In class on Tuesday, we discussed quotes by Althusser, one that stuck out particularly to me was “the author and the reader…both live…’naturally’ in ideology”(46). The idea behind this quote is that ideology has become normalized within our society, and most of the time we do not realize it. Even the ruling class has to follow their own rules, because it is the job of the dominant class. Like Marx and Engels said the dominant class must “present its interests as the common interest of all the members of society,” “it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones” (40). So the ruling class would be contradicting themselves if they did not follow their own rules and this would cause members of society to rise up against them.
Althusser also said “those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology” (48). I related this quote to the idea of Hebdige’s subculture. We talked about Hebdige in class on Tuesday and the idea that subcultures know what the hegemony is, but purposefully go against it. Hebdige sees hegemony as the dominant value held by society, the ideology. Subcultures relate to Althusser’s quote because even though members in society who are associating themselves with anti-hegemonic practices, are still functioning within ideology. For someone to go against the dominant hegemonic idea within a culture, they must recognize the idea and attempt to do something different. However, the whole time individuals are trying to be different they are essentially functioning under an American ideology that difference is good. In fact the anti-hegemonic cultures bring capital to our economy and allow new products to be marketed. This happens because eventually, the counter-hegemonic ideas get normalized into our culture. Then the individuals must work even harder to try to do something different. While it is possible to do things differently, it seems hard to be able to escape ideology.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Kiwi, 10/31
This week in class we talked about Horkheimer and Adorno and how they make the point that, “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” We discussed how if you arn’t part of the same group you become a threat to the hegemonic cultures and how media is infecting our culture. For example I thought it was very interesting how we talked about Polos in class and how they are all pretty much the same exact thing except for the little icon that is in the corner. Depending on what the icon is in the corner weather it be a dog, cat, ship, gator all depends on how you will be judged by others. Money becomes a huge factor in our society and I think it is very sad how we make stereotypes of people based off of their clothing and how much his or her shirt costs. I also think that it is sad how materialistic our society has become. For example, my little cousin got a shirt for her birthday and when she opened it she looked at it and told her mom that it was ugly and she didn’t want it. Her mom told her to try it on and she refused to. After her mom told her that it was juicy couture, she right away changed her mind and said… “it is?!?!, o well I think its actually kind of cute I want to try it on” I was blown away by this and could not believe how fast she changed her mind when she found out that it was “Juicy Couture” again this is how our society makes stereotypes about certain clothes and I think that it is ridiculous how the media is already starting to hit kids at age 9.
Just the other day my friend gave me a compliment on my dress and I told her I got it at Target for $15 she was shocked and told me she hated me because she has the same exact dress from Juicy Couture except she paid $200 for it. This just shows that really, every product is the same thing; it is just presented in a different way. And the way it is presented is why we buy it. We find ourselves in the product.
“The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power” (47). Style is becoming an ISA and if you have style it is likely you are in the ruling class and this is certainly how our society makes stereotypes about people. Its all about money and material and whats the “cool” thing to be wearing or to buy.
Just the other day my friend gave me a compliment on my dress and I told her I got it at Target for $15 she was shocked and told me she hated me because she has the same exact dress from Juicy Couture except she paid $200 for it. This just shows that really, every product is the same thing; it is just presented in a different way. And the way it is presented is why we buy it. We find ourselves in the product.
“The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power” (47). Style is becoming an ISA and if you have style it is likely you are in the ruling class and this is certainly how our society makes stereotypes about people. Its all about money and material and whats the “cool” thing to be wearing or to buy.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Capri Sun, 10/29
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Nate Dogg, Horkheimer and Adorno
"The liquidation of tragedy confirms the abolition of the individual." (63) I think this quote ties in with what we learned reading Zizek. Our own creations and obsession with entertainment has done away with the notion of tragedy, while at the same time alienating people from themselves. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which claimed the lives of 230,000 people and continues to affect the populations of India and Thailand has been largely forgotten by the mass public of the United States. Why did it not receive more television coverage? How much more death and destruction was caused by this than the damage done by Hurricane Katrina? We do not view tragedy the same way people used to perceive tragedy. Horkheimer and Adorno discuss how "tragedy has been dissipated in the void of the false identity of society and subject", which is related to what we've been talking about with ideology in the past few classes. Our identity is entirely decided by the ideologies that surround us. Since ideology is not real, only a projection of what we believe, what does that say about our identities? The natural human response to a tragedy is sorrow, sadness or empathy, but we do not feel enough lasting sadness for the people who died in the tsunami to remember what date it happened. Without tragedy, we lose our individuality. If we only care about something because our brains have been taught to do so, then none of that sorrow or sadness is genuine, it's all made up. Media has de-sensitized people to the real world while promoting and pushing existence in a false world. That's the real tragedy.
Captain Planet, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Adorno make a lot of interesting comments throughout the article titled, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The first is, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (41). This quote is saying that culture is inflecting us with ‘sameness.’ Like the concept of media convergence, where film, radio, and magazines are all interconnected. A character from a film is used as the subject in an advertisement that shows up in a magazine and is then announced on the radio. We get the same thing from all directions. I think that the second part of this quote is talking about the subcultures within our culture. Each subculture is unanimous, or undivided, within itself, and furthermore, every subculture in undivided from another. This sameness that we all see from the media creates this system within and between subcultures. Because all subcultures are undivided from each other, they follow the dominant culture. By seeing the same things in film, magazines, and radio, every subculture is exposed to the same media. The dominant hegemonic culture infiltrates into every division of our culture. This idea that no subculture is completely separate from the next relates to Lyotard’s idea of the avant-garde. In which, nothing new can be created. Even if a subculture starts a new trend it can never stay new, because of the ideology that works on our culture. The subculture is subjected to the dominant class and the ideologies that are constantly at work. The media is the outlet by which these ideologies reach our culture and influence subcultures.
Bubbles- Horkheimer and Adorno
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer take a bleak, criticizing eye towards culture, society, and individuality in “Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” The authors assert that culture has become mass produced, and standardized by what they call, the “cultural industry.” Under their beliefs, the term individualism is no less a creation of the cultural industry, those powerful enough to control society economically and ideologically, than is the standardization of society.
We think what we are taught by our mass-culture to think. While this may seem like an austere look at our own culture, perhaps the authors are correct in asserting that, “personality means hardly more than dazzling white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions” (71). In a culture, obsessive over brand names, exuberant displays of wealth, and outward beauty, would it be farfetched to then say that we have become not only assimilated, but also forced to conform to some universal culture dictated by the elite who persistently barrage us with these lavish images? The images we see, music we hear, and advertisements we hear are not much different from any other widespread propaganda; they are first, formed, edited, and reshaped by big businesses to perform a certain task before transmitted to the masses. That is to say, in fields, like the entertainment industry where creativity and individuality are often touted as the idealistic qualities of an artist, the only possible way to still succeed is, if one is not too obstinate about one’s own concerns, and proves appropriately pliable. Even our cultural originators, are first forced to fit the mold that the cultural industry wants them to fit. No object in our media, no idea, no work, is able to be put into mass-circulation along the society without first getting the stamp of the cultural dictators that are big businesses. Adorno and Horkheimer actually reveal a horrifying truth about American culture, “the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest” (1). American culture has in many ways fallen victim to a monotonous set of beliefs propagated by those wealthy enough to circulate it under the cloak of originality, and received by mass society, which has proved blind enough to not see the truth.
We think what we are taught by our mass-culture to think. While this may seem like an austere look at our own culture, perhaps the authors are correct in asserting that, “personality means hardly more than dazzling white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions” (71). In a culture, obsessive over brand names, exuberant displays of wealth, and outward beauty, would it be farfetched to then say that we have become not only assimilated, but also forced to conform to some universal culture dictated by the elite who persistently barrage us with these lavish images? The images we see, music we hear, and advertisements we hear are not much different from any other widespread propaganda; they are first, formed, edited, and reshaped by big businesses to perform a certain task before transmitted to the masses. That is to say, in fields, like the entertainment industry where creativity and individuality are often touted as the idealistic qualities of an artist, the only possible way to still succeed is, if one is not too obstinate about one’s own concerns, and proves appropriately pliable. Even our cultural originators, are first forced to fit the mold that the cultural industry wants them to fit. No object in our media, no idea, no work, is able to be put into mass-circulation along the society without first getting the stamp of the cultural dictators that are big businesses. Adorno and Horkheimer actually reveal a horrifying truth about American culture, “the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest” (1). American culture has in many ways fallen victim to a monotonous set of beliefs propagated by those wealthy enough to circulate it under the cloak of originality, and received by mass society, which has proved blind enough to not see the truth.
