent every other word. There is no unique word, because every word signifies something else, making it not unique.
So I am back to my pre-class blog question, was Derrida trying to tell us there is difference in language? I would have to say yes and no. While he did indicate that there are many different significations for words, like de Saussure, he indicated that all words are related. The only way for all words to be related is to have elements of sameness. Using previous knowledge, we can recognize sameness among things within our culture and create interpretations. This idea caused me to think of the theorist Jameson and his quote, “depth is replaced by surface.” As individuals we don’t have to know about something to recognize it; we only have to know of it.

Mongoose, 11/ 19

2009-11-22T09:11:00.000-08:00

When I first read this unreadable (from an understanding standpoint) essay from Derrida I really did not take anything away from it. I tried to make some connections between his writing and the quotes from Barthes about the arbitrary – ness of language as well as trying to connect it to Macherey and his topic of looking at what is not present in words in order to study what is present. While these may not have been great connections, they were the best I could do when it comes to the difference between difference and differance. However, after we further delved into the topic in class, I feel that I may have a little better grasp on the topic, or at least some other connections can be drawn now.
One of these connections comes from Derrida’s concept of the trace; by the trace he means: “– the filling in of missing things based on what we’ve seen or heard before;” this sounds familiar? It should because it is basically the same idea as BArthes’ concept of tmesis. Barthes was referring to the gaps which we are able to fill in in words because we have heard it so many times that it sounds natural to fill in. we used the example ‘abso- f-ing-lutely’, we are able to fill in the gap because we know what falls into its place.
The other topic from clas which really caught my attention was Derrida’s quote “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name.” (140) what he means by this is that every words can be drawn back to any other word. All words end up connecting to each other through definitions and explanations. This concept also applies to advertisements, tv shows and movies; when we watch a movie, it happens quite often that we are able to predict the ending or outcome of a situation because we have seen so many other instances with the same predictable outcome.

graham, derrida

2009-11-20T18:41:00.000-08:00

I found the Derrida reading very dense, and I had a difficult time getting through it. However, I believe that he was attempting to discuss difference and the way that there are many differences in language and the way that people interpret it. This relates to De Saussure. It reminded me of when Dr. Casey showed us the word ghoti, and asked us what it meant. No one knew, but it made perfect sense when he told us that it said “fish”. If you sound out ghoti, it does sound the same, but we did not look at it that way, because we are so used to the way that we see the words spelled in society. Derrida really focuses on language and words, and how they are able to function. There was one quote that really helped me to understand his main concept… “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name.” We give words meanings, and society chooses to accept these meanings. However, it seems weird to me that the same words have the possibility of having multiple meanings. Did we run out of letters to put together to form new words? Why would we have the same spelling for different meanings? This gets confusing. Also, the context of words is extremely necessary to know, because although the words may sound the same, they can be spelled differently (for example, sun and son). Language is something that is very difficult to understand because of all these differences and similarities. Even in the dictionary there are multiple meanings for the same words. Culture normalizes language, and that is the only reason why we accept the fact that it is so confusing. Something I thought was interesting as I was reading this is that people communicate with one another in an attempt to say the same things. However, there are multiple languages that exist in the world today. This only creates more differences, and as we all know if we have taken a foreign language, it can be very hard to learn other languages and understand what others are saying. The bottom line, and the main point that Derrida and De Saussure are making, is that there are always going to be differences no matter how intelligent you are, where you live, or what language you speak. This is because “in language, there are only diffrences.”

