Welp, I guess this is my last blog post, so perhaps I will keep it short and sweet. This week helped me wrap up a lot of loose ends to theory. When we initially started with Appadurai this semester it was so much information to take in but I was intrigued by what I knew was going to come throughout the weeks ahead. Reading, and going over Appadurai again this week has simply solidified some of the theories we have already learned about and has strengthened my understanding of Appadurai's theory.
As the semester does come to a close, I think Appadurai is still my favorite theorist. I don't know what it is about the five dimensions he emphasizes, ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes and ideoscapes, but they just all make sense to me in helping me understand theory, specifically his, as a whole.
What's interesting is, now I wonder, what is real, even more than I did when this class just begun. However, I believe this is due to my ability to think more critically at this time.
"There is a battle of the imagination," (518) writes Appadurai, and I believe that battle has infected our culture as a whole. Who is to say what is real and what is imagined? Who is to say what is imagined and what it real? Only those that think critically can begin to uncover these "truths".
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Arjun you stud
Arjun Appadurai was terrible to read to start the class. At the time it made me feel very intimidated of theory. I did not know if I was ever going to understand what Appadurai was saying.
Now that we have revisited Mr. Appadurai, I am actually grateful for reading him first. I had no idea who he was referencing when we first read him, but now after taking this journey through theory I have begun to make the connections that Appadurai is getting across.
"If your present is their future, and their future is your past, then your own past can be made to appear as simply a normalized modality of your present" (513).
I can't explain this one.
Ethnoscapes and technoscapes have begun to make more sense to me. They tie in together because technology helps to spread ethnoscapes. The spread of different cultures is made available through technology.
Now that we have revisited Mr. Appadurai, I am actually grateful for reading him first. I had no idea who he was referencing when we first read him, but now after taking this journey through theory I have begun to make the connections that Appadurai is getting across.
"If your present is their future, and their future is your past, then your own past can be made to appear as simply a normalized modality of your present" (513).
I can't explain this one.
Ethnoscapes and technoscapes have begun to make more sense to me. They tie in together because technology helps to spread ethnoscapes. The spread of different cultures is made available through technology.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Appadurai
When we initially read Appadurai, I was really confused and a little scared.. I didn't really know what to think about what he was saying, let alone what he actually WAS saying. But after rereading him, everything made a lot more sense. He basically ties in all the theorists and theories that we've read this semester and created a bridge between them.
I remember in the beginning of the term we discussed his fives "scapes": ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideascapes. He asserts that these are the five categories that heavily impact the world and hold systems that make our cultures exactly what they are. When Appadurai gets to the part about mediascapes, you can see him tying in Bourdieu and how the media plays a major role in how the media desensitizes us from things that are crucial in our world. He also agrees with Zizek by asserting that reality and fakeness has reached a point where it is indecipherable. "The lines between realistic and fictional landscapes they see are blurred, so that the farther away these audiences are from the direct experiences of metropolitan life, the more likely they are to construct imagined worlds that are chimerical, aesthetic, even fantastic objects, particularly if assessed by the criteria of some other perspective, some other imagined world." (515). This also relates to Eco because it implies that we, as humans, go about believing passively. We don't question the things around us. Therefore, the fakeness that we are being exposed to is perceived as real, which creates a very dangerous environment.
Another quote that stuck out to me was in relation to Baudrillard's theory of simulacra and how everything has become processed and artificially reproduced. "...The consumer has been transformed through commodity flows (and the mediascapes, especially of advertising, that accompany them) into a sign, both in Baudrillard's sense of simulacrum that only asymptotically approaches the form of a real social agent, and in the sense of a mask for the real seat of agency, which is not the consumer but the producer and the many forces that constitute production." (519) Appadurai goes along with Baudrillard's theory and adds to it by saying how simulacrum in conjunction with our passivity and uncritical willingness as consumers is what drives the success of 'consumerism'.
Although I was able to make some connections that I hadn't previously been able to in the beginning of the semester, there are still some things I'm unsure on, but I know we'll cover it in class tomorrow.
I remember in the beginning of the term we discussed his fives "scapes": ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideascapes. He asserts that these are the five categories that heavily impact the world and hold systems that make our cultures exactly what they are. When Appadurai gets to the part about mediascapes, you can see him tying in Bourdieu and how the media plays a major role in how the media desensitizes us from things that are crucial in our world. He also agrees with Zizek by asserting that reality and fakeness has reached a point where it is indecipherable. "The lines between realistic and fictional landscapes they see are blurred, so that the farther away these audiences are from the direct experiences of metropolitan life, the more likely they are to construct imagined worlds that are chimerical, aesthetic, even fantastic objects, particularly if assessed by the criteria of some other perspective, some other imagined world." (515). This also relates to Eco because it implies that we, as humans, go about believing passively. We don't question the things around us. Therefore, the fakeness that we are being exposed to is perceived as real, which creates a very dangerous environment.
Another quote that stuck out to me was in relation to Baudrillard's theory of simulacra and how everything has become processed and artificially reproduced. "...The consumer has been transformed through commodity flows (and the mediascapes, especially of advertising, that accompany them) into a sign, both in Baudrillard's sense of simulacrum that only asymptotically approaches the form of a real social agent, and in the sense of a mask for the real seat of agency, which is not the consumer but the producer and the many forces that constitute production." (519) Appadurai goes along with Baudrillard's theory and adds to it by saying how simulacrum in conjunction with our passivity and uncritical willingness as consumers is what drives the success of 'consumerism'.
Although I was able to make some connections that I hadn't previously been able to in the beginning of the semester, there are still some things I'm unsure on, but I know we'll cover it in class tomorrow.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Kayla Salyer -- Appadurai
Rereading Appadurai today was a completely new experience than before. When first touching on this piece, I was more than confused throughout the entire thing, and frustrated with each sentence I read. Now, I find myself far more comfortable with the material I read, and able to understand far more than I did in the past.
That being said, I want to talk about one specific thing Appadurai writes about: Cultural expansion. As mentioned early on in his essay, Appadurai shows the various restrictions and barriers cultures had to face in order to spread to other parts of the world. From geography to religious and political laws, culture was sectioned to certain parts of the world. This changed very quickly and very drastically in modern times. One of the most prominent ways it spread was due to the fact that we do not have to communicate face to face. We have telephones, internet, television and countless others that connect us with the world around. A stream of benefits and consequences have stemmed from this cultural change. Mentioning Jameson, Appadurai talks about this "nostalgia we have for the present"(Appadurai 512), this feeling of a loss of something. We constantly look back and think we are missing something in our present day lives, which causes us to search for something in the present that can be from the past. He is putting forth the idea that we are not living in the present anymore because we are always longingly looking into the past.