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.
The main them of the writing of Horkmeier and Adorno has to be “sameness”, “Culture is infecting everything with sameness” (41); by sameness they are referring to the lack of difference between what is on the radio, television, commercials, ads etc. All of these outlets are owned and run by the same elite group of individuals who use these medium to perpetuate their ideological views down to the masses. The ideology and other ideas that we see through the media are no accident, it is a conscious effort to influence the viewers; Horkmeier and Adorno say: “Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce” (42). I think one way that we see this sameness in media is through advertisements; while I was driving the other day I heard a commercial that sounded very familiar to me, even though I always change the station when commercials come on, and realized it was the same thing as the television advertisement for the same car dealership. This just shows their point that all outlets of media are owned by the same few elitists and thus we are getting the same opinions and views through just about every medium of production. There are several of our past theorists whose ideas tie in quite well with this writing, the most obvious of which is Althusser and his idea that everything we do is based on some sort of ideological influence as well as his belief that both the author and reader are engulfed by ideology, in this case the ‘author’ would be the producer or screen writer in media outlets. The author is the one who chooses to perpetuate the ideological views and the reader, or viewer, is the one who is constantly bombarded with it and thus lives within ideology.
FloRida, Horkheimer/Adorno
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (41). Horkheimer and Adorno make remarkable statements in order to explain how the concentrated mass media is and how the control is in the hands of few individuals. Mass media is identified through TV, film, and radio (in this article). The idea of ‘sameness’ is a major focal point that the authors address. Our society looks at ideas, cultures, and ways of life to combine and create a finished product that will be successful to the masses. All stores, television shows, movies, posters, and media as a whole all provide the same or similar concepts or visuals to get us to believe that this how something should be or look. Media involves a lot of “supposed to.” Horkheimer and Adorno remark that, “for the consumer there is nothing left to classify, since the classification has already been preempted by the schematism of production” (44). The ideas behind all of Horkheimer and Adorno’s definitely coincide with what our CMC300 class is currently studying. Ideology formulates all our thought, feelings, and actions (sometimes without us evening realizing it) and connects very strongly with this idea of sameness and its link to society’s belief in the media. Somehow we all know and use the same actions within the same scenarios. As discussed in our lecture of Hebdige, we all raise our hand and wait to be called and we all go to class because in our minds we assume that not going will come with some sort of punishment. The ideas and notions that are ingrained within us connect why we as a culture would view something as cool or un-cool, good or bad. Horkheimer and Adorno are interconnected with these ideas when they state that “freedom to choose an ideology, which always reflects economic coercion, everywhere proves to be freedom to be the same…the choice of words in conversation, indeed, the whole inner life compartmentalized according to the categories of vulgarized depth psychology, bears witness to the attempt to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success, and apparatus which, even in its unconscious impulses, conforms to the model presented by the culture industry” (71).
ESPN, Horkheimer and Adorno
“Films and Radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce.” I found this quote to be very true. It seems it used to be about the beauty of the film or music however, it now it is okay to produce anything as long as it is making them money. Making money is used as an excuse to produce horrible material. Furthermore, it creates a vision that is harder to pick out the true artist from the less talented one, all that matters is money, if it is making money it is okay however it is at the cost of true art.
It also supports the author’s point that our culture is becoming one of inflicting sameness. The trash is unanimous even though the “artists” are different. The sameness is understood to be the fact that there are so many different kinds of people in our society, yet we are still all the same in that we are at the mercy of the media giants all that matter is what gets them the best profit. The ideology that the authors use to legitimize the trash they produce is similar to Althusser when he talks about how the ruling class having power over society. They have used society in a way that makes it okay to no long have true art from film and radio. Additionally, like Althusser states it is uncurious.
In still referring the sameness the authors demonstrate, that is has now gotten to a point where “everything is so tightly clustered that the concentration of intellect reaches a level where it overflows the demarcation between company and technical sector.” Moreover, they have been made this way so that no one can escape. If I understand right, everyone is dependent on someone else and it is all intertwined and directly affect society. The example is given where film depend on banks or the broadcasting company on the electrical company. The companies themselves do not matter and since so many are similar it really doesn’t matter all that matters is who is making the most money and how there are intertwined with each other.
It also supports the author’s point that our culture is becoming one of inflicting sameness. The trash is unanimous even though the “artists” are different. The sameness is understood to be the fact that there are so many different kinds of people in our society, yet we are still all the same in that we are at the mercy of the media giants all that matter is what gets them the best profit. The ideology that the authors use to legitimize the trash they produce is similar to Althusser when he talks about how the ruling class having power over society. They have used society in a way that makes it okay to no long have true art from film and radio. Additionally, like Althusser states it is uncurious.
In still referring the sameness the authors demonstrate, that is has now gotten to a point where “everything is so tightly clustered that the concentration of intellect reaches a level where it overflows the demarcation between company and technical sector.” Moreover, they have been made this way so that no one can escape. If I understand right, everyone is dependent on someone else and it is all intertwined and directly affect society. The example is given where film depend on banks or the broadcasting company on the electrical company. The companies themselves do not matter and since so many are similar it really doesn’t matter all that matters is who is making the most money and how there are intertwined with each other.
Gwatter06, Horkheimer and Adorno
The reading excerpt by Horkheimer and Adorno was fairly dense and packed with an abundance of information. Even though it was quite the read, I feel as though it was fairly comprehensible and I was able to link what these authors were discussing with multiple concepts and theorists that we’ve been recently covering. The first intriguing concept that I came across in the reading was quoted in saying, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (41). The last part of that quote I thought said the most, that each “branch of culture is unanimous.” I believe that the authors are explaining that subcultures do exist within our societal structure but become single minded and conform to the system after others latch onto to the characteristics of those subcultures. This then in turn creates all subcultures within the system to be single minded or unanimous together. This closely relates to Hebdige’s concept of the recuperation of the sub-culture in where as he explains that subcultural signs become mass-produced and lose its entities of originality and authenticism. Hebdige was quoted in saying, “as soon as the original innovations which signify subculture are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen.” I believe this directly exemplifies Horkheimer and Adorno’s notion of subcultures being unanimous. I was also able to notice the relation of this concept to Lyotards understanding of Avant-Gardism as “dead.” Lyotard explains that once something becomes avant-garde, something tries to replicate or follow this new idea and in turn kills it. The next intriguing concept that I came across in the excerpt was their notion of culture industry and it’s significance. The authors explained that, “for the present the technology of the culture industry confines itself to standardization and mass production and sacrifices what once distinguished the logic of the work from that of society” (42). This relates to Althusser’s notion of state apparatuses, as the authors explain that “any need which might escape the central control is repressed by that of individual consciousness” (42). This directly relates to Althusser’s ideological state apparatus as the authors link society repressed consciousness to central conformity relinquishing power to those controlling the economy. This leaves us to question whether or not hegemonic ideology is escapable in any aspect of society, if at every turn the ability to deviate from conformity is counteracted by societies consistent characteristics.
Teets, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Adorno offer compelling critiques of the role mass media plays in our society. They posit the notion of sameness, which I agree with completely. “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together.” (41) The reason everything is becoming so similar is because of media conglomerates. Conglomerates such as Disney can perpetuate their ideas through all sorts of mediums. This is what Marx and Althusser discuss in their pieces regarding Ideology. The ruling class has the power to broadcast belief systems of all sorts to the rest of society. In controlling society the ruling class obviously controls the culture of society.
Horkheimer and Adorno argue that mass media cares more about profits than the material it puts out. Sameness could apply here as well. TV shows, movies, songs, etc, all seek to become popular by making people “connect” with it in some way.
“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)
The most disturbing aspect of this “filter” is how we get most of our entertainment from the media now. Rather than entertaining ourselves or having friends amuse us, we can use forms of media to fulfill our entertainment needs. “This is already evident in the fact that amusement is no experienced only in facsimile…” (56) Life has become more about the media and less about personal relationships. Simply put, society has become more private. The “filter” causes people to lose their sense of reality. Movies and TV shows are now confused with reality because they are such a huge part of our culture. Culture itself has become a commodity. As I mentioned before, the media is more about profit than material these days. Due to this fact, consumers blindly follow the lead of the ruling class media conglomerates.
Horkheimer and Adorno argue that mass media cares more about profits than the material it puts out. Sameness could apply here as well. TV shows, movies, songs, etc, all seek to become popular by making people “connect” with it in some way.
