Bumble: Bourdieu

While reading Bourdieu, I could not help but to think about Benjamin or Lyotard the concept that has been drilled into our heads that something successful is something that has already been created and is simply repeated. What is our aversion to something different or new. As I have always believed that humans are creatures of habit and everything and anything can shake our core and throw us into oblivion. Think about why we enjoy putting on a TV show like FRIENDS, we know that every time we turn on that TV we will be seeing the character Joey act in a certain way and Chandler will make some cheesy and pathetic joke. It is comforting for us to see and hear. We always like to be comforted and have ritual behavior in our intimate or close relationships. Imagine you have a best friend who you open up to about everything. This friend is a vegan because she is an avid animal lover and has a gentle persona. You expect a certain behavior from this person and we build expectations about how this person will act. One day you see her and you find she has on a leather coat and bunny ear muffs and orders a steak from Ruth’s Chris Steak House… UM, what would you do? This is not expected, this is like a sub culture, she stepped away from this thing you knew and suddenly it is NOT what you want anymore. We learn to expect and so when something changes it can be very disconcerting.

Our television shows and news casters are our spiritual guides? We do spend a great deal of time preoccupied watching the news which is supposed to represent reality. We weren’t there though, so how do we know it is real? We formulate these ideas in our heads about how we are supposed to interpret the news and what to expect from it. These ideologies are powerful because they lead or guide America to all think in the same plane of thought. For my CMC200 paper I am examining how most people receive much of their understanding about sex and relationships from the media and often look at TV shows for advice on how to act on a date, or how to “be” in a relationship. It is all channels all sources that guide us in our daily behaviors that we might not even be aware of!

bumble: post class april 1 // Chomsky and science?

Chomsky and Bourdeu believe that everything is lived by ideologies… there are biases in everything… What I am curious to learn about is, what in the world do they think about hard science? Do they believe that there is a possible differentiation between social sciences and hard sciences? Is it possible to conduct an objective scientific experiment? Science is an interesting topic to approach in this course because many theorists like Baudrillard question if there is reality or not!? If there is in fact no reality, or simply things mimicking reality then can there be scientific facts? Part of post modernism is that everything is open to interpretation and there are no solid facts. If everyone took the post modern approach to life then perhaps we would not have scientific and technological advancements like we do.

Bumble: post class April 1st

The evangelical pastor video which we watched today really made me think, what exactly do we value as Americans? The second video with the word over lays absolutely is positive for Barack. Let me explain… so initially it seemed as though the pastor was almost attacking our country and takes on a pessimistic view of ourselves. However, when the words were over laid on the clip and the question popped up “just think about it,” it did in fact provoke a lot of thought.

What do we want in a leader? Is it wrong to take an introspective stance and be able to acknowledge flaws or problems that need to be worked out. Any interviewer and job owner would tell you that in an interview you better be prepared to answer the question about what is your greatest flaw. If you can admit to a problem or mistakes then you are not living in denial, you are living in truth. America stands on truth, and maybe we need to face our world problems because it is the first and crucial step to making things better. I like a leader who won’t just push down problems, the pastor was not saying that we are evil, but perhaps just saying (VERY MUCH LIKE A CRITICAL STUDIES CLASS) that we can not just accept what we hear without thinking critically about the truth. Also, it makes Obama look even stronger because if you are willing to step in a take on the responsibility of leading our country and you are willing to admit to certain flaws than it proves even more his love for the country. I get upset when any candidate is bashed so much because I think it is important to note how much you have to be willing to sacrifice when running for president. You open up your life to the scrutiny and attack of every media outlet. The responsibility that president has for the entire nation, for the peace between nations, and for keeping an entire population of such diverse religions and ideals united as the nation of America. To keep the support of such a large group pf people from all different economic, social, racial, and religious backgrounds is next to impossible. Also, like the job of any authority figure, there is a tough place to be in to lay your foot down with rules and regiment, but not be a dictator and also not have the reputation of being harsh or mean. Clearly you have to deal with a lot of problems faced and no one would put themselves out there in such a clear path of danger and vulnerability unless they did really care.

booboo bear April 1

“Can you Google that for me please?” Dr. Casey

I think this quote by Dr. Casey is postmodernism at its best. Dr. Casey was asking Dr. Tillman in class to search for a website. He used the word Google as a verb. Google is a search engine website, so 5 years ago the question would be asked, “Can you search that on Google for me?” We have become so familiar with the word and its meaning that Google can be used as a verb. This is a bit off topic but I thought it was appropriate.


In class we talked about Obama’s Pastor and his recent controversy. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Obama’s Pastor is not Obama. Why do we have such an obsession with this man when he has nothing to do with Obama’s presidential run? This is ridiculous! By no means am I a supporter of Obama but I find it extremely unfair to use this man to bring Obama down. I almost feel like people couldn’t find anything else negative to say about this man, so they went looking for people he is linked to. The crazy thing is, Obama wasn’t even in attendance that day.