Relating these ideas to another class, I have been looking at the modernization of Japan. Japan was closed off from the rest of the world for a long period of time, until the west forced themselves onto their borders. Japan did their best to keep their culture, yet westernization was inevitable. Reading a book from the early 1920's, it is evident that westernization was taking a toll on the Japanese culture. A writer expressed his fears and longings towards a western girl, while wanting her to have a basis of Japanese culture. The woman in the book turned into the exact opposite of the writers dream because although she was western to an extent, she had no Japanese cultural background. The author expresses how detrimental this can be. The woman looses herself to a false, idealized western culture of lies, cheat and hatred. According to the book, the lack of a core culture, and the influence of a foreign culture had detrimental effects. This correlates with Appadurai's ideas of the consequences of the spread of culture, as well as the nostalgia for the present.
That being said, I want to talk about one specific thing Appadurai writes about: Cultural expansion. As mentioned early on in his essay, Appadurai shows the various restrictions and barriers cultures had to face in order to spread to other parts of the world. From geography to religious and political laws, culture was sectioned to certain parts of the world. This changed very quickly and very drastically in modern times. One of the most prominent ways it spread was due to the fact that we do not have to communicate face to face. We have telephones, internet, television and countless others that connect us with the world around. A stream of benefits and consequences have stemmed from this cultural change. Mentioning Jameson, Appadurai talks about this "nostalgia we have for the present"(Appadurai 512), this feeling of a loss of something. We constantly look back and think we are missing something in our present day lives, which causes us to search for something in the present that can be from the past. He is putting forth the idea that we are not living in the present anymore because we are always longingly looking into the past.
Relating these ideas to another class, I have been looking at the modernization of Japan. Japan was closed off from the rest of the world for a long period of time, until the west forced themselves onto their borders. Japan did their best to keep their culture, yet westernization was inevitable. Reading a book from the early 1920's, it is evident that westernization was taking a toll on the Japanese culture. A writer expressed his fears and longings towards a western girl, while wanting her to have a basis of Japanese culture. The woman in the book turned into the exact opposite of the writers dream because although she was western to an extent, she had no Japanese cultural background. The author expresses how detrimental this can be. The woman looses herself to a false, idealized western culture of lies, cheat and hatred. According to the book, the lack of a core culture, and the influence of a foreign culture had detrimental effects. This correlates with Appadurai's ideas of the consequences of the spread of culture, as well as the nostalgia for the present.
In Which Appadurai Gives Me Stuff to Talk About, BoredCaitlin
I can remember reading Appadurai at the beginning of the semester and being completely baffled. I finished reading the article in a confused daze and my only thought was, “what the hell did I just read?” (To be fair, Appadurai wasn’t the only theorist I had that reaction to.) Looking at it now that we’ve read so many theorists, it makes a bit more sense. I could understand what Appadurai is writing about and I was able notice connections to the other theorists we’ve discussed...
There are definitely more connections to other theorists to be made here, but if I were to go through all of them, this would be a very long blog post.
- “a new power was unleashed in the world, the power of mass literacy and its attendant large-scale production of projects of ethnic affinity that were remarkably free of the need for face-to-face communication between persons and groups.” (Appadurai 512)
- “if a global cultural system is emerging, it is filled with ironies and resistances, sometimes camouflaged as passivity and a bottomless appetite in the Asian world for things Western.” (Appadurai 512)
- “States find themselves pressed to stay open by the forces of media, technology, and travel that have fueled consumerism throughout the world and have increased the craving, even in the non-Western world, for new commodities and spectacles.” (Appadurai 518)
There are definitely more connections to other theorists to be made here, but if I were to go through all of them, this would be a very long blog post.
Brooke Bumgarner - Revisiting Appadurai
"It takes only the merest acquaintance with the facts of the modern world to note that it is now an interactive system in a sense that is strikingly new" (511) wrote Appadurai. This much is clear in society today, as each country does not merely possess the consumer goods of their own land, but we find goods shipped from near and far into almost every area. There is no denying however, that there are still areas of the world virtually untouched, or not near as easy to reach as others, however, "this intricate and overlapping set of Eurocolonial worlds... set the basis for a permanent traffic in ideas of peoplehood and selfhood, which created the imagined communities (Anderson 1983) of recent nationalisms throughout the world" (Appadurai, 511). However, this does not apply purely to capital, but even more importantly to the technical and mediated sphere of human life.
"For the past century, there has been a technological explosion, largely in the domain of transportation and information..." (Appadurai 512). Today, argues Appadurai, our media and technological advances make it so that media can be transmitted widely throughout the world. We are living in an era of cultural interactions that are blending our cultures together, it seems. It is further argued by Appadurai that, "most often, the homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument about Americanization or an argument about commoditization" (513). Many today argue that Americanization is occurring throughout our world, however, we fail to understand how each culture may make simulated ideas their own.
Appadurai importantly argues that, "the new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models... the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjunctures between economy, culture, and politics that we have only begun to theorize" (514). A very important statement to take into account, we have only begun to theorize them, for the world we are in is ever changing.
The disjunctures he argues are made up of five dimensions: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes. All of which, I believe are constantly in flux, as noted above, ever changing.
Ethnoscapes can be understood as the shifting of and exchange of individuals through cultural boundaries, best understood as migration I suppose.
Technoscapes can be understood as the fluid, new and advancing exchanges of information and interactions between cultures due to the power of technological advances.
Financescapes is closely related to the previous two, however because of the specifics of every culture and landscape, it is hard to imagine a truly global political economy as Appadurai calls it. It appears to me that his is still the dimension with the biggest gaps. It is widely unpredictable because of its nature of change he argues.
Mediascapes Appadurai claims "refer both to the distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information" (515) across cultural boundaries previously held. This is reflective widely of the various media outlets- news, television, magazines, ect. that help us create an imagined world in which we can blend each part of cultures we like to create a utopian idea of what we would ideally wish to exist in.
And finally, ideoscapes, deal with the political side of such imaginary worlds, or fantasizes and they deal frequently with "ideologies of states and the counter-ideologies of movements explicitly oriented to capturing state power or a piece of it" (Appadurai, 516).