“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)
The most disturbing aspect of this “filter” is how we get most of our entertainment from the media now. Rather than entertaining ourselves or having friends amuse us, we can use forms of media to fulfill our entertainment needs. “This is already evident in the fact that amusement is no experienced only in facsimile…” (56) Life has become more about the media and less about personal relationships. Simply put, society has become more private. The “filter” causes people to lose their sense of reality. Movies and TV shows are now confused with reality because they are such a huge part of our culture. Culture itself has become a commodity. As I mentioned before, the media is more about profit than material these days. Due to this fact, consumers blindly follow the lead of the ruling class media conglomerates.
Ace Venture, Hebdige
As we have been talking about the idea of hegemony as dominant ideas created by a ruling class that are accepted by the majority either, forcefully or naturally, it raises the question; if society is aware that the ruling class creates and forces these dominant ideas, why do we accept them? Hebdige touches on this idea saying, "Gramsci adds the important proviso that hegemonic power, precisely because it requires the consent of the dominated majority, can never be permanently exercised by the same alliance of 'class fractions'" (p.151). He adds that these dominant ideologies can be fractured, challenged and overruled. Such are the examples that we have seen in history with the overthrowing of dominant powers such as Hitler or the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. to challenge the ideas that were in place about race and equality. The idea of challenging, fracturing or overruling these ideologies often comes along with a strong movement like we see in these historical examples. This relates to Barthes idea of tmesis or the act of inserting something violently and changing history. Just as the ruling class may have to use force to get the majority to accept their ideology, the majority may have to use force to get the ruling class to accept their change. By inserting these new ideas that are in opposition to the current ideologies into the minds of the public, people like Martin Luther King Jr. change history. And these changes often demand the use of force because the public is currently stuck in the state of the Repressive or Ideological Apparatus (or both)that instills the ruling class ideology.
Ron Burgundy, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Adorno's piece discussing the culture industry exposed some very interesting critiques of mass media today. In the first couple of pages, the authors make striking comments as they explain how the concentration of the mass media in the hands of few is really demonstrated through the content of film, TV, and radio. They explain how the fabricated structures of these programs are no longer being concealed but instead exposed for all to see. In this way, “film and radio no longer need to present themselves as art.... the truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimate the trash that they intentionally produce” (42). Although it is a bold statement to say that our media companies do not care about what type of content they are producing for the masses as long as the buck is earned, I completely agree with this statement. I feel that many times with trash programming or awful reality TV shows the broadcasters themselves push the boundaries not keeping in mind the idea of maintaining a healthy public sphere but instead getting viewers, and thereby increasing profits. In my course, Political Economy of the Media, we learned the two main models of the media industry that run the policies, etc. The models were the public sphere model, which serves the best interest of the people by promoting citizenship and has a mix of diverse programming, and the market model which relies solely on profit to determine media policy and content. In the course we have studied that currently our media industry follows the market model much closely than the other which is leading us to monopolies that offer limited, and often poor, programming options. Horkheimer and Adorno seem to agree with this and continually criticize the media industry for this as they see a danger as the media is concentrated into the hands of the dominant class. When this occurs, they are able to practice hegemony, a concept explained by both Marx and Althusser, perpetuating the ideas that benefit them the most onto the lower social classes.
Daisy, Horkheimer and Adorno
The reading “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno was quite heavy and packed with information. Although among some of the packed sentences, I found many quotes that go along with the ideas we have been talking about along the way. The first quote had to do with the idea that the dominant class is the thinkers and producers and the rest of society is consumers. Horkheimer and Adorno said, “for the consumer there is nothing left to classify, since the classification has already been preempted by the schematism of production” (44). I think this relates back to Benjamin and his idea that the public has been conditioned to want to see something they already know, something they are familiar with. We have been taught to accept anything that is presented to us, but only if we have seen it before and it doesn’t deviate from what we already know. Although as a society we want everything that is “new,” it is debated whether the new is really new. Lyotard talked about the idea of bricolage and how everything new is just the old put together in some new way. The same ideologies are functioning within the new, but since it is marketed as “new,” and it is similar to what we already know, we buy into it.
Another common idea that I pulled out of the reading had to do with what we talked about last class, subcultures. Hebdige’s idea of the subcultures are that they go against the hegemonic ideals held by society, and the way society deals with the anti-hegemonic ideals are to incorporate them. Horkheimer and Adorno said, “anyone who resists can survive only to be incorporated” (48). Lyotard believes that you no longer can be avant-garde because, once you do, everyone will follow. But I also think, like Horkheimer and Adorno indicated in their article, society makes it impossible to survive unless you are creating something that fits within the dominant ideology and is accepted by the majority. The way ideology functions within society causes us to follow the dominant ideologies to survive because, “disconnected from the mainstream, he is easily convicted inadequate” (50). No one wants to be seen as inadequate, so is it possible to be different at all? Even the individuals who believe they are doing difference may in-fact be doing dominance.
Another common idea that I pulled out of the reading had to do with what we talked about last class, subcultures. Hebdige’s idea of the subcultures are that they go against the hegemonic ideals held by society, and the way society deals with the anti-hegemonic ideals are to incorporate them. Horkheimer and Adorno said, “anyone who resists can survive only to be incorporated” (48). Lyotard believes that you no longer can be avant-garde because, once you do, everyone will follow. But I also think, like Horkheimer and Adorno indicated in their article, society makes it impossible to survive unless you are creating something that fits within the dominant ideology and is accepted by the majority. The way ideology functions within society causes us to follow the dominant ideologies to survive because, “disconnected from the mainstream, he is easily convicted inadequate” (50). No one wants to be seen as inadequate, so is it possible to be different at all? Even the individuals who believe they are doing difference may in-fact be doing dominance.
Graham, Horkheimer and Adorno
Horkheimer and Adorno focus a lot on the idea of ‘sameness’. They believe that we live in a world that takes multiple ideas, cultures, and ways of everyday life from various groups of people, and combines them to make a culture that is comfortable and understandable by the majority. In my economics class, we were discussing the way that media corporations attempt to create their films make a larger profit. Their goal is to often have a variety of characters, all with different personalities, so that viewers feel that they are able to relate with the characters. This will increase their profit, because people begin to feel as if they know that character. This is seen in shows such as Sex and The City, Friends and Seinfeld. 3 very popular shows which focus on the lives of the characters.
This ‘sameness’ is making a profit, and consumers are pleased with it, so why should it be changed? It goes with the old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The same things are being recreated over and over, and his is going to continue to occur until the “need” and “want” of the consumers change. People no longer want “new” ideas, they want what is popular and familiar. As a culture, we are very involved with ideologies, and if society tells us that the way that our country is currently working is doing a good job, then society does not feel the need to create something new.
Although this idea of ‘sameness’ is making the “big people” and ideologically important people a large profit every year, these authors believe that we are just living in an unoriginal world that is ran by companies, rather than consumers. Because this is happening and society accepts it without a fight, our companies are able to continue to do this. I do not even know if we as a society understand what is going on. Would we be okay with it if it becomes discovered that the United States of America is a country that is run on money and profits, rather than making it a better place to live?
This ‘sameness’ is making a profit, and consumers are pleased with it, so why should it be changed? It goes with the old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The same things are being recreated over and over, and his is going to continue to occur until the “need” and “want” of the consumers change. People no longer want “new” ideas, they want what is popular and familiar. As a culture, we are very involved with ideologies, and if society tells us that the way that our country is currently working is doing a good job, then society does not feel the need to create something new.
Although this idea of ‘sameness’ is making the “big people” and ideologically important people a large profit every year, these authors believe that we are just living in an unoriginal world that is ran by companies, rather than consumers. Because this is happening and society accepts it without a fight, our companies are able to continue to do this. I do not even know if we as a society understand what is going on. Would we be okay with it if it becomes discovered that the United States of America is a country that is run on money and profits, rather than making it a better place to live?
Elmo, Horkheimer & Adorno
The reading, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, seemed to bring what we’ve been discussing for the past few classes together nicely. After reading the essay, a few main quotes stood out to me as some of the main ideas.
The first quote is, “culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazine form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (41). This is a very important idea to understand. Over the past few classes we have been talking a lot about ideology and how it essentially runs our lives; it creates a standard for how people should live. This ideology ultimately creates, as Horkheimer and Adorno say, sameness. Everywhere we turn in the media, TV or magazine, the Internet or radio, they all seem to be displaying the same images or ideas about how things “should” be. They are telling us the way we are “supposed” to act and live our lives. Since the ruling class runs the media, their ideas are forced upon everyone and since we are such absent-minded observers, according to Lyotard, we just follow along, thus creating sameness.