graham, 11/15

2009-11-20T18:13:00.001-08:00

I thought that the Bordeau reading was fairly interesting, but the Power Point that was shown in class really helped me to understand it a lot more clearly. I think the main focus was that similar to Althusser because a similarity in both readings was ideology. In this weeks reading, the ideology that we follow seems to be what the those on television are telling us. I also found it similar to Marx, because he says “he who has gold, rules!” And in this case, I believe those on television are ‘those with gold’ and power. Therefore, they are able to tell us what to do, and we give them power, allowing them to “rule”. Bordeau discusses the fact that television hosts, news anchors, and sports announcers “have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems’”. This means that since they have the power of television (which Bordeau mentions is crucial in having an influence in society) that they are able to influence individual’s way of thinking and feeling, because we tend to relate to those we see on television even if they are not in the same social class as us. Since we relate to them, we tend to assume that we have the same viewpoints in life, therefore we do not find out for ourselves, we just agree with them. He even discusses the fact that we believe these individuals to be intelligent and worthy of respect, despite the fact that we are not able to determine how smart and worldly they are by how well they read a teleprompter. Because they get the opportunity to “speak” to the country, we feel that they are superior to mainstream society, and therefore we must treat them accordingly. Someone gave the example of Oprah, and the way that she is extremely wealthy and powerful in society. She is now getting her own channel, because people love and respect her so much that a television show that comes on once a day was no longer enough. He also mentions that although many people read the printed press, news does not really become as big of a deal until the television stations get a hold of it and begin to air the story. Even if the story is not something that is a huge deal, many people will become very interested once television stations pay attention to the story and deem it important. We rely a lot on what we see on tv. I have to assume that it is because people are getting too lazy to do the research themselves, and therefore the television is the next most reliable source. When I did the reading I understood that he was discussing television and news, but I was honestly unsure of where he was going with it. I found Tuesday’s class to be very beneficial and informative.

FloRida, Derrida

2009-11-18T16:55:00.001-08:00

Reading Derrida made me think about the ideas of “difference” and “difference,” things I had never thought about before. Derrida’s ideas relate to many theorists that we have studied so far in CMC 300. He connects language to signs to the normalization of language. “Within a language, within the system of language there are only differences. A taxonomic operation can accordingly undertake its systematic, statistical, and classificatory inventory, But, on the one hand, these differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language and speech” (127). Derrida’s ideas really relates to what our class has previously learned from De Saussure about signs and language. Language is different for everyone. Words and signs mean different things in every culture. Derrida connects to De Saussure through the idea that “language is a set of interdependent terms that derive their meanings from the simultaneous presence of other terms.” Terms used only represent their true meanings when they are placed next to other terms because, “in language there are only differences.” No two things are the same. We think that people with other languages or cultures are different, making this language of differences normal. “Difference” cannot be defined because it does not mean the same thing to each person. Derrida says that the notion of “difference” was produced. Our culture normalizes something that is at first “different.” This relates to Lyotard’s ideas avant guarde. We first think something is “weird” or “different” but once it is masses produces, we consider it to be normal and part of our culture and society. Language is a very powerful within a society and I believe that he is trying to prove this. Derrida helps me grasp the change of language and what and why “differences” occur.

Ron Burgundy. Derrida

2009-11-18T16:47:00.000-08:00

I found this week's reading from Derrida extremely difficult to grasp. It seems that attempts to encompass several theorists ideas as he goes about his writing, in a way to show the irony of language and signs. One of his main ideas in the article stems from the word differance that he creates. This "differance" is a hard thing to grasp because as Derrida states it is "neither a word or a concept". He explains how difficult it is in speech to accentuate that he is saying differance versus difference because of the unavailability to see it and therefore understand the difference (ironic) between the two. Derrida explains how the simple changing of a letter of the word difference changes its signification even though phonetically it seems to be the same thing. This concept takes us back to De Saussre and his theories on the language, specifically the sign, signifier, and signified. Because Derrida's "differance" is not a word or a concept perhaps we could refer to it as a "sign" that he himself applies meaning to and therefore creates a signifier and the signified. "Differance" did not exist until Derrida brought it into existence and had no meaning until Derrida applied a specific meaning to it. The simple act of switching the "e" to an "a" signifies, in the English language, that there is some sort of reason behind the spelling and therefore a different meaning to the word. It is interesting in order to better understand difference that Derrida would create a difference, from the "e" to the "a" in order to better explore the concepts behind the single word "difference".