"For the past century, there has been a technological explosion, largely in the domain of transportation and information..." (Appadurai 512). Today, argues Appadurai, our media and technological advances make it so that media can be transmitted widely throughout the world. We are living in an era of cultural interactions that are blending our cultures together, it seems. It is further argued by Appadurai that, "most often, the homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument about Americanization or an argument about commoditization" (513). Many today argue that Americanization is occurring throughout our world, however, we fail to understand how each culture may make simulated ideas their own.
Appadurai importantly argues that, "the new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models... the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjunctures between economy, culture, and politics that we have only begun to theorize" (514). A very important statement to take into account, we have only begun to theorize them, for the world we are in is ever changing.
The disjunctures he argues are made up of five dimensions: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes. All of which, I believe are constantly in flux, as noted above, ever changing.
Ethnoscapes can be understood as the shifting of and exchange of individuals through cultural boundaries, best understood as migration I suppose.
Technoscapes can be understood as the fluid, new and advancing exchanges of information and interactions between cultures due to the power of technological advances.
Financescapes is closely related to the previous two, however because of the specifics of every culture and landscape, it is hard to imagine a truly global political economy as Appadurai calls it. It appears to me that his is still the dimension with the biggest gaps. It is widely unpredictable because of its nature of change he argues.
Mediascapes Appadurai claims "refer both to the distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information" (515) across cultural boundaries previously held. This is reflective widely of the various media outlets- news, television, magazines, ect. that help us create an imagined world in which we can blend each part of cultures we like to create a utopian idea of what we would ideally wish to exist in.
And finally, ideoscapes, deal with the political side of such imaginary worlds, or fantasizes and they deal frequently with "ideologies of states and the counter-ideologies of movements explicitly oriented to capturing state power or a piece of it" (Appadurai, 516).
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
What is Normal??, Response to Trying Desperately to Find Something to Say About Foucault, BoredCaitlin
When reading Caitlin's post about Foucault and his binary oppositions, it got me thinking about why they exist, especially normal vs. abnormal. What classifies someone as normal? What does normal look like?
This train of thought jogged my memory about a video I saw not too long ago. It was about a man who decided to take measurements from numerous disabled people and created exact mannequin replicas of their bodies. These mannequins were displayed with clothing on them in store windows for all to see. The people who walked by noticed the bodies right away. Many were confused, and they continued to stare for a moment. The importance of the video was to show that no one is perfect, and we all come in different shapes and sizes so there truly is no concept of 'normal'.
I am currently in a disabilities class and this subject has become very dear to my heart after reading about many people's experiences and difficulties trying to fit in by making themselves appear more 'normal'. Like Foucault is saying, these binaries are unnecessary and even hurtful. If the world just stopped feeding into them, it would be a happier and a much more real place.
This train of thought jogged my memory about a video I saw not too long ago. It was about a man who decided to take measurements from numerous disabled people and created exact mannequin replicas of their bodies. These mannequins were displayed with clothing on them in store windows for all to see. The people who walked by noticed the bodies right away. Many were confused, and they continued to stare for a moment. The importance of the video was to show that no one is perfect, and we all come in different shapes and sizes so there truly is no concept of 'normal'.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
When Participatory Culture Attacks, Response to MC Guffee, "Henry Jenkins... returns"
Participatory culture can be a wonderful thing. Through the Internet, it allows people from around the world to connect with each other over something they love, as Jenkins writes, using “the shared framework of popular culture” (457). The Internet offers a certain degree of anonymity that face-to-face interactions don’t. Users can often say whatever they want with little to no repercussions. They can freely say things that they wouldn’t think of saying in real life. The combination of anonymity and an audience can often bring out the worst in people.
The Jackson Katz Yik Yak incident is just one example. Another example of participatory culture gone wrong can be seen with the backlash against feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian runs a YouTube channel called Feminist Frequency where she critiques popular culture from a feminist perspective, and recently she has been making a series of videos dedicated to deconstructing sexist tropes in video games. As soon as she announced this series, the angrier members of the gaming community found a common enemy. Many users across the Internet (but mostly from 4chan, the hotbed of scumbag Internet activity) banded together to barrage Sarkeesian with threats and hate messages. They’ve dehumanized her by viewing her as a sort of big scary villain hell-bent on destroying video games, and they’ve cast themselves as the heroes. The anonymity of the Internet has allowed them to act this way because they know they won’t face any repercussions.
The Jackson Katz Yik Yak incident is just one example. Another example of participatory culture gone wrong can be seen with the backlash against feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian runs a YouTube channel called Feminist Frequency where she critiques popular culture from a feminist perspective, and recently she has been making a series of videos dedicated to deconstructing sexist tropes in video games. As soon as she announced this series, the angrier members of the gaming community found a common enemy. Many users across the Internet (but mostly from 4chan, the hotbed of scumbag Internet activity) banded together to barrage Sarkeesian with threats and hate messages. They’ve dehumanized her by viewing her as a sort of big scary villain hell-bent on destroying video games, and they’ve cast themselves as the heroes. The anonymity of the Internet has allowed them to act this way because they know they won’t face any repercussions.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Sports Panopticon ... post 11-20
"Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power" (Foucalt, 98).
I idea of the Panopticon is a genius idea of controlling people in prison. The idea of having someone watching you is going to stop people from doing things. In sports they create a different idea of a Panopitcon to keep people "hungry" and to work hard when nobody is around. Coaches and motivators tend to control players by motivation of competition. What I mean is that they will compare us to our teammates who we are competing against for playing time but also every other player out in the world. Coaches will use tactics such as asking basketball players how many shots they shot today? After hearing the answer, a coach will then ask a basketball player how many shots the kids on our team shot, then kids from the next county, then the whole state, then the whole country and then the whole world. So as a an athlete our Panopticon is the threat of how hard another athlete in this world is working and we should out work them if we want to be better them. This Panopticon is what motivates young athletes to work hard even when they don't want to. At the end of each day I ask myself if I got better today? Then I ask my self if I out worked the pitcher at Tampa University and at the University of Florida. This Panopticon created in sports also helps to govern athletes from using drugs, hanging with the wrong people, and also missing out on a lot of social events because of getting necessary sleep or having an athlete's body recover.
"The Panopticon, on the other hand, must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men" (Foucalt, 99).
For sports in my life and others the Panopticon used to help reach our very unlikely goal of playing professional sports. "If you want to play professional sports then you must do 'this.'" It could be looked at as a way to keep kids the right path which I guess is not that bad of a thing.