Another quote that goes along with this concept of the absent-minded observer is, “the power of industrial society is imprinted on people once and for all. The products of the culture industry are such that they can be alertly consumed even in a state of distraction” (45). It is almost sad to me how susceptible we are to the media. Like this quote states, we are observing culture and playing into its so-called norms without even knowing it; we are oblivious to the fact that nearly everyone around us is the same. This has come to be just the way things are and no one seems to question it or have concern about it.
Lastly, Horkheimer and Adorno point out that, “freedom to choose an ideology, which always reflects economic coercion, everywhere proves to be freedom to be the same. The way in which the young girl accepts and performs the obligatory date, the tone of voice used on the telephone and in the most intimate situations, the choice of words in conversation, indeed, the whole inner life compartmentalized according to the categories of vulgarized depth psychology, bears witness to the attempt to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success, and apparatus which, even in its unconscious impulses, conforms to the model presented by the culture industry” (71). While this quote is very long and wordy, I find that it carries great importance with what we have been discussing. While we all have the freedom to choose to go against the norm and the ideologies set forth to us, we never do. We always play into the ideologies because it’s something that is already there and it’s easy. We are always conforming and I just wonder when, if ever, this will change.
The first quote is, “culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazine form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (41). This is a very important idea to understand. Over the past few classes we have been talking a lot about ideology and how it essentially runs our lives; it creates a standard for how people should live. This ideology ultimately creates, as Horkheimer and Adorno say, sameness. Everywhere we turn in the media, TV or magazine, the Internet or radio, they all seem to be displaying the same images or ideas about how things “should” be. They are telling us the way we are “supposed” to act and live our lives. Since the ruling class runs the media, their ideas are forced upon everyone and since we are such absent-minded observers, according to Lyotard, we just follow along, thus creating sameness.
Another quote that goes along with this concept of the absent-minded observer is, “the power of industrial society is imprinted on people once and for all. The products of the culture industry are such that they can be alertly consumed even in a state of distraction” (45). It is almost sad to me how susceptible we are to the media. Like this quote states, we are observing culture and playing into its so-called norms without even knowing it; we are oblivious to the fact that nearly everyone around us is the same. This has come to be just the way things are and no one seems to question it or have concern about it.
Lastly, Horkheimer and Adorno point out that, “freedom to choose an ideology, which always reflects economic coercion, everywhere proves to be freedom to be the same. The way in which the young girl accepts and performs the obligatory date, the tone of voice used on the telephone and in the most intimate situations, the choice of words in conversation, indeed, the whole inner life compartmentalized according to the categories of vulgarized depth psychology, bears witness to the attempt to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success, and apparatus which, even in its unconscious impulses, conforms to the model presented by the culture industry” (71). While this quote is very long and wordy, I find that it carries great importance with what we have been discussing. While we all have the freedom to choose to go against the norm and the ideologies set forth to us, we never do. We always play into the ideologies because it’s something that is already there and it’s easy. We are always conforming and I just wonder when, if ever, this will change.
BiegieGo,Horkbeimer and Adorno
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together.” In our contemporary society we can see that this “sameness” is beginning to take place. There may be a lot of different corporations around town but in the end they are all owned by a couple of big rich people. No one really stops to think about how corporations are working because there are companies that have taken over most of our culture and it’s now become a way of life for our people. This leads us to talking about ideologies and how they functions in our society. Do to ideologies “film and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce.” We have let the business world go wild. When I say this I mean we have let the corporations take over and basically tell us how to live our lives. Our society has let it get this way because it is how we were raised. We were brought up to let the companies do their thing and we focus on our lives. Well, within this time they are been shaping the things we eat, wear, watch and the list goes on.
Ideologies have even shaped the way we learn in the class room. For example our class was talking about theorist Hebdige and ideologies. In class we discussed how we act in the class room. Someone said that ideologies are affecting the way we act. Something as small as raising our hand to ask a question is being shaped by our society and how we function. The professor did not make a rule that we had to raise our hand to ask a question. Why don’t we ask the question while he is lecturing? It’s because of the way we learn how to act in the class room. We don’t just say whatever we want whenever we want to. Another example was about going to a funeral. Someone as you to go to a funeral and you are dressed for class. The first thing we think of when we were ask was what should we wear. We think that we are not properly dressed. Why do we think of this first, is because that is how our culture is form and it is seen that everyone wears black to a funeral and that is the way things should be.
Ideologies have even shaped the way we learn in the class room. For example our class was talking about theorist Hebdige and ideologies. In class we discussed how we act in the class room. Someone said that ideologies are affecting the way we act. Something as small as raising our hand to ask a question is being shaped by our society and how we function. The professor did not make a rule that we had to raise our hand to ask a question. Why don’t we ask the question while he is lecturing? It’s because of the way we learn how to act in the class room. We don’t just say whatever we want whenever we want to. Another example was about going to a funeral. Someone as you to go to a funeral and you are dressed for class. The first thing we think of when we were ask was what should we wear. We think that we are not properly dressed. Why do we think of this first, is because that is how our culture is form and it is seen that everyone wears black to a funeral and that is the way things should be.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Kiwi, Horkheimer and Adorno
(This first part of my blog is a continuation off of last weeks blog where you said I needed to elaborate more… I combined some points from my elaborations with this weeks reading, however my “new” blog for this week starts after my second quote.)
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” I think that this quote really explains our society in the fact that society constructs the way that we think. While individuals have their own thoughts, it is society that constructs more of who we are. An example of this is the ruling class and how we are simply constructed by the ruling class who are the ones that become in control simply because they have more money therefore they have more material. It is the ideologies of who we are which we get from the ruling class. Like Althusser says.. there are two kinds RSA and the ISA which are both contributed to our being in society. I think that it is sad how our society subconsciously thinks that the ruling class are always the ones in control , however I do believe that this is something that will never change because our
(new blog starts here)“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness”(43, Horkheimer and Adorno ) . Horkheimer and Adorno say that we are creating the same things. They say that we are mashing up everything old material and creating new , however it is al the same. I thought this was very interesting when I read this I was able to connect it to Lyotard and Bricolage- which is taking all the leftover of culture and putting them together. Lyotard would argue that is the fundamental aesthetic of our culture. It is not new, its just old stuff put together. He argues that, “what is valuable is what people buy, what people purchas.” Again this goes back to Horkheimer and Adorno’s quote about how our culture is being effected with the “sameness”. Horkerimer and Adorno say that, “ Mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same”( 43). I myself as well as Lyotard would both probably be able to agree with them that this is true and this is how our society works. Something that I thought of right away when I read this was T.V shows (reality) and how they are all the same. Just think of how many reality tv shows there are now on tv? Tons! There are so many these days that we don’t know which one to pick to watch. In my opinion, it really wouldn’t make a difference which reality show you might pick because they are all pretty much the same exact thing, all having the same ideas. Why is this? Because this is what our media chooses to do… “they show us what we want to see” (Benjamin) “ They use the technique of reproduction which detaches the reproducing objects from the domain of tradition.” (21 Benjamin)
I thought that reading Horjeimer and Adorno was very interesting and I thought it was pretty neat how many different theorists I could connect them to and correlate their thoughts with others. I’m starting to be able to put little things together from class and the readings and now create a whole picture from everything and I think that is really cool :0) I look forward to our class discussion as well as our next reading and hope that I will be able to connect more information with other things that we have already learned.