DoubleBubble, Derrida

2009-11-18T16:23:00.001-08:00

Derrida explains the concept of Difference. He emphasizes that meaning is not in the signifier itself, but that it only exists within our networks with a relation to other things. Derrida relates this concept to deSaussure and his concept of the relationship between the signifier and the signified. This relationship is arbitrary and showed that signs only mean in relation to each other. Within this article, Derrida quotes deSaussure, “Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms” (127). Here Derrida emphasizes this whole idea about how the meaning behind something is not within the signifier but instead within this idea of network and the relations to other things within these networks.

Différance comes before being. This throws the idea of "origin," of true original meaning, into radical question. Derrida begins to discuss the idea of origin of something, there is nothing that has it’s own identity. This idea that Derrida discusses goes into further detail of what deSaussure had already discussed. Anything within society is itself; it depends on other things in order to explain itself. Nothing stands outside the system of differences.

Derrida then begins to combine the sense of difference as time and also as space. He does this in order to make a point of how the ideas of presence or being that our Western Culture has been focusing around are actually not so trustworthy. Within a sign the meaning is actually not there and instead signs are referring to another sign and how this idea has made us grasp the idea of speech over writing through the idea of presence as trustworthy. The shaky grounds of understanding presence as our being relates to the idea of self-presence, which is consciousness.

Ace Ventura, Derrida

2009-11-18T15:04:00.000-08:00

Derrida's discussion of differ, difference, and differance was very confusing but maybe simple at the same time if I understood it correctly. To me, it seems as though he was saying even though differing represents an inequality and distinction, there is still a relationship there that must be represented between two words or meanings. This reminded me of the langue and parole, all the words there are to choose from, and the one word we actually choose to represent the meaning that we are trying to convey. Words or signs are not only given meaning by what they are, but their meaning is also created by everything they are not. This is the case with difference and differance. Their meanings can be vastly different but it is only shown by the change of one later "a" and "e". Derrida also seemed similar to Baudrillard's idea of simulacra. A word or sign that is different from another still simulates another meaning by showing what it is not. For example, the color white can also simulate the idea of the color black because they are considered to be opposites. This negative correlation is very important when considering individual interpretations of signs. White and black are very readily identifiable as opposites, but other more ambiguous signs could have many opposites when they are being considered by different people. So recognizing that differing creates a relationship between two or more things gives depth to it's meaning(s). Rather than only looking at a signs superficial interpretation (Jameson), that is only seeing it for what it is on the surface, the difference gives a deeper meaning by representing all the things it is not or can not be.

Daisy, Derrida

2009-11-18T13:53:00.001-08:00

Reading Derrida was difficult due to the fact that he dwells on ideas we discussed in the beginning of the semester, such as difference. Derrida is concerned at looking into words and what makes them function. Difference allows the words to function and be set apart from each other. The signification of a word is made-up of all the things that it is not. For example, the word dog is able to create a meaning due to how it differs from other objects.
Derrida, a French philosopher, talked about the term differance with an –a. This is a French term, which means both to defer and to differ. To Derrida, this word then has two significations, “in the one case, ‘to differ’ signifies nonidentity; in the other case it signifies the order of the same” (120). Putting an –a in place of an –e, makes the word different, and it coincides better with being different.
While Derrida puts an –a in place of an –e, it still looks the same, so when I viewed it I immediately thought of the word difference. The missing –e did not change my interpretation of the word. So to me, difference and differance represent sameness to me. So was Derrida trying to be different by adding the –a, or was he showing us that there really isn’t difference.
This made me think of Adorno and his idea of sameness. One the outside, things look different to us, like the word differance might look to some people, but going back to the origin of the word is sameness. A word as a signifier causes many different significations, but the “epoch” or origin of the word is the same. Like Saussure talked about, language is about difference. The connection and significations between the person and referent is arbitrary, however, the origin of the referent is the same for everyone. I’m looking forward to class tomorrow to help get rid of some of my confusion.