I idea of the Panopticon is a genius idea of controlling people in prison. The idea of having someone watching you is going to stop people from doing things. In sports they create a different idea of a Panopitcon to keep people "hungry" and to work hard when nobody is around. Coaches and motivators tend to control players by motivation of competition. What I mean is that they will compare us to our teammates who we are competing against for playing time but also every other player out in the world. Coaches will use tactics such as asking basketball players how many shots they shot today? After hearing the answer, a coach will then ask a basketball player how many shots the kids on our team shot, then kids from the next county, then the whole state, then the whole country and then the whole world. So as a an athlete our Panopticon is the threat of how hard another athlete in this world is working and we should out work them if we want to be better them. This Panopticon is what motivates young athletes to work hard even when they don't want to. At the end of each day I ask myself if I got better today? Then I ask my self if I out worked the pitcher at Tampa University and at the University of Florida. This Panopticon created in sports also helps to govern athletes from using drugs, hanging with the wrong people, and also missing out on a lot of social events because of getting necessary sleep or having an athlete's body recover.
"The Panopticon, on the other hand, must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men" (Foucalt, 99).
For sports in my life and others the Panopticon used to help reach our very unlikely goal of playing professional sports. "If you want to play professional sports then you must do 'this.'" It could be looked at as a way to keep kids the right path which I guess is not that bad of a thing.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Foucault Reflection
One of Foucault's main points is surveillance and how prevalent it is in our society. After hearing the stories that some people had shared in class made me realize just how frequently we're being monitored in all aspects in our life and how unaware we are of it. He wants us to critical and aware of this surveillance. He is critical of this constant surveillance that taps into our private lives and views it as highly negative. When discussing this in class I couldn't help but think about one of my favorite reality shows, Big Brother.
Big Brother 16 Clip
Basically, it starts out with 16 contestants and they have to compete weekly in competitions to guarantee their safety in the house. Each week, one person is voted off. The house is under 24 hour, constant surveillance for the entire duration of the show (the whole summer). The footage covers everything from them sleeping, eating, fighting, and making out. It's really personal. All the footage can be found online for anyone to view. Millions of viewers find entertainment out of this show but if you really think about it, the concept is extremely weird. We can basically stalk these people that we don't even know and hear and see everything that they do at any moment of the day. Reflecting on that, this is how the government works with the rest of us in society. It's a frightening thought that we are under constant watch, and that every move we make is possibly being seen. There's apparently ways for the government to turn on the cameras on our computers without us knowing, in order to watch us. This increased surveillance is a violation of our rights and privacy, yet it is only getting worse.
Big Brother 16 Clip
Basically, it starts out with 16 contestants and they have to compete weekly in competitions to guarantee their safety in the house. Each week, one person is voted off. The house is under 24 hour, constant surveillance for the entire duration of the show (the whole summer). The footage covers everything from them sleeping, eating, fighting, and making out. It's really personal. All the footage can be found online for anyone to view. Millions of viewers find entertainment out of this show but if you really think about it, the concept is extremely weird. We can basically stalk these people that we don't even know and hear and see everything that they do at any moment of the day. Reflecting on that, this is how the government works with the rest of us in society. It's a frightening thought that we are under constant watch, and that every move we make is possibly being seen. There's apparently ways for the government to turn on the cameras on our computers without us knowing, in order to watch us. This increased surveillance is a violation of our rights and privacy, yet it is only getting worse.
Kayla Salyer Foucault Reflection
I find it very interesting that surveillance is linked very closely to power. If a person knows he or she is being watched then they act very differently than they would if they knew they weren't. In our complicated world today, we are always being watched. From cameras to cop cars, there always seams to be an eye on us weather we want it or not. Many fight for this right to privacy, while attempting to still feel safe and avoid crime. We live in a world in which there must be a balance in this. We do not want our schools to be filled with cameras, yet we need enough surveillance to avoid certain situations. This is when things begin to get sticky. Many times the things used to spy are only in place so that we think someone is watching. We think that there is always someone in the cop car, or that the cameras are always working. This makes us always behave in a way that we are always being watched. It makes us act as though the law is always staring down on us, waiting for us to do something wrong.
This idea of a constant surveillance must make it hard for us to decipher between real actions, and those influenced by this notion. It fascinates me to think of a world in which there are no camera, no police, no prying eyes. How would this world be different? Would there be less crime and more trust? Would crime increase significantly, or would people give others the benefit of the doubt? The reality is that we will never be able to see that world in our environment. This notion of someone always watching us will forever be engrained in our society and the effects of it will last even if all the cameras are taken down.
This idea of a constant surveillance must make it hard for us to decipher between real actions, and those influenced by this notion. It fascinates me to think of a world in which there are no camera, no police, no prying eyes. How would this world be different? Would there be less crime and more trust? Would crime increase significantly, or would people give others the benefit of the doubt? The reality is that we will never be able to see that world in our environment. This notion of someone always watching us will forever be engrained in our society and the effects of it will last even if all the cameras are taken down.
Foucault and Santa Claus, BoredCaitlin, 11/20
Foucault writes that “our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance” (Foucault 101). Quite often the mode of surveillance won’t even truly exist, but it exercises its power nonetheless. I remember in class someone mentioned a story of having a cop car sounding a siren but no one was actually in the car (or something along those lines. My memory is a bit foggy), or “security cameras” that aren’t cameras at all. Oddly enough, this made me think about the entire concept of Santa Claus.
Santa doesn’t exist, but parents still use his “existence” as leverage for their children’s good behavior. They make kids believe that if they behave badly, they’ll be getting lumps of coal in their Christmas stockings. Why is this? Because a magical bearded fat man is surveilling their behavior from the North Pole, watching their every move. As Foucault puts it, “a real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation.” It’s their way of using an imaginary force to exercise discipline with their children, and until they’re old enough to realize Santa can’t exist, kids go along with it because they don’t know any better. To them, behaving well is another way to get a toy.