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” I think that this quote really explains our society in the fact that society constructs the way that we think. While individuals have their own thoughts, it is society that constructs more of who we are. An example of this is the ruling class and how we are simply constructed by the ruling class who are the ones that become in control simply because they have more money therefore they have more material. It is the ideologies of who we are which we get from the ruling class. Like Althusser says.. there are two kinds RSA and the ISA which are both contributed to our being in society. I think that it is sad how our society subconsciously thinks that the ruling class are always the ones in control , however I do believe that this is something that will never change because our
(new blog starts here)“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness”(43, Horkheimer and Adorno ) . Horkheimer and Adorno say that we are creating the same things. They say that we are mashing up everything old material and creating new , however it is al the same. I thought this was very interesting when I read this I was able to connect it to Lyotard and Bricolage- which is taking all the leftover of culture and putting them together. Lyotard would argue that is the fundamental aesthetic of our culture. It is not new, its just old stuff put together. He argues that, “what is valuable is what people buy, what people purchas.” Again this goes back to Horkheimer and Adorno’s quote about how our culture is being effected with the “sameness”. Horkerimer and Adorno say that, “ Mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same”( 43). I myself as well as Lyotard would both probably be able to agree with them that this is true and this is how our society works. Something that I thought of right away when I read this was T.V shows (reality) and how they are all the same. Just think of how many reality tv shows there are now on tv? Tons! There are so many these days that we don’t know which one to pick to watch. In my opinion, it really wouldn’t make a difference which reality show you might pick because they are all pretty much the same exact thing, all having the same ideas. Why is this? Because this is what our media chooses to do… “they show us what we want to see” (Benjamin) “ They use the technique of reproduction which detaches the reproducing objects from the domain of tradition.” (21 Benjamin)
I thought that reading Horjeimer and Adorno was very interesting and I thought it was pretty neat how many different theorists I could connect them to and correlate their thoughts with others. I’m starting to be able to put little things together from class and the readings and now create a whole picture from everything and I think that is really cool :0) I look forward to our class discussion as well as our next reading and hope that I will be able to connect more information with other things that we have already learned.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Penny Lane- Hebdige
"Society cannot share a common communication system so long as it is split into warring classes."
The aforementioned quote was the opening line of Hebdige's section on 'Hegemony: The Moving Equilibrium." I would have to entirely disagree with this statement in the context of present society. If any thing, mass media (our common communication system), serves as a means to assimilate, subdue, and isolate issues of class in the mainstream. Although it remains evident that the American perception of class is massively distorted, few recognize what is causing this disillusionment. More often then not we utilize media outlets to ascertain the current condition of our social, political, and economic environment. However, individuals rarely stop to think who is controlling theses representations. Most people have faith in the sources of the information they consume, but underneath the grand façade basic ideology sneakily enters the public sphere. Hegemonic views of class, wealth, and national priorities are established and reinforced by the forces that systematically strive to control the mass perspective. Concentration of media ownership, domestic and global, is in a sense impeding the democratic process by promoting issues of the elite (hegemonic class). "Hegemony can only be maintained so long as the dominant classes succeed in framing all competing definitions within their range, so that subordinate groups are, if not controlled; then at least contained within ideological space which does not seem at all "ideological." While communication was once held to be an outlet for oppositional expression, the commodification of our daily interaction and education has hushed the back talk. Stereotypes of race, gender, and socioeconomic division are reproduced in our news and entertainment to promote the established order. The disadvantaged often become complacent to their isolation. For this reason, the revolution predicted by Marx is more fantastical than practical in today's context.
The aforementioned quote was the opening line of Hebdige's section on 'Hegemony: The Moving Equilibrium." I would have to entirely disagree with this statement in the context of present society. If any thing, mass media (our common communication system), serves as a means to assimilate, subdue, and isolate issues of class in the mainstream. Although it remains evident that the American perception of class is massively distorted, few recognize what is causing this disillusionment. More often then not we utilize media outlets to ascertain the current condition of our social, political, and economic environment. However, individuals rarely stop to think who is controlling theses representations. Most people have faith in the sources of the information they consume, but underneath the grand façade basic ideology sneakily enters the public sphere. Hegemonic views of class, wealth, and national priorities are established and reinforced by the forces that systematically strive to control the mass perspective. Concentration of media ownership, domestic and global, is in a sense impeding the democratic process by promoting issues of the elite (hegemonic class). "Hegemony can only be maintained so long as the dominant classes succeed in framing all competing definitions within their range, so that subordinate groups are, if not controlled; then at least contained within ideological space which does not seem at all "ideological." While communication was once held to be an outlet for oppositional expression, the commodification of our daily interaction and education has hushed the back talk. Stereotypes of race, gender, and socioeconomic division are reproduced in our news and entertainment to promote the established order. The disadvantaged often become complacent to their isolation. For this reason, the revolution predicted by Marx is more fantastical than practical in today's context.
HOLLA! Hebdige
Dick Hebdige’s reading was interesting in the fact that it was a progression from culture in its simplest form to hegemony and the commodification and ideology of subcultures. In his literature review, Hebdige discusses ideology and its unconscious/natural state. This takes me back to last week’s class how we discussed ideology and how it is working on us in all areas and signs of our lives without us even knowing it. The reading also discusses the relationship between culture and society. These two things in my opinion are intertwined and are what make up our everyday lives. Reading past Marx’s, Barthes, Engle’s, Althusser, and other theorists ideas and progression of ideology of signs, the transformation of hegemony etc, I was very interested in Hebdige’s idea of subcultures (punk rock in particular) being defined by two characteristics. In CMC 100 we discussed how companies design products that individuals (mainly teens) will see as “cool”. Once items are made “cool” and put into the mainstream they are killed and lose the value of cool. The punk rock (noise) subculture in today’s reading discussed how this same idea of commodifying almost the avant-garde could be looked at as “the commodity form” (155) according to Hebdige. This idea was that the once hated and despised punk rock culture was turned into fashion and the cool thing resulting in this subculture (which originally was going against the norm) becoming comodified, mass produced, and the hegemonic power in culture during mid 60s, 70s, and early 80s. The second characteristic of “the ideological form” goes on the bases of turning the unfavorable group into the mass group and the new favored group among the masses (kind of like Gramaci’s idea of hegemony). For example, the mod-rocker movement of the 60s became a power player in society and culture. This idea went against the normal ideological ideas and in turn spun hegemony in its favor, making the mod-rocker the majority in power. I think I am understanding what Hebdige is discussing here and it is really interesting me. I may be wrong but I think he is trying to get across that the new form of culture (subcultures) results in hegemonic or ideological power shifting from the mainstream norm too avant-garde (not the norm) group of individuals. I also believe this shift is what makes things in the mainstream cool, commodifies them, and even gives them value. In turn this results in the creation of subcultures in our society as they try to step away from the power players, the masses, and the norm…but in the end they are becoming commodified, the norm and the hegemonic/ideological power; things they are opposed too from the beginning.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Penny Lane -10/20
“As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity.” (556) The following quotation from our reading illustrates and parallels the phenomena of youtube which has exploded in recent years. Through using this medium, any average individual has the capability of being discovered for either their talent, humor, or lack there of, a scenario which was not possible only 5 years ago. This wide spread capability to project personal opinion or response has also changed the way the entertainment business finds and produces forms of popular media. In addition, the networking potential of the internet has allowed Jane/John Doe to not only be a journalist, but a critic. Forums like rotten tomatoes and online chats spread word quickly about the quality of a work. The initial intention of video sites like youtube was to provide access to both the upload and download of home made and popular video clips. The service was theoretically free, and furthermore allowed for a large outlet for expression. But now, after its acquisition under Google, the website is subject to strategic advertising efforts that morph youtube from a source of avant-garde, folk-esqe exhibition into commercial assimilation. This is a perfect example of Habermas' conception of how the traditionalist and economic segment of our society will always at first reject and then commodity counter culture efforts.
10/20, Serendipity
The quote “as more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk understanding of creativity”, by Jenks, was one of the quotes from class that day that really made me think. It was explained like Lyotard would have explained it, looking at it as high culture vs. low culture. This is very true. Once critics of things such as food for example, would publish their opinion on what the best restaurants and foods were and it was a concrete item, there was no issue of contest that had to do with this. However, not only can you find this information on the internet you can write a blog as a response or comment right under the information and most likely start a long argument with someone from half across the continent, with without the internet, you never would have struck a connection with. This not only shows how the internet opens up a completely new technological sphere of communication, but it also portrays how what the “common” man thinks is now important too. Another example would be an Art Appreciation course at school. This is the type of information everyone should know to be “cultured” and they tell you what they think is important you should know. Now you can simply go online after the class, rank your professor as 0 out of 10 on ratemyproffesor.com and rant on your MySpace blog about how much you don’t think the venus sculpture in your stupid class is very interesting. Essentially, we are bringing the mc Donald’s into the Ritz Carlton, and obviously the mcDonalds are more plentiful and taking over the Ritz.