Since we are on the topic of politics, I wanted to raise a couple issues I have problems with. First of all, why can’t we form an unbiased news source that presents each candidate’s plans and allow the people to make the decisions for themselves. As a person who knows nothing about any of the candidate’s policies, I want to know about each candidate and what they are going to do to improve our country (not what their preacher thinks). This brings back the quote from Lawton Chiles that Dr. Rog mentioned, “if you got to explain it, you aint gonna win.” I want it to be explained to me. If not my vote will be based on whoever my dad tells me to vote for. Which brings me to my next point, why is everyone allowed to vote? I know this is against our philosophy of a democratic society but honestly, we are in a world where we have a bunch of people who will not vote for someone because of superficial ideas. For example, some people won’t vote for Obama because of his pastor and some people might not vote for Hillary because they might think, if she cant control her husband (Lewinsky ordeal) how can she control this country (Yes, I have heard this). I think we should have to pass a test to be allowed to vote. Otherwise, the fate of our country is in the hands of ignorant people.

Before I get bashed for my last comments, I think it is ridiculous that I am allowed to vote. I know absolutely nothing about any of the candidates but my vote counts just as much as someone who might devote their entire lives to breaking down the pros and cons of every candidate.

Sgt. Pepper, 3/27

Like many people stated in their post-class responses, it's a little eerie to think about how much our thoughts are controlled by the hegemonic power. Chomsky explains in his article, "A Propaganda Model," that for the most part, we are so affected by propaganda through mass media, constant advertisement exposure, etc. that we do not even notice how much it shapes us. What scares me the most about this notion is the fact that these morals, or fashion statements, or whatever it is that we're being fed, it's all a matter of consumerism. Like I mentioned in my Bourdieu article, it is all motivated by profits. Hegemony doesn't care if we're in debt, unhappy, or unhealthy, it only cares if we're buying.

I am a victim of this whole process. I am what Chomsky might refer to as the blind consumer, unaware of what he is being told to do, how to think, how to act, how to dress, how to live his life. And it's such a disappointment because I am now realizing that the way people are being told to act, dress, and live is not with their best interests at heart. It's with other people's wallets in mind. Just like TV is sucking the creativity and art out of people's everyday lives, consumerism is sucking the happiness.

Sgt. Pepper, Bourdieu

I really enjoyed Bourdieu's article about the field of journalism and how much it is being affected by postmodernism. And by postmodernism, Bourdieu is primarily referring to television. He begins by discussing why TV "works," or gets the ratings, that newspapers don't these days because it "promotes social conformity and market values." (329). I, personally, do not watch TV because I just cannot find time in my day. I don't see how people do it. What I've noticed since I stopped watching TV, though, is that when I do sit down to watch it, it puts me in a daze. Like Bourdieu explains, there is nothing truly shocking on TV. There is no creativity, and it is no where near an art form. This reminded me of Horkheimer's and Adorno's criticism of film in today's society and its lack of quality. Instead of making a movie or a TV show about a worthwhile topic that is important but could potentially offend some people, movie makers and TV show producers are taking the safer, hegemonic path. And this lack of creativity, these mindless forms of entertainment are all about one thing: profits. Not only are they made to attract a specific (yet general) crowd, but the TV show itself further promotes these hegemonic views which could include a moral stance on abortion or a certain brand of soft drink to buy. What Bourdieu is trying to prove in his article is that since TV promotes a certain way of thinking, it affects every part of one's life often leaving no more room for newspapers. TV shows/news programs also cater to the Casey's "cult of the new" concept since it is on 24 hours/day. In this article, Bourdieu discusses TV as an ever-expanding mass media form and notes the affect it's already had on the newspaper industry. I like how he titles one section of his article "Making Everything Ordinary," because that is exactly what's happening with the same messages being drilled into the millions of heads that watch TV every day. Hopefully as Bourdieu's message is spread, people might start to appreciate a more spontaneous approach to sources of media.

July--> Bourdieu

Media shapes our minds into numerous universal ideologies, which is unconsciously done to the people by media reporters who are aware of their actions. The media space should be held accountable for their actions, but the audience needs to be able to shape and mold their own ideas into the notions given from discourse. Media faces two alternatives when being produced: going in the direction of the dominant model (which is known as dominant hegemonic readings) or emphasizing on its differences and engaging into a product differentiation (which is known as oppositional readings). Another form of media reading is negotiated readings, which is a mixture of dominant hegemonic and oppositional readings, this form is difficult to detect.

Dominant hegemonic discourse is determined by hegemonies’ ideologies. For example, the NEWS channel is altered to fit certain perspectives that are already casted into society, but it is up to the individual to step out of the box and create their own thoughts. The NEWS channel cast numerous of stereotypes about different cultures and if someone believes and acts in a certain way because of previous notions about that culture, then the participant is associated with dominant hegemonic encoding and decoding.

Oppositional discourse is rejecting the dominant hegemonic reading and creating a newer version of the ideal that was suggested by the media. For example, MySpace is associated with negative labels because of the mishaps that have taken place on this one website. A concerned parent may proceed with caution if their child is a member of MySpace, but she will not make her child delete her account, she will only inform her child about the security issues that has occurred or will occur. Of course, the parent understood the concept of MySpace being a bad place for children, but she undermined all of it and handled the situation in her own way.