Santa doesn’t exist, but parents still use his “existence” as leverage for their children’s good behavior. They make kids believe that if they behave badly, they’ll be getting lumps of coal in their Christmas stockings. Why is this? Because a magical bearded fat man is surveilling their behavior from the North Pole, watching their every move. As Foucault puts it, “a real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation.” It’s their way of using an imaginary force to exercise discipline with their children, and until they’re old enough to realize Santa can’t exist, kids go along with it because they don’t know any better. To them, behaving well is another way to get a toy.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Discipline ....yeah cause I break all da rules
I am very interested in how the author argues the discipline used by the Repressive state apparatuses. The use of empty police cars, use of cameras that may not work, or even the use of a bible. I am a religious person, but that does not mean I can't see where an atheist is coming from. I have a problem with uneducated atheists, that formulate arguments for stupid reasons. However, the bible when created could have been a way to discipline and control the masses. All religions have the same goal, to achieve salvation for a peaceful and plentiful after life. Repressive state apparatuses could have helped to shape "rules" in the bible in order to keep the masses in line. Disciplining the masses through a totalizing meta narrative. Using the 10 commandments as a way of having the masses self discipline themselves. According to Senior Lyotard, totalizing meta narratives don't work anymore. Our society is to pluralistic, so we have seen the transition into the surveillance of the masses. Whether it be through cameras that work or not and empty cop cars. Foucault is saying that these disciplines are there inorder to keep us in line because without the discipline than we will steal and deceive.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Foucault 11/19
Foucault talks about sexuality and what constitutes as a definition for that term. He argues that sexuality, although the term has changed over the years, has mainly held the same meaning because of the ideologies that are attached to it.
"The essential features of this sexuality are not the expression of a representation that is more or less distorted by ideology, or of a misunderstanding caused by taboos; they correspond to the functional requirements of a discourse that must produce its truth." (104)
In our society, there are a lot of stereotypes or expectations that are tied with sexuality and gender. If you are a woman, you should be feminine, a good cook, motherly, and enjoy beauty products. If you are a man, you should be masculine, good at fixing things, the dominant figure, and enjoy cars and beer. Obviously those stereotypes don't hold true for each and every male and female in our world. In fact, many men and women do not go along with these stereotypes.
"The essential features of this sexuality are not the expression of a representation that is more or less distorted by ideology, or of a misunderstanding caused by taboos; they correspond to the functional requirements of a discourse that must produce its truth." (104)
In our society, there are a lot of stereotypes or expectations that are tied with sexuality and gender. If you are a woman, you should be feminine, a good cook, motherly, and enjoy beauty products. If you are a man, you should be masculine, good at fixing things, the dominant figure, and enjoy cars and beer. Obviously those stereotypes don't hold true for each and every male and female in our world. In fact, many men and women do not go along with these stereotypes.
Here we see this famous poster that portrays this woman as strong, masculine, and independent. This is a perfect example of how the gender and sexuality stereotype does not hold true and shouldn't be further expressed in our society.
As time has gone on, our world has been more involved and recognized the LGBT community, which also goes under the umbrella term of sexuality. Sexuality doesn't just involved the vanilla boy and girl. It has become a very fluid term that has become up to the individual on how they choose to identify.
This is Gigi, a famous youtuber who goes by the tag name gigigorgeous. She identifies as a woman and is interested in men. However, years ago she had surgery to look this way because she was born a man. Gigi is another prime example of how sexuality is more fluid than initially thought of because it is a very complex topic. We shouldn't be so quick to stereotype, categorize, or assume things that go along with being a man or woman because often they are not true.
Trying Desperately to Find Something to Say About Foucault, BoredCaitlin
“The constant division between the normal and the abnormal, to which every individual is subjected, brings us back to our own time, by applying the binary branding and exile of the leper to quite different objects” (Foucault 97)
Foucault asserts that society has many binary oppositions that it forces onto individuals (“mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal”). He believes that individuals aren’t held back by these binaries but they construct themselves within them. I think this is true in some cases. For example, let’s look at the classic “pink/blue” gender binary.
This is a perfect instance of society applying a binary to “quite different objects,” as Foucault puts it. I’m not denying that there are some girls and boys out there that are perfectly happy with pink and blue respectively. They have no problem defining themselves as individuals within that binary. However, there are plenty of others who don’t identify with the binary, or actively go against it. I know that as a child, I would much rather play with my brother’s dinosaurs than with Barbie dolls or My Little Ponies. Even though some reject the binary, in a way, they are still defining themselves by it. They are defining themselves as individuals by acknowledging that the binary exists. This is just one example of the way our society doesn’t usually entertain the idea that things are grayer or more complex than they appear. It is easier to apply a simple black-or-white, this-or-that way of thinking to a situation.
Foucault asserts that society has many binary oppositions that it forces onto individuals (“mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal”). He believes that individuals aren’t held back by these binaries but they construct themselves within them. I think this is true in some cases. For example, let’s look at the classic “pink/blue” gender binary.
This is a perfect instance of society applying a binary to “quite different objects,” as Foucault puts it. I’m not denying that there are some girls and boys out there that are perfectly happy with pink and blue respectively. They have no problem defining themselves as individuals within that binary. However, there are plenty of others who don’t identify with the binary, or actively go against it. I know that as a child, I would much rather play with my brother’s dinosaurs than with Barbie dolls or My Little Ponies. Even though some reject the binary, in a way, they are still defining themselves by it. They are defining themselves as individuals by acknowledging that the binary exists. This is just one example of the way our society doesn’t usually entertain the idea that things are grayer or more complex than they appear. It is easier to apply a simple black-or-white, this-or-that way of thinking to a situation.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Bourdieu and The Lorax, BoredCaitlin, 11/11
When I walked into class on Tuesday, I overheard Spencer and Matt talking about the CGI animated version of The Lorax. Thus, I had the movie on my mind when we were talking about Bourdieu.
I may have been a Once-ler fangirl at one point. But hey, can you blame me?
In the movie, the town of Thneedville is a boxed-in plastic paradise. Almost everything in the town is fake, and as the Lorax describes at the beginning, “they like it that way.” The air outside has gotten so polluted that the town’s inhabitants buy bottled fresh air without question. They’re unaware that the world outside Thneedville is a desolate wasteland, and O’Hare, the corrupt CEO who basically rules the town, makes sure that they stay unaware.
What O’Hare makes them believe, as Bourdieu puts it, “confirms what they already know, and above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (Bourdieu 254).
Welcome to the desert of the real...
What bothers me most about the movie is its ending, when Ted introduces the tree to the town, and all the townspeople turn on O’Hare in an instant. They figure trees would be better for Thneedville, but they don’t really try to understand why. They simply accept it because a kid got on a soapbox and told them what to think, and they give him “respect that is... quite out of proportion with [his] intellectual merit” (Bourdieu 254). Their thought process is along the lines of, “hey, let’s plant a tree, because this kid says trees are cool.” Ted is just another person telling them what to think, just like television tells us what to think.