Ron Burgundy, 10/20
In class on Tuesday we went over the concepts Jenkins. We looked at the importance of media convergence and even did an exercise identifying the various ways in which we could advertise a single movie idea and move it into different forms of media. When we did this exercise in class, the number and multitude of ways that we came up with promoting this movie was intially somewhat alarming. I found it alarming at first because of the avaiability of different media companies to saturate all forms of media with a single product to reach all audiences and have an effect on them. At the same time though, it was great that the class was able to recognize all these different mediums and realize that this is all done for the single motive of profit and not to truly to provide entertainment. I believe the ablility of the class to easily identify all of these various promotional devices reveals that we are critically looking at the media and able to see past their strategies to saturate our lives with their consumer products. This type of realization needs to be obvious to all viewers of media in my opinion so that we do not fall into the traps of consumerism that our media industry sets up. In the Tuesday class we also looked at the concept of fan works and fandom, and even the concept of "fannon" which was apparently created by one of the first CMC disciplinary majors. This concept looks at not the cannon of a particular text, specifically movies in this respect, but the material created by fans of the film that tell the story in a whole new way. We looked at various forms of fannon, such as star wars rap videos, etc, which was extremely interesting to me. I am extremely impressed by the creator of the fannon concept and greatly intrigued by the idea of studying, not the text itself, but the outlying texts that make comments on the original and show the effects and influences the original text has made on society. This concept seems to tie in closely with Benjamin and the authenticity and originality of a work. Benjamin is concerned with the concept of authenticity in the age of mechanical reproduction as it is easier and easier to reproduce authentic works, challenging their originality. When people recreate original texts and create their own fannon though, I do not believe they are threatening the originality of the first text but are revealing more about the text that the author may have originally recognized or even meant. The fannon of a particular work could bring out underlying ideas that were unbeknown to the author, in a sense tying with Barthes concept of the writerly vs the readerly text. I believe studying the fannon of a work could be extremely interesting and extremely telling of the influences of a certain work on society.
Nemo 10/25
In class on Tuesday we discussed Jenkins and the idea of media convergence. Dr. Rog had us come up with marketing ideas for a new movie - Tarsman. I was surprised by some of the ideas that I came up with as well as my classmates such as: valentines day cards, McDonalds Happy Meal toys, trading cards, blankets, posters, stickers, billboards, websites, Halloween costumes, clothing, etc. We were able to come up with such interesting and outrageous ideas because we have all been bombarded by these forms of advertisement throughout our lifetime. Through media convergence our culture has become a participatory one. Jenkins states that "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" (p.556). Meaning that all the different forms of media have given people the ability to connect with others whom they have never met. For example if you are an Eagles fan and you overhear a conversation where two people are discussing the most recent Eagles game you might feel the urge to join in and comment on a specific player. This gives you a connection to those people even if you do not know them. This relates to the readings about Ideology because while taking in all of the different advertisements we are unconsciously following what the 'ruling class' is telling us is popular. As Marx said "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 are on the whole subject to it".
Visionsof6 10/25
Ideology, hegemony, and semiotics. Three subjects of our studies that are all connected to each other. Without one, the others would be nothing. Semiotics is dependent on language. De Saussure states that, “Without language, thought is a vague uncharted nebula” (5). So, who chooses language? The ruling class. Hegemony is all about power. How does the ruling class maintain its power? Through ideology. Ideology is a set of beliefs, symbols, or ideas that are shared by a culture just like language.
See the cyclical nature of these three?
The American idea of the “American Dream” is the Ruling Class’ way of propagating to the lower classes that they too could be part of the powerful elite; however, as CMC majors we know that this is a myth.
Another thing that is a myth is the thought that we actually have a choice of what our ideologies are. We cannot escape it. To change a single portion of the American ideology (bigger, better, faster) you would have to start at the top of the Ruling Class and have it trickle down. Look at how much trouble we’re having at changing America for the better – universal health care debates, GLBT Rights, the Kyoto Protocol – unless you’re a part of the inner circle, you have no choice as to what happens to you. You just have the illusion of a choice. Althusser states this clearly, ““Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (44).
See the cyclical nature of these three?
The American idea of the “American Dream” is the Ruling Class’ way of propagating to the lower classes that they too could be part of the powerful elite; however, as CMC majors we know that this is a myth.
Another thing that is a myth is the thought that we actually have a choice of what our ideologies are. We cannot escape it. To change a single portion of the American ideology (bigger, better, faster) you would have to start at the top of the Ruling Class and have it trickle down. Look at how much trouble we’re having at changing America for the better – universal health care debates, GLBT Rights, the Kyoto Protocol – unless you’re a part of the inner circle, you have no choice as to what happens to you. You just have the illusion of a choice. Althusser states this clearly, ““Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (44).
Bubbles- 10/25
In class on Thursday we spent most of our time discussing ideology and the ruling class. We spoke about Marx statement “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: the class which is ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force,” but what we have most trouble in is defining the ruling class. What is the ruling class, the class with the most money, or the majority of the people? In class we were shown different images and different words and we were to vote which image or which word represented the ruling class. For instance, an image of champagne versus an image of a bottle of Budweiser, the class was basically divided in which image represented the ruling class. Some thought the champagne because it represents wealth and class, and other chose the bottle of Budweiser because it is a brand that everyone knows and everyone drinks. We were also shown words such as fast versus slow, new versus old, or many versus few, and we had to decide which term meant “better.” Again, the class was divided. So, who does rule? Which one is better? Another thing I found interesting was that if there is a ruling class which defines our ideologies, then why was the class divided into two when shown the images an words? Shouldn’t we all have had the same ideas about them if there was a defined ideology that the “ruling class” set? I do believe that there I some higher force, which may or may not be “the ruling class” that gives us direction, such as Althusser’s ISA’s and RSA’s but I think it would be interesting to further investigate our discussion of who is the ruling class and if there truly is one.
HOLLA! 10/25/09
Ideology and hegemony are topics we’ve been discussing since day one of starting the Critical Media and Cultural Studies major. Like I mentioned in class, we knew ideology to be the idea that everything is produced by the haves and internalized by the have-nots. This definition was definitely in use during class on Thursday. I enjoyed the exercise when Dr. Casey showed us the photos of the Mercedes Benz vs. GM and the glasses of champagne vs. Budweiser beer. These images were tricky trying to determine which was the signs of the ruling class. Even though Mercedes Benz and champagne are items that the ruling class might own does that make the items the signs of the ruling class or is the sign of the ruling class those who produce these products/signs like the producer of Budweiser. I see it as the above definition where the haves products (producers of Budweiser/all 4 of those products) are being internalized by the have-nots (the consumers who buy/use the items). This specific example just made me begin to think more in depth about who are the ideological powers in this world, and do the individuals who have the most economical wealth determine of the ruling class. What if for example, all of America and around the world stopped buying Budweiser, would the producers of Budweiser fall out of power making the consumers (the have-nots) the ideological power force in this situation? Another important/interesting thing we went over in class was that of repressive and ideological state apparatuses. It was interesting to compare the two and actually realize that in the end they are both fulfilling the same goal of keeping those in power “in power” and those who are not “out of power.” The concept that these two apparatuses, one functioning through fear and the other through ideology, have the same ending result just shows how ideology, like fear, can be looked at as a negative factor used to gain power over the weak.
Teets, 10/25
I was partially wrong in my response to Marx and Althusser. I suggested that people needed to step outside of the box labeled "Ideology" and become more individual. However, not conforming and becoming original is in itself ideological. Being avant garde isn't really being avant garde anymore. Rebelling is not what it once was because many people have chosen to do so. It really is impossible to step outside of ideology because it consumes people in their day to day lives.
In class on Thursday we looked at images involving the ruling class. Champagne or Budweiser, GM or Mercedez Benz. We were asked to raise our hands for which one we thought pertained to the ruling class. An overwhelming amount of people said the champagne and the Benz. Why? Well, we answered in the most ideological way possible. Our brains searched through the ideology of wealthy people, and determined the most "expensive" image pertained to the ruling class. Another aspect of this process I think is interesting is the fact that people look around the room before they raise their hand. People want to fit in with the crowd and choose the most popular answer. Why do we constantly want to fit in? I would argue because fitting in makes life easier. Attempting to stand out could be much more difficult and possibly problematic in some cases.
Go to high school, go to college, get a job, get married, have kids, raise your family, watch your kids grow, retire, etc. This is what I would call THE ideology of life, the metanarrative if you will. The sequence I just mentioned is what everyone is taught to aspire to. Going in that order makes life easier. Easy is much more popular than difficult. Going against the grain can sometimes lead to great success, but often times it can lead to disaster. Some people do amazing things without a college degree, while others end up living on the street. Ideology exists to provide a guideline for human beings, or subjects. This guideline can either be strict or loose, depending on the individual. While it may seem better to pursue an off the beaten path life, it is often much more prosperous, both materially and socially, to follow the guideline ideology provides for us.