Elmo, Derrida

2009-11-18T13:38:00.001-08:00

Before reading Derrida I hadn’t really thought about or even know about the distinction between difference and differance. Derrida explains the distinction between the two by saying that, “in this sense, the Latin differre is not the simple translation of the Greek diapherein; this fact will not be without consequence for us in tying our discussion to a particular language, one that passes for being less philosophical, less primordially philosophical, than the other…The other sense of ‘to differ’ [differer] is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, etc. And in ‘differents,’ whether referring to the alterity of dissimilarity or the alterity of allergy or of polemics, it is necessary that interval, distance, spacing occur among the different elements and occur actively, dynamically, and with a certain perseverance in repetition” (124-125). I still am not sure exactly what the contrast is between these two words is but I do know that they both signify something different. Similar to previous theorists such as DeSaussure, Barthes, and Macherey, Derrida touches on how difference and differance don’t have the same meaning and can signify distinctive things. This relates to the previous theorists we have studied because they all talk about how things have multiple meanings and can mean different things to different people. Now I am thinking about how perhaps that when I’ve read things in the past I have probably completely looked over these two words and never thought of the multiple meanings. I am still a little confused by the Derrida reading but I am excited to hear other peoples thoughts and what they got out of the reading, and also, of course, to hear Dr. Roj’s take on it all. However, I am glad that I now DO know more about the difference between differance and difference.

Mongoose, Derrida

2009-11-18T13:21:00.001-08:00

When I first began reading this essay by Derrida I immediately began thinking about DeSaussure and his theory that in language there are only differences; this only seemed to make sense because Derrida was talking about language and the word ‘difference’, or was it ‘difference’ – I see no difference. However, as Derrida continued on in his writing he began elaborating on the ‘difference’ that one letter can make within the spelling of a word; the alteration of one letter can change the entire meaning of the word and context to which it would be used. After reading these parts my thoughts began to travel toward another theorist, Barthes, who spoke about the arbitrary-ness of language. His thoughts were that words and letters really have no specific meaning, we have given them meaning throughout our development of language and some words have distinctly different meanings from one language to the next. This concept is what I thought of when looking at the difference between difference and difference – is there really a noticeable a difference between the upon looking at the word? No – not in the literal sense but because we have applied cultural meanings to words, now even such a subtle difference in language changes everything.
Another topic of Derrida’s that caught my attention was his view of signs; he said that “signs represent the present in its absent (125).” I took this to mean that when we cannot have the thing which we are trying to represent present, we find a replacement for it. For example: a billboard advertising for a new concert coming to town obviously can not have the band or singer standing in front of the sign for a couple weeks, but placing an image of them on a billboard is replacing their absence because they can not be there. I also related this back to Macherey when he said that in order to understand anything, we must understand what is not said – in this case we are understanding that the sign is a replacement for what is not really there.

Teets, Derrida

2009-11-18T13:14:00.001-08:00

Jacques Derrida was extremely difficult to comprehend at first, but I feel like I was able to grab what he was getting at. He starts off by saying that difference “Indicates distinction, inequality, discernibility; on the other hand it expresses the interposition of delay, the interval of a spacing and temporalizing that puts off until later what is presently denied, the possible that is presently impossible” (120). Difference deals with the present in relation to the past. For example, going back to your kindergarten playground now would change the way you looked at it many years ago. When you were younger, the playground in its’ then present state seemed huge and full of adventure. Reflecting back on that, you realize it was just an ordinary playground. The difference occurs due to a deferral in time, or more simply the passing of time.

“Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences” (127).