In the movie, the town of Thneedville is a boxed-in plastic paradise. Almost everything in the town is fake, and as the Lorax describes at the beginning, “they like it that way.” The air outside has gotten so polluted that the town’s inhabitants buy bottled fresh air without question. They’re unaware that the world outside Thneedville is a desolate wasteland, and O’Hare, the corrupt CEO who basically rules the town, makes sure that they stay unaware.
What O’Hare makes them believe, as Bourdieu puts it, “confirms what they already know, and above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (Bourdieu 254).
What bothers me most about the movie is its ending, when Ted introduces the tree to the town, and all the townspeople turn on O’Hare in an instant. They figure trees would be better for Thneedville, but they don’t really try to understand why. They simply accept it because a kid got on a soapbox and told them what to think, and they give him “respect that is... quite out of proportion with [his] intellectual merit” (Bourdieu 254). Their thought process is along the lines of, “hey, let’s plant a tree, because this kid says trees are cool.” Ted is just another person telling them what to think, just like television tells us what to think.
Bourdieu Television...You're an expert? psh
"People talk so much about the weather in day-to-day life because it's a subject that cannot cause trouble" (254).
Our society is full of conversations that are intended to not ripple the waters. Our society has began an era where topics that can cause trouble are told not to be talked about. The problem is that our media outlets begin to output news that does the same thing. Our news then becomes everything that we want to hear versus events in this world we need to hear. In daily conversation we are told not to talk about religion, politics, and family because these topics tend to provoke arguments. Our society begins to change to conversation that is superficial that has no depth.
Our society is full of conversations that are intended to not ripple the waters. Our society has began an era where topics that can cause trouble are told not to be talked about. The problem is that our media outlets begin to output news that does the same thing. Our news then becomes everything that we want to hear versus events in this world we need to hear. In daily conversation we are told not to talk about religion, politics, and family because these topics tend to provoke arguments. Our society begins to change to conversation that is superficial that has no depth.
What is an expert?
I love that Bourdieu attacks the creditability of some of these "experts." Our culture is obsessed titling people as experts. What makes a person an expert? Does having a doctorate in psychology make that person an expert in psychology? Probably so. The problem is that people shown on our media like journalists or news anchors are viewed as experts because they are the ones talking about the issues. If we title people as experts and then let them say what they think to our public it can cause major problems for our future. I would be like someone who was talking about major league baseball and how tiring the season can be but if you are not a person who has experienced this then how can you be an expert on the issue?? Well this is me unless I get the opportunity to play major league baseball. So hopefully when I get the chance to go into the field of being a news anchor I will be labeled an expert even if I don't get to experience baseball at the highest level. The biggest problem with calling people on our television experts is the fact that most people do not question whether someone is an expert or not. Even if you don't have a doctorate in psychology, you can still be classified as an expert. Not good.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Kayla Salyer -- Bourdieu
Bourdieu's essay purposes the idea that television is changing the way we look at the world. It is hurting us, our critical thinking, and our overall knowledge more than doing good. We can see this loss of knowledge every day we look at our televisions. We stop thinking critically because the news anchors are telling us exactly what to think. This stops the need for us to formulate our own opinions and ideas. This leads us back to sameness in a way that may be detrimental to our individual ideals, for if we are all only following the information, and the biased opinions that the so called 'news' gives us, we are simply all swallowing the same pill, and eventually, spewing out the same results.
Not only does news follow sameness, but also agreement. News reassures the things we already know, it makes us in agreement with what they are saying. If the news broadcasters are really giving us various opinions on different matters, than we will eventually disagree with one thing, and stop watching it all together. If the news is confirming what we already know, we will be less likely to question what they are saying, therefore, they can more easily manipulate the public. What they say are very different opinions are actually very similar and have the same undertone; pushing you to see what they want you to see.
This, although not perfectly on track, shows us how similar various news channels may actually be, and that they may all be wanting us to see the same things.
Much of our lives are built on what the media wants us to think. They teach us what middle class morality looks like, how we should behave, what we should wear, and what we should think are the real social problems. The news chooses the issues they want to examine each day. For example, there is always homelessness, but they only choose to show it when it perpetuates their agenda. This agency is very important to think critically about so that we do not get sucked into what they want us to believe, without a second thought.
We must not just take the easy way out and follow whatever they are saying is morally correct to believe. We must look at facts ourselves and think for ourselves. We must form our own opinions so that we will not fall into sameness, so that we can make a difference, and grow as a whole.
Not only does news follow sameness, but also agreement. News reassures the things we already know, it makes us in agreement with what they are saying. If the news broadcasters are really giving us various opinions on different matters, than we will eventually disagree with one thing, and stop watching it all together. If the news is confirming what we already know, we will be less likely to question what they are saying, therefore, they can more easily manipulate the public. What they say are very different opinions are actually very similar and have the same undertone; pushing you to see what they want you to see.
This, although not perfectly on track, shows us how similar various news channels may actually be, and that they may all be wanting us to see the same things.
Much of our lives are built on what the media wants us to think. They teach us what middle class morality looks like, how we should behave, what we should wear, and what we should think are the real social problems. The news chooses the issues they want to examine each day. For example, there is always homelessness, but they only choose to show it when it perpetuates their agenda. This agency is very important to think critically about so that we do not get sucked into what they want us to believe, without a second thought.
Brooke Bumgarner --- Bourdieu (Again)
Last week I wrote about Bourdieu because I accidentally mixed up the readings on the schedule when I was sick/absent from class. However, after our discussion in class on Tuesday, I'm going to briefly talk about him again, especially because I'm unsure if we are supposed to be doing blog posts this week.
Bourdieu has many very interesting arguments, however the one that seems most important is in line with Horkheimer and Adorno and the idea of perpetuated sameness. In Bourdieu's theory, he argues that media representation, specifically television and news, has this connotation of being "basic" in part. This is due to the mentality that television hosts and news anchors are just "giving the audience what they want to see/hear".
A very important quote from Bourdieu's essay states how television news "suits everybody because it confirms what they already know, and above all, leaves their mental structures intact" (254). This not only perpetuates the idea of sameness, when we receive the same framing of news stories no matter the specifics in each event. This makes it so that we are desensitized to what is really going on out in the world, as we maintain the mentality that the terror is over "there" not here. Essentially, what we cannot see or hear we do not perceive as "real"- we are detached and this enables us to only approach cultural problems and events of horror elsewhere on a superficial level- we do not perceive these problems as our own. There is no authentic attention because in a society where news has been tailored to keep citizens in their comfort zone, we do not encompass an attentive and critical approach to the issues of the world for fear of having to emerge from our safety nets which could cause potential fear and further controversy in our society.