In class on Thursday we looked at images involving the ruling class. Champagne or Budweiser, GM or Mercedez Benz. We were asked to raise our hands for which one we thought pertained to the ruling class. An overwhelming amount of people said the champagne and the Benz. Why? Well, we answered in the most ideological way possible. Our brains searched through the ideology of wealthy people, and determined the most "expensive" image pertained to the ruling class. Another aspect of this process I think is interesting is the fact that people look around the room before they raise their hand. People want to fit in with the crowd and choose the most popular answer. Why do we constantly want to fit in? I would argue because fitting in makes life easier. Attempting to stand out could be much more difficult and possibly problematic in some cases.
Go to high school, go to college, get a job, get married, have kids, raise your family, watch your kids grow, retire, etc. This is what I would call THE ideology of life, the metanarrative if you will. The sequence I just mentioned is what everyone is taught to aspire to. Going in that order makes life easier. Easy is much more popular than difficult. Going against the grain can sometimes lead to great success, but often times it can lead to disaster. Some people do amazing things without a college degree, while others end up living on the street. Ideology exists to provide a guideline for human beings, or subjects. This guideline can either be strict or loose, depending on the individual. While it may seem better to pursue an off the beaten path life, it is often much more prosperous, both materially and socially, to follow the guideline ideology provides for us.
Daisy, 10/25
In class on Thursday, we spent the majority of the time discussing Ideology. Ideologies are what make our world go round, everyone is functioning within an ideology whether they realize it or not. We talked about the theorists, Marx and Althusser, and how the ones in charge are the ones who make the rules, but who is in charge? I believe the ones in charge are the ones who have the means and acceptance by the others. For example, in class we were shown two pictures, one of a Mercedes symbol, and one of a GM symbol, and asked which one is a sign of the ruling class? Looking at this question I can see both as symbols of the ruling class. Mercedes is a symbol of the ruling class because it is a high-end car, and people who have the means in our country usually buy an expensive car. The people who have the means (economic wealth) in society are the ones who have the ability to rule. On the other hand the majority of our society can afford and own GM cars, rather than Mercedes, so GM could be considered more dominant. When the economy crisis hit, GM was affected and so were the million people they employed. GM can be seen as a symbol of the ruling class because of its dominance in our society. So which one has more power, still deciding on that.
Thinking about the fact that everyday we function under ideologies without realizing is quite interesting, because they more you think about it, the more ideologies you realize you are functioning under. For example, I was thinking about the ideology of education and college, since this past weekend was parent’s weekend. Junior year of high school we are introduced to the process of applying to college and how it is the normal thing to do. For most of us, there wasn’t a doubt in our minds that we would not go to college because we have grown up around the idea that a higher education is important. In today’s world you are taught by society, to succeed in life you must get an education. Rollins has a Pathways to College Day and brings in Ferncreek Elementary School to show them what a day at college is like, in hopes it will make them want to go to college. Ferncreek Elementary is a charter school and many of the children who attend the school are lower class and may not see college as a possibility. While I think this is such a great experience and important to give children the opportunity, I was also thinking that we are making ourselves the dominant force and imposing our ideas on others. We are doing this today because education is so important to get anywhere in this world, but at the same time the force of education shuns anyone else who wants to forgo college and follow their true dreams. I remember when the buzz around my community was about a classmate who skipped college to play Pro basketball; everyone seemed so shocked about passing up college. It makes me think sometimes that we may influence our own ideologies on others without realizing it.
Thinking about the fact that everyday we function under ideologies without realizing is quite interesting, because they more you think about it, the more ideologies you realize you are functioning under. For example, I was thinking about the ideology of education and college, since this past weekend was parent’s weekend. Junior year of high school we are introduced to the process of applying to college and how it is the normal thing to do. For most of us, there wasn’t a doubt in our minds that we would not go to college because we have grown up around the idea that a higher education is important. In today’s world you are taught by society, to succeed in life you must get an education. Rollins has a Pathways to College Day and brings in Ferncreek Elementary School to show them what a day at college is like, in hopes it will make them want to go to college. Ferncreek Elementary is a charter school and many of the children who attend the school are lower class and may not see college as a possibility. While I think this is such a great experience and important to give children the opportunity, I was also thinking that we are making ourselves the dominant force and imposing our ideas on others. We are doing this today because education is so important to get anywhere in this world, but at the same time the force of education shuns anyone else who wants to forgo college and follow their true dreams. I remember when the buzz around my community was about a classmate who skipped college to play Pro basketball; everyone seemed so shocked about passing up college. It makes me think sometimes that we may influence our own ideologies on others without realizing it.
BiegieGo, 10/25
I am really getting the feeling that I am starting to get a hang of these blogs. I feel now that I can confidently look back at other theorist and relate the topic at hand to one of the people we have studied in the past. In the first class this week, we talked about a man named Jenkins and his two main points about media convergence and participatory culture. I looked a media convergence and studied it in a way of looking at how other types of media grow. Media convergence is then you take a product such as star wars or a popular book or toy such as harry potter and you continue to make it an even bigger item then it was before. For example we took a look at star wars in class and if you really think about it, star wars was just a movie and then it became a book and next you have toys and so on. If we stay on track with the theme of star wars and look at participatory culture we can easily say that people are taking it one step further and creating groups online or even holding conventions where people can dress up in their favorite character and meet people that are interested in star wars. We can also look at participatory culture as if we watching a reality TV show and right after the show ends we go online and blog on site that are talking about the show.
On Thursday we discussed the notion of ideology and talked about two men, Karl Marx and Louis Althusser. Marx brings up a good put by stating that “he who has the gold, rules!” by saying this it puts a stop light on the people who set the ideologies. With this we can see that they are as at the top of the “ruling intellectual force.” Marx states, “the class that has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently as controls the means of mental production.” By saying this, it is telling our contemporary society that we should be following the ideologies that the upper class is setting. I gave an example of this in my mid week post about the American dream and how it is falsified.
On Thursday we discussed the notion of ideology and talked about two men, Karl Marx and Louis Althusser. Marx brings up a good put by stating that “he who has the gold, rules!” by saying this it puts a stop light on the people who set the ideologies. With this we can see that they are as at the top of the “ruling intellectual force.” Marx states, “the class that has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently as controls the means of mental production.” By saying this, it is telling our contemporary society that we should be following the ideologies that the upper class is setting. I gave an example of this in my mid week post about the American dream and how it is falsified.
DoubleBubble, 10/25
On Tuesday we discussed Jenkins’s idea of how our communication within society has become less physical and more technological. In one of my other classes we read an article about this and how technology is becoming the source that is connecting our society to other people and ideas. Back in the beginning of our world in order to research on a subject, we would have to go to the library go to other resources physically because we were without technology. Now, anyone that wants to research a topic can easily go online and find out information on the topic through other people. This is how this communication is created, through the Internet. What I also though was just interesting while typing this is that Internet had the green line under it because the “I” was lower case. That is how much the Internet has become a popular well-known database.
Jenkins quotes, “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 quote really stood out to me because our society is starting to separate because of the technology we have today. By this I mean we are losing that physical face-to-face, side-by-side communication. Our communication and interaction with each other is starting to be through technology. With the mean kitty song, 27 million viewers have watched that video, but yet without this technology and that video, we would of never had the communication we have because of this video. We are beginning to communicate through this technology because we cannot meet face to face anymore.
Thursday really made me think about the idea of the ruling class. Although Marx did not say this, “whoever has the gold, rules!” is a quote I thought really explained the idea of the ruling class. Basically, the ruling class is determined by the economic status of the class. Whoever has the most gold, simply rules our society. But then comes in the idea of wealth versus popularity. When we saw the pictures of the Mercedes, GM, Budweiser and Champagne flutes the idea of ruling class began to become more confusing.
Who is the ruling class between these two sets of photos? When I saw the photo of the Mercedes versus the GM logo, I instantly thought Mercedes would have been the ruling class. I based this decision off of the idea of the ruling class because the idea of whoever has the gold is the ruling class. Mercedes has become a logo and company within our society that equals wealth and upper class. GM is a logo and company that I thought of as average and for a lower class than those with Mercedes. When I saw the photos of the Budweiser and the Champagne flutes I thought instantly the champagne flutes because champagne is usually drank at high class events and get togethers. Budweiser is an alcohol drink that you tend to see everywhere and anywhere where alcohol is. At events you tend to see champagne at higher-class functions and Budweiser at more average class get togethers. Once seeing these photos I thought that Mercedes and the Champagne flutes were ruling class, but then my ideas shifted after we discussed this in class.
