thestig, hooks

In CMC 200, we discussed the impact of the use of stereotypes in film, advertisements, etc. We are constantly exposed to characters in these mediums who fit the description of their stereotype, and are therefore accepted as tokenism. We analyzed the film Rush Hour 2, and a stand up performance by Chris Rock on stereotypes. We concluded that bother entailed racial discourse, and confronted stereotypes of whites, Asians, and black, and presented it through a comedic lens, however, there were some differences. Rush Hour 2 explored cultural stereotypes and portrayed/reconstructed these stereotypes, whereas Chris Rock demonstrated the negative aspects of stereotyping, critiquing racism. This produces an oppositional and counter hegemonic discourse. Park’s conclusion is that none of the characters who are being, to use Hook’s term, “othered,” demonstrate no oppositional discourse.

This is how Bell Hooks comes to the conclusion that “White racism, imperialism, and sexist domination prevail by courageous consumption. It is by eating the Other that one asserts power and privilege” (Hooks 378).

The Other is objectified to be consumed. Thus, we see a power relationship between that of the consumer and the dominant ideological figure. It bothers me that we have to rely on “othering” in order to produce content worth consuming. Being critical of the text to which we are exposed, as Hooks suggests, is an important because we will only become a more rational and democratic society as we develop as a culture into a more communicative society. Habermas, our defender of modernity, suggests that being critical and partaking in public-sphere organizations will facilitate the action for extended communication between individuals, who will turn their discussions towards being critical in hopes of solving the malaise of modern society. This is what we need to do in order to eradicate the issue of “othering” to produce a text worth consuming. “The over-riding fear is that cultural, ethic, and racial differences will be continually commodified and offered up as new dishes to enhance the white palate – that the other will be eaten, consumed, and forgotten” (Hooks 380). This will not be true if we put ourselves in the others’ shoes.

spaghetti, hooks

I found this reading very interesting and easy to understand. In cmc, I think we devote a large amount of time to understanding and studying the Other. While reading, I was constantly reminded of Kilbourne's video we watched in CMC100 called "Killing us softly." Although Kilbourne's main focus is on sex and gender portrayals in the media, she does touch on race as well. I distinctly remember her observation that when race comes into advertisements in mass culture, there is almost always a struggle of power. She then shows images of print advertisements in which the subjects are of different races. She makes note that the white subject usually is portrayed as asserting some kind of dominance over the subject of another race. She uses this example to show that when a man and a woman are in an advertisement, usually the man is shown as dominant. The only time a woman is typically portrayed as dominant, is if race is involved. She then showed an image which i will never forget of a white little girl standing tall above a black little boy, who is obviously younger and is looking up at her. When hooks states, "It is within the commercial realm of advertising that the drama of Otherness finds expression," he supports Kilbourne's point (370).
In advertising, different races, if present, almost always illustrate some kind of power relationship. By juxtaposing subjects of different races or ethnicities in images, advertisements perpetuate this predominant view of anyone not white as "other."

Smiley Face - Hooks

Throughout the critical media studies curriculum, within the CMC department, the topic of Orientalism and 'the other' consistently comes up in every class. Although we may think we know all there is to know about the exoticness created by the media surrounding other cultures making them appear scary and different, Hooks takes this notion one step further by introducing the idea that the otherness of cultures created by the media, when normalized into mainstream culture, makes them desirable and popular. Hooks explains this process as the recognition and reconciliation of a subculture into dominant mainstream media. The recognition must come from the familiarity of a sign or code the audience is already aware of, for the normalization of the culture to occur more naturally. The second part, reconciliation, comes into play through the apparentness of the culture into mainstream to help shed light on their political issues and act as a positive change for their society. Hooks uses the example of the American Dream and how it was once frowned upon by the dominant society until it thrived in itself in America. However, the reconciliation step for the gay, lesbian and bisexual community was affected negatively, particularly in advertising. This awareness of a subculture as part of the mainstream lead audiences to believe that they no longer need fighting for equal rights of heterosexual couples and as a result this culture has become normalized and now continue to fight for the same issues they did before.
Another aspect of this new frame for orientalism comes from the shift in subject focus: Hooks states how the dominant person in society wishes to explore a subculture to see how they will be changed from the encounter (368). This mirrors the concept of autoethnography, the study of the researcher being the subject and how they are influenced by their surroundings while considering their personal experiences. Hooks recognizes this notion with white 'essentialists' who should focus on the way their critique should reflect their own identity rather than others.
As a whole, Hooks demonstrates come clear examples of the desired 'other' through the examples of using movies and advertising brands. But to leave you with one thought, is there really an 'other' when they are both feared and wanted at the same time? Will we ever reach a point of equilibrium between helping subcultures in need for justice without creating an 'imperialistic nostalgia' to exploit their heritage?