Bourdieu has many very interesting arguments, however the one that seems most important is in line with Horkheimer and Adorno and the idea of perpetuated sameness. In Bourdieu's theory, he argues that media representation, specifically television and news, has this connotation of being "basic" in part. This is due to the mentality that television hosts and news anchors are just "giving the audience what they want to see/hear".
A very important quote from Bourdieu's essay states how television news "suits everybody because it confirms what they already know, and above all, leaves their mental structures intact" (254). This not only perpetuates the idea of sameness, when we receive the same framing of news stories no matter the specifics in each event. This makes it so that we are desensitized to what is really going on out in the world, as we maintain the mentality that the terror is over "there" not here. Essentially, what we cannot see or hear we do not perceive as "real"- we are detached and this enables us to only approach cultural problems and events of horror elsewhere on a superficial level- we do not perceive these problems as our own. There is no authentic attention because in a society where news has been tailored to keep citizens in their comfort zone, we do not encompass an attentive and critical approach to the issues of the world for fear of having to emerge from our safety nets which could cause potential fear and further controversy in our society.
Bourdieu
I'm not entirely sure that I have to do a reflection for this week, so I'll make it short. I'm choosing to reflect on Bourdieu and the discussion we had in class Tuesday.
We talked about how Bourdieu argues that television and the news has desensitized us as a culture. News anchors and castors tell us how to feel and how to react to certain situations that they highlight and bring to our attention. Because of this, the things that we see in the news don't typically come to a surprise to us.
Bourdieu argues that TV news "suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact". This ties in with what Zizek is saying, that the media directs our attention to specific events and situations, distracting us from other things that are more important. The media acts like a puppet master, controlling what we do and how we think.
We talked about how Bourdieu argues that television and the news has desensitized us as a culture. News anchors and castors tell us how to feel and how to react to certain situations that they highlight and bring to our attention. Because of this, the things that we see in the news don't typically come to a surprise to us.
Bourdieu argues that TV news "suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact". This ties in with what Zizek is saying, that the media directs our attention to specific events and situations, distracting us from other things that are more important. The media acts like a puppet master, controlling what we do and how we think.
Monday, November 10, 2014
BoredCaitlin, Herman and Chomsky
“The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news ‘objectively’ and on the basis of professional news values.” (Herman and Chomsky, 205)
Reading this quote reminded me that there really is no such thing as an unbiased news source, because no one is truly unbiased. People like to think they can be completely objective, but it’s impossible. Anyone publishing a news piece is going to present it from their point of view, and one point of view can’t be representative of an entire population. This is especially true when you’re looking at mainstream news media. Mainstream news isn’t only reporting news, but projecting ideological messages onto its audiences. Complexity usually isn’t the order of the day. Stories will be presented in the simplest, most easily digestible way possible. Audiences don’t usually question what is presented to them, because they think what they’re seeing is objective. Unfortunately, truly objective interpretation of events is probably beyond the scope of what any single news outlet can do. It’s best for viewers not to take any single viewpoint in isolation, but to look at many perspectives and come to their own conclusions.
Reading this quote reminded me that there really is no such thing as an unbiased news source, because no one is truly unbiased. People like to think they can be completely objective, but it’s impossible. Anyone publishing a news piece is going to present it from their point of view, and one point of view can’t be representative of an entire population. This is especially true when you’re looking at mainstream news media. Mainstream news isn’t only reporting news, but projecting ideological messages onto its audiences. Complexity usually isn’t the order of the day. Stories will be presented in the simplest, most easily digestible way possible. Audiences don’t usually question what is presented to them, because they think what they’re seeing is objective. Unfortunately, truly objective interpretation of events is probably beyond the scope of what any single news outlet can do. It’s best for viewers not to take any single viewpoint in isolation, but to look at many perspectives and come to their own conclusions.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Propganda Model and Connor Mumford
"A Propaganda Model"
What does mainstream media to do us from a young age? My brother visited this weekend and it was nice to see him. He was able to hang out with older people and my hope was that they would rub off on him. I had a couple of my teammates talk to him about himself and his life. One of my teammates is from a bad area in Miami, another is from Brooklyn, and one of my teammates has a dad in a drug unit. I just want my brother to hear these things from other people that are not his parents or brother.
While he was here, he really got me thinking about how mainstream media and advertising has affected him and the youth in this country. As a family we were walking down park avenue on Friday morning, my brother would pass every "nice" car or motorcycle pointing out the name saying "Ohh snap that is so niceeee." I begin to think why did I not care about what car I was going to get when I got older? I would ask my brother what is so nice about that Mercedes or Ducati? He would give the answer that Capitalism would want people to say. An answer that has no meaning except for "it is nice and the best." I asked my brother "why is that motorcycle or car nicer than that one?" He couldn't really answer except for luxury and comfort. I was just sitting back this weekend and realizing how engulfed my brother is in Capitalism. Capitalism attacks people like my brother starting at a young age.
Big Mergers have helped to affect my brother, actually everybody in America. As big mergers become more popular it only begins to become fewer people at the top. When there are fewer people at the top then fewer ideologies will be spread making it seem like there is only one way to live. Who are the people who check these people on "the top." It is scary to think that through media, advertising, and movies there is a narrowing gap making the top thinner. People like my brother don't realize this, so he is more acceptable to media affecting him. How do I get my brother to understand how is ideologies and views have been formed by media and movies? Unless my ideology of not thinking this way is wrong and we should give in to media and propaganda. haha
What does mainstream media to do us from a young age? My brother visited this weekend and it was nice to see him. He was able to hang out with older people and my hope was that they would rub off on him. I had a couple of my teammates talk to him about himself and his life. One of my teammates is from a bad area in Miami, another is from Brooklyn, and one of my teammates has a dad in a drug unit. I just want my brother to hear these things from other people that are not his parents or brother.
While he was here, he really got me thinking about how mainstream media and advertising has affected him and the youth in this country. As a family we were walking down park avenue on Friday morning, my brother would pass every "nice" car or motorcycle pointing out the name saying "Ohh snap that is so niceeee." I begin to think why did I not care about what car I was going to get when I got older? I would ask my brother what is so nice about that Mercedes or Ducati? He would give the answer that Capitalism would want people to say. An answer that has no meaning except for "it is nice and the best." I asked my brother "why is that motorcycle or car nicer than that one?" He couldn't really answer except for luxury and comfort. I was just sitting back this weekend and realizing how engulfed my brother is in Capitalism. Capitalism attacks people like my brother starting at a young age.