GM and Budweiser are more popular and better known within society. Although Mercedes and Champagne, depending on the brand, are more expensive, GM and Budweiser can also be the ruling class based on the ideas of popularity. Everyone knows GM and everyone knows Budweiser. The idea of popularity within our society, could GM and Budweiser, although less expensive be the ruling class? I think this idea is something interesting to better understand and talk about. The ruling class, although based on economic status, could be different depending on the object or group.
Communication is becoming more technological and ruling class is becoming harder to determine. Why is our society becoming more and more complex everyday?
Jenkins quotes, “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 quote really stood out to me because our society is starting to separate because of the technology we have today. By this I mean we are losing that physical face-to-face, side-by-side communication. Our communication and interaction with each other is starting to be through technology. With the mean kitty song, 27 million viewers have watched that video, but yet without this technology and that video, we would of never had the communication we have because of this video. We are beginning to communicate through this technology because we cannot meet face to face anymore.
Thursday really made me think about the idea of the ruling class. Although Marx did not say this, “whoever has the gold, rules!” is a quote I thought really explained the idea of the ruling class. Basically, the ruling class is determined by the economic status of the class. Whoever has the most gold, simply rules our society. But then comes in the idea of wealth versus popularity. When we saw the pictures of the Mercedes, GM, Budweiser and Champagne flutes the idea of ruling class began to become more confusing.
Who is the ruling class between these two sets of photos? When I saw the photo of the Mercedes versus the GM logo, I instantly thought Mercedes would have been the ruling class. I based this decision off of the idea of the ruling class because the idea of whoever has the gold is the ruling class. Mercedes has become a logo and company within our society that equals wealth and upper class. GM is a logo and company that I thought of as average and for a lower class than those with Mercedes. When I saw the photos of the Budweiser and the Champagne flutes I thought instantly the champagne flutes because champagne is usually drank at high class events and get togethers. Budweiser is an alcohol drink that you tend to see everywhere and anywhere where alcohol is. At events you tend to see champagne at higher-class functions and Budweiser at more average class get togethers. Once seeing these photos I thought that Mercedes and the Champagne flutes were ruling class, but then my ideas shifted after we discussed this in class.
GM and Budweiser are more popular and better known within society. Although Mercedes and Champagne, depending on the brand, are more expensive, GM and Budweiser can also be the ruling class based on the ideas of popularity. Everyone knows GM and everyone knows Budweiser. The idea of popularity within our society, could GM and Budweiser, although less expensive be the ruling class? I think this idea is something interesting to better understand and talk about. The ruling class, although based on economic status, could be different depending on the object or group.
Communication is becoming more technological and ruling class is becoming harder to determine. Why is our society becoming more and more complex everyday?
Captain outrageous 10/25
We are no doubt living in generation "igen". Media and technology have had almost as big a part in raising us as our parents. The commercial for windows with the cute little girl doing everything on the computer is no exaggeration and I feel it goes to show a very important point: people transform to technology, technology doesn't transform to the people. I choose the word transform for a significant reason: we don't merely adapt or learn new things, once we gain new technology our entire culture is transformed to accommodate it; for example twitter and Facebook. These things weren't created due to the need of the people, but the people have been changed due to the 'need' of these technologies.
...My computer spell check just told me I spelled facebook wrong because it didn't have a capital 'f'. I rest my case.
The readings this week really emphasize this technological relationship people have gained with media and culture. Marx and Engels show that no technology is ours by choice to receive, it is planned, produced and marketed by select individuals, i.e. material production equals mental production. Jenkins shows the true extent of media technology affecting our daily lives. We communicate through and by technology, we communicate about popular culture we receive through media technology, which both emphasize Marx's point. Furthermore, Althusser's ideology is the undercurrent throughout both Jenkins and Marx, as ideology is the undercurrent for everything anyways.
Technology, Media and Media Technology are the products of ideology by way of their producers and their consumers. Maybe we aren't so much living in the "igeneration" as we are living in "iDeology". idisease is spreading with rapid iforce and if we don't take am iminute to idecide where to draw the iboundary, we might end up a bunch of ihumans.
...My computer spell check just told me I spelled facebook wrong because it didn't have a capital 'f'. I rest my case.
The readings this week really emphasize this technological relationship people have gained with media and culture. Marx and Engels show that no technology is ours by choice to receive, it is planned, produced and marketed by select individuals, i.e. material production equals mental production. Jenkins shows the true extent of media technology affecting our daily lives. We communicate through and by technology, we communicate about popular culture we receive through media technology, which both emphasize Marx's point. Furthermore, Althusser's ideology is the undercurrent throughout both Jenkins and Marx, as ideology is the undercurrent for everything anyways.
Technology, Media and Media Technology are the products of ideology by way of their producers and their consumers. Maybe we aren't so much living in the "igeneration" as we are living in "iDeology". idisease is spreading with rapid iforce and if we don't take am iminute to idecide where to draw the iboundary, we might end up a bunch of ihumans.
Capri Sun, 10/22
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…
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…
FloRida, 10/25
Media has become such an unconscious part of our mindset. By that I mean that we do not even realize how we are affected daily through our thought and speech. In class, Dr. Rog asked us to come up with ideas on how to promote a new movie with the infamous “TarsMan.” What boggled my mind was how all of us knew without hesitation the vast amount of products that would reach specific consumers. Billboards, movie theatre posters, websites, internet ads, school supplies, theme park rides, and food products were all ideas mentioned. The creation of media convergence has allowed the possibility of using all of these outlets to promote new societal phenomena’s. So much interconnection within society is caused because of this. Jenkins states that, “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.” Mainstream media gives society a common basis without them even realizing it. This idea relates to Marx ideas of ideology. Marx clearly states that, “It is not the consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” The reason we believe so much and have so much interconnection is because of the ruling class that Marx discusses. “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” (Marx).
Mongoose, 10/22
The idea that stands out to me the most from this week’s class was the fact that ideology exists everywhere in society and will continue to be permeated by the ‘ruling class’ onto those who do not rule. While it is largely agreed upon that those people in the ruling class are those who have the power to influence through ideology, it is not as easy to pick out who exactly is in the ruling class. We saw examples of expensive things (Mercedes and champagne) and more popular items in the same grouping (Budweiser and GM) and the class was split as to which image was a depiction of the ruling class. So does ‘ruling’ mean that you have a lot of money and power or does it simply mean that you have the ability to influence mass amounts of people? In my opinion those who can reach and influence more people are the ones with the most power; given, a lot of times it is those with money who have the means and ability to influence the masses. Sometimes though, it is not necessary to be rich to have influence. One example that comes to mind is a pastor of a church; while this is not a very lucrative field of work, it is a position of power that comes with the ability to influence the minds of many people because of the respect and authority that comes with the title. I think this concept ties in quite well with the writing of Baudrillard, he believed that the writers of Disney movies used the characters to express their viewpoints and create a ‘utopia’ feeling for the children. These writers are the ones in the power position and can use this position in order to influence the minds and thoughts of children who watch their shows and movies.
Ace Ventura, 10/22
This week we discussed the concept of ideology in relation to the fact that these ideologies are constructed by the "ruling class". When Dr. Casey showed us the pictures of champagne vs. Budweiser or Mercedes Benz vs. GM, it became clear the "ruling class" is somewhat of an ambiguous term. Is the ruling class the people that drink champagne and drive Mercedes Benz's or is the ruling class the people that make up the corporations of produce Budweiser or GM (before the economic crisis of course)? Maybe the fact that we can't readily identify who makes up this ruling class is part of the concept of ideology because society is supposed to believe that these ideologies are in the best interest of everyone (or that they are common) and we are supposed to accept them subconsciously. Therefore, we shouldn't be able to identify who the ruling class is that's creating these rules to abide by. Although in class I said that the ruling class would be the people drinking champagne and driving Mercedes', after thinking about it, I now think that the ruling class are the people that make up the corporations who create products like Budwieser or "working-class cars" like GM. This is because these are the products that are considered common and this is in itself an ideology. These corporations make these products and produce them for a certain demographic of people, whether it is the way they advertise it or just the price of it. Therefore, they are telling the public "if you are from this economic level in society, you should be drinking this drink and driving this car", while they themselves can afford the champagne and the luxury vehicles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)