Any new concept that is created must be explained by comparing it to a previous concept. This is where we understand the differences between the two. However, differance is neither a word nor a concept. I’m not sure I totally understood what Derridas meant by the term differance, because he described it in so many ambiguous ways. I think the point he is trying to drive home is that differance is just a fancy way of spelling difference. He created a concept to show how powerful language can truly be. He says that differance is the closure of presence, which to me is confusing. I think he is noting de Saussure to give credence to the power of language. He cleverly used the words difference and differance to trick people into thinking there was in fact a major difference between the two.

Gwatter06, Derrida

2009-11-18T13:03:00.001-08:00

Back to the beginning it seems, Derrida was one of those difficult reads, similar to that of Lyotard and such. Derrida just seemed to be circular in his thoughts, while reading the excerpt I felt as though the theorist repetitively said the same thing over and over just in different fashions at times, creating a very dense reading. Although the reading was quite tough, I was able to somewhat grasp the gist of the author’s concepts and meanings behind the literature. Early on the reader is introduced to Derrida’s early explanation of differance and how it relates to difference and what its signification is in literature. Derrida explains, “With it’s a, differance more properly refers to what in classical language would be called the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play [jeu] of differences. Its locus and operation will therefore be seen wherever speech appeals to difference” (120). What I believe Derrida is describing here is that differance refers to the creation of difference. It is obviously not a word, but implemented in our language and understanding of language it creates what we know difference not to be, hence giving us the capacity to realize and produce difference within literature. He explains this by stating that “differance is neither a word nor concept” rather it relates to “what has been most decisively inscribed in the thought of what is conveniently called our ‘epoch’” (120). I believe that this relates to a topic that we covered early on in the course in which was attempting to signify postmodernism (what it is and what time it is from). I think that Derrida relates differance as inscribing our era, and this injection of differance, in which theorist like Nietzsche, Sussure, Freud, Levinas and Heidegger strive off of, actually relates to the era of postmodernism. Another interesting concept that I came across in the reading was Derrida’s understanding and implementation of language in our society. Derrida concurs that “Language is necessary for the spoken word to be intelligible and so that it can produce all of its effects” (130). This basically explains that without language, words would have no meaning and we would lose our comprehension in society as a whole. This closely relates to De Sausser’s notion that, “without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula.” There were many other concepts that Derrida closely relates to De Sausser, such as his explanation of the system of linguistic differences and how it applies to the signifier and the signified in which he explains that without these differences can a subject become a signifying subject. All in all Derrida was a dense read, but still a unique and intriguing one.

ESPN, Derrida

2009-11-18T12:58:00.000-08:00

Derrida’s quote on 127 “Within a language, within the system of language there are only differences. A taxonomic operation can accordingly undertake its systematic, statistical, and classificatory inventory…these differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language and speech” really stood out for me. I was able to relate Derrida’s reading to what we learned earlier in class with De Saussure (who he is speaking of) and Macherey in how they deal with language. It was a pretty hard read but from what I understood, he was talking about how for everyone and everywhere language is different. It is also completely arbitrary. For instance he states on page 115 about how "you might see a neon sign for SHELL with a faulty circuit for the S so that it reads HELL, though a similar chance occurrence might have made it read SHE or HE or S ELL. However if the word hell were to appear in china they would view it in the same way and read it with the difference that we do, although there would still be a difference as they would it deed read it differently. Signs mean different things in every culture and language. He mentions Difference is it is hard to define because what is what is different to one person is not the same as different to someone else. Also when something is first introduced it is seen as different but after it is normalized it is no longer different, so really is there such thing as difference? Or is just that something has to be different at first but once it is normalized it is not different. In his effort to explain differences he says it is then produced – differed - by difference but then the problem arises what differs who differs? I understood it over all to deal with difference of language in that it is arbitrary but also the word difference in trying to find its meaning.

