Capri Sun, All Semester Blogs

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.