coolbeans, 4/19

The fact that we discussed George Orwell’s novel 1984 in class on Thursday was significant because the novel is about a society that is always watched by “Big Brother’s” thought police. It was interesting that people said that Orwell was inaccurate in his predictions about the future because it just shows how commonplace all of the things that are here to “watch” us have become. The novel seems extreme because people in the novel are not even allowed to have other thoughts. While we still have the freedom to think our own thoughts, people are still ostracized and branded as “crazy, weird, freakish, etc…” if they choose to believe in things that go against what has become normalized, or politically correct. People’s thoughts are monitored through what they choose to say on facebook, blogs, websites, etc… and how they portray themselves to others. Another interesting thing that we talked about in class this week was the concept of the Panopticon. The panopticon is a architectural plan for a type of prison in which prisoners are in their individual cells arranged in a circular manner and a tower in the center has guards in it who randomly pull out their guns on the prisoners at random hours of the day. This leads the prisoners to believe that the guards are always there and that they are always being watched, which makes them more likely to keep their behavior in check. Many establishments here work in the same manner as the panopticon, but not as violently with guns. For example, people choose to obey a traffic that is red if there is a camera there because we do not want to face the consequence of paying the fee of a ticket. Despite the fact that we have absolutely no idea if the camera is a real camera or a fake one or if it is on at all hours of the day we are aware of its presence and therefore we choose to obey the law.

Rubber Soul, 4/19

Derrida uses the term logocentrism to describe the idea that humans are ultimately locked into words thus naming things is the ultimate power. "In the beginning" God made Adam and Eve and placed them in a garden and gave them only two instructions: do not eat the forbidden fruit and give everything around you names. It's amazing to think of how much power a word can hold. One of my text books from visual rhetoric introduced the idea that once you know the name of something, you possess a sense of power over it. The example the author gave was that he was looking through a book about local plants and animal species and came across a photo of a very peculiar looking but beautiful tree. It was called a Joshua Tree, and it had thorns and spikes that exploded from it's branches. The author thought to himself that he had never seen a tree like that around him before. Turns out when he was leaving for work the next day, he noticed his neighbor had Joshua trees in their front lawn and he began to notice them all around on his drive to work. Once he knew the name of the object he could then identify it's presence around him. Names/words allow for a state of awareness. He had never noticed the beauty of Joshua trees until he knew the name of what it was that he was looking at. Sometimes the words we use cannot capture the essence of what we are trying to describe. Dr. Casey gave the example of the word NOW. It's not possible to ask someone to do something NOW when the moment after you say NOW the time has passed and that particular NOW is over. Thus, words can empower and words can confine.

Trapnest, 4/19

It was ironic, however the day after our discussions I was invited to join the following group on facebook:

“PETITION: Cameras in the Parking Garage”

The description for the group is:

“It's been a problem for longer than we know, and last week it came to a head. We need security cameras posted in our parking garage.

The purpose of this group is solely to get an accurate count of how many people are in favor of this before I approach the head of Campus Safety on Monday. No participation necessary, just join and invite your friends.”

I joined it myself, within a day or so it now has over one-hundred and fifty members from Rollins College, and is growing. Firstly, I feel this is an example of how people are used to always being watched, and this creates a comfort. I think it bothers people in some ways, and in some areas, if they are not being watched. This point is proven by the people who wrote on the wall for the group:

“I’m surprised there aren’t cameras in the garage already...”

This quote alone supports that there is an expectation in our society to be watched. And, generally speaking, what is common makes us comfortable. There was also only a brief discussion on privacy concerns, and a general consensus that most people didn’t find it concerning to their privacy at all. If there was any ‘main” concern it was that there wouldn’t be enough cameras, or high enough quality cameras to accurately catch a criminal.

I think that we have gotten used to the mentality that we’re always being watched. After September 11th and following bills like the Patriot Act, it seems to be a common expectation to be watched in our society. There’s even a bill currently working it’s way in congress to give the president exclusive powers to essentially “shut off” networks and infrastructure surrounding the internet if he deems something enough of a cyber threat to do so. Under this is also the ability for the government to look into any network to gain any information if they feel there is just cause and or a threat.

Our society is almost on a reverse panopticon. Instead of viewing it as threatening, and our prison the consistency becomes our safe heaven. Where we know what to expect, and don’t doubt or hesitate, or more importantly question if it is for our “safety.”

Savvy 4.19.09

In class on Tuesday we talked about Logocentrism. We discussed logos "words". As human beings we are completely locked into words. Words ultimately control us. Words have everything to do with what we do. They are at the bottom of how we create and define ourselves as individuals. Dr.Casey talked about how knowing somethings name gives us power over that thing. He talked about the public name v the private name. In relation to this topic Dr.Casey asked the class if we knew what the most powerful thing in our country is. I had no idea what he was referring to when he asked out class this question. When he responded with "our signature" I was surprised. I had never really given my signature a thought before. When I was younger and I needed to sign something, my parents would always tell me to just "sign my name". I never once thought twice about it. i don't know if it was because it was my parents telling me to do it, or if because I figured signing my name really was not a big deal. Now that I am older, I am constantly signing my signature. I would say that I probably sign my name at least once a day without ever really thinking of it. It was not until Dr.Casey brought this point up that I began to think about the power of my signature. Now every time I sign a receipt after using my credit card I think about our class and what Dr.Casey said.

We also discussed in Tuesdays class the idea that language is something that has been made up by humans o give us a sense of presence and meaning in the here and now. I liked when we discussed the concept of language being composed of differences. We are constantly defining something by what it is not. We do this in our everyday lives. We re constantly referring to somethings opposites.