HOLLA! Derrida

2009-11-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

Difference or differance…does it really matter? As I read Derrida, a very intellectual thinker at that, I honestly was confused as to the focus he had on the true relation between differance and difference. It got me thinking about De Saussure and how meaning is given to an arbitrary sign. In this case a different meaning is given to differance because of the arbitrary “a” in its context, whereas difference is given a different meaning because of the second arbitrary “e” in its context. Derrida considers in his text that differance can be seen as the “strategic note or connection—relatively or provisionally privileges—which indicates the closure of presence, together with the closure of the conceptual order and denomination, a closure that is effected in the functioning of traces” (121). I am not sure of the exact meaning of his quotation but I believe it to mean that differance is the denominator or connection of an object to its closure. Or it can mean that in language or words there are only difference or different meanings. As a whole I think Derrida is trying to explain that we are the individuals who give words meanings and in some cases different words mean different things to different individuals. Maybe this idea is what Derrida is trying to say what differance truly means. As I examine this reading more in depth it begins to confuse me more, I almost just want to skim the surface versus digging in. From going as in depth as I could, like I said above, I feel Derrida’s main point is to say that “every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribe in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by systematic play of difference” (127). I think this means, arbitrary words all being different give meaning to other arbitrary words, difference is what make these words their own giving us language as a whole. My idea or opinion or conclusion of this reading could be completely misunderstood, but these ideas and concepts are what I took away from Derrida’s text.

BiegieGo, Derrida

2009-11-18T10:34:00.000-08:00

“truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions.” Derrida is a very interesting character when it comes to difference. If truths are illusions then truth would never be seen as real. The question here should be: what is an illusion? Some would say it’s an image of something that is not real for example when you need water in the desert and you start seeing things, those are known as illusions. So in that case the truth would be false, but in Derrida’s case “thought, speech and writing all depend upon representations and the signifier.” We can relate this back to theorist DeSaussure because he also talks a lot about signifiers and what they stand for. In DeSausurre’s case a signifier stands for the word. For example, the word mug would be the signifier for the object mug that we can use to drink from which would be known as the signified and if we see a picture of a mug that would be known as a sign. Both Derrida and DeSaussure focus on the langue of something.
Derrida tells us that the “difference represents what is at issue between speech and writing.” We must look at both speech and writing to find the difference between the two because you can’t have a difference if you only look at one of the two. If there is a visible issue then we can clearly see the difference but if there is not them maybe we must look harder within the text or read between the lines to really understand it. He also says that there can be “no absolute point of origin or conclusion.” We may or may not know when things start or when they will even end if they do but we just know they’re there and we can study them. There is an “unconscious” state that blocks this absolute point or origin or conclusion.

Kiwi, Derrida

2009-11-17T11:56:00.001-08:00

One concept that really made a lot of sense to me that Derrida discussed in the reading was, Logocentrism and how logos equal words. He says that, “as human beings, we are locked into words, or name”( 115) Weather we want to believe it or not, it is true to say that our society basis’s everything off of words, names and logos. Our society determines what class an individual falls under based on the brand names and material he or she has/wears. For instance; when we see someone that wears Neiman Marcus clothes we write away make the stereotype of that individual to be wealthy and part of the higher class, where as an individual wearing clothes from Walmart we make the stereotype of he/she being a part of the lower class. This can be seen on what people wear and can also be seen in jewelry and different accessories people wear as well as what car he/she drives. For example, back at home where I live the police are known for pulling over people that drive beat up, not so nice cars. They make the stereotype obviously that these people are sketchy people and are up to no good. I think that this is horrible and is not fair! But again… they make stereotypes of these people based off of the car they are driving.

Althusser says that, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness” (Altuhsser) This connects to Derrida in how we make stereotypes of human’s and we are locked into words in name that we give them. This is because our society goes by certain ideologies. Even though we may not know why we follow them we continue to, because we do not know any better. As Lyotard would say, “we are living in a world of metanarratives.” He says that we all go by certain beliefs and values of how to live our lives.

I thought that this reading was different in how Derrida got across his message from any other reading we have had this year I think that Derrida can be connected to a lot of theorists we have learned and I look forward to class on Thursday to talk about Derrida and see how other people approached him and who they may have connected him to.