Herman and Chomsky -- Kayla Salyer
"In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda" (Herman and Chomsky 204). Herman and Chomsky focus their essay "A Propaganda Model" on our mass media as a systematic propaganda. It invites us into the ideological structure of the world, and keeps us there. Our capitalistic society needs class struggle, we need both a lower class and an upper class, and we also need a way to keep this in place. This is why we have systematic propaganda. Herman and Chomsky lay our five essential ingredients of our propaganda model:
1. Size, wealth, and concentration of media.
2. Advertising as income.
3. Reliance of media on institutional information sources
4. FLACK
5. Anti communism as a control mechanism.
These five essentials keep us following the crowd, and keep us in agreement so that the class system will remain. Within these, we find ourselves convinced that we have free will. We think that we can perceive things in any way we please, and that the media is only giving us the plain and simple facts. In reality the news has an agenda, and chooses to show us things and leave out others. It chooses its words carefully in a way that will make us lean towards one way or another. The conception that we are simply getting the facts, must lead to detrimental circumstances. We have no free will, no right to choose, because the products and opinions have already been chosen for us. With the number of media outlets lessening, and wealth of the media industry growing, we may find ourselves digging a deeper and deeper grave for free will. The perpetuation of inequality of the wealth and power of the world is shown indiscreetly in media. When unpacking
it, we can see the deliberate propaganda that is simply hidden under a thin sheet.
1. Size, wealth, and concentration of media.2. Advertising as income.
3. Reliance of media on institutional information sources
4. FLACK
5. Anti communism as a control mechanism.
These five essentials keep us following the crowd, and keep us in agreement so that the class system will remain. Within these, we find ourselves convinced that we have free will. We think that we can perceive things in any way we please, and that the media is only giving us the plain and simple facts. In reality the news has an agenda, and chooses to show us things and leave out others. It chooses its words carefully in a way that will make us lean towards one way or another. The conception that we are simply getting the facts, must lead to detrimental circumstances. We have no free will, no right to choose, because the products and opinions have already been chosen for us. With the number of media outlets lessening, and wealth of the media industry growing, we may find ourselves digging a deeper and deeper grave for free will. The perpetuation of inequality of the wealth and power of the world is shown indiscreetly in media. When unpacking
it, we can see the deliberate propaganda that is simply hidden under a thin sheet.
Since I was sick last class, I'll be reflecting on Jameson and how I think his ideas relate to every day life. From his reading, and especially the part that I had to examine in class with Spencer, it seemed like Jameson was asserting that the world has become so advanced and not necessarily in a positive way. The rapid changes that we are experiencing in our world are happening so fast, particularly in relation to simulations, that we have come to prefer these synthetic ways of real ones.
This makes me think about technology and how much it has changed over the years, affecting the way we act and live our every day lives. We get our news from technology, we interact through technology, and we can even date with technology. Such advancements are harming the way we are as humans because it is creating a culture that is becoming more lazy and less active with poor social skills.
Not only are there websites for dating, but now there are now apps that help you connect with people in your area that allow you to talk and possibly date. In the past, before this was an option, people mainly met other people the old fashioned way. They met in person, had face-to-face conversations, and went on normal dates. Now, it has shifted to the point where you can hide behind your phone and have a full blown conversation with someone you matched up with, but when it comes to meeting in person, people are scared. They get awkward and there are silences because we don't know how to properly communicate anymore. Everything has been facilitated with technology that it is stripping us from our basic social skills.
And to think that the world keeps progressing towards more technological revolutions... What will communication be like then? It's scary to think of the direction in which we are heading.
This makes me think about technology and how much it has changed over the years, affecting the way we act and live our every day lives. We get our news from technology, we interact through technology, and we can even date with technology. Such advancements are harming the way we are as humans because it is creating a culture that is becoming more lazy and less active with poor social skills.
Not only are there websites for dating, but now there are now apps that help you connect with people in your area that allow you to talk and possibly date. In the past, before this was an option, people mainly met other people the old fashioned way. They met in person, had face-to-face conversations, and went on normal dates. Now, it has shifted to the point where you can hide behind your phone and have a full blown conversation with someone you matched up with, but when it comes to meeting in person, people are scared. They get awkward and there are silences because we don't know how to properly communicate anymore. Everything has been facilitated with technology that it is stripping us from our basic social skills.
And to think that the world keeps progressing towards more technological revolutions... What will communication be like then? It's scary to think of the direction in which we are heading.
Brooke Bumgarner -- Reflecting on 11/4
Since I was out of class sick on the 6th, I guess I'll be talking about Jameson and what I did, and did not understand as I left class on Tuesday.
Jameson has a lot to say, and it is a lot to wrap your head around. I think one of the big things I remember thinking as I left my groups discussion was that it's fairly difficult to put into words how Jameson's theory is indeed reflected in our everyday lives. One of the first ideas that really stuck out to me was the idea that postmodernism comes from a radical break. With this thinking, we can see that Jameson is saying something against Habermas because he is claiming that Modernism has indeed ended.
Jameson continues in this line of thinking in explaining that we have had a break from the classics, and the past. He explains that postmodernism is saturated with new kinds of texts that are infused with culture industry that is no longer about the authentic genuine aesthetic forms, but about what can be mass produced the easiest, thus perpetuating capitalism the most.
It's not just culture he says, it's all of society that is altered in a way that relies on consumerism. This is especially relevant to my everyday life I do believe because a lot about the society we live in today is the "bigger, better, faster" mentality. Jameson conquers in this thinking when he explains that it isn't about the actual product or art form anymore; instead it's about how our society relies on a frantic economic urgency which produces fresh waves of what Jameson calls "ever more novel-seeming goods" (409).
This couldn't be more true today. Every six months Apple comes out with a bigger, better, and faster iPhone. Material goods are competing to make it to the top of the market every day, and in order to do so, items need to progress at a greater turnover rate. The faster the better!
It's important to realize that the postmodernism era is much different from classical modernism, essentially because of the economic system of capital. Postmodernism has turned society into a cycle of capitalism and consumerism. It's a totalizing economic system.
This is what I really got out of the first part of Jameson's text, and it is truly visible in our society today.
Jameson has a lot to say, and it is a lot to wrap your head around. I think one of the big things I remember thinking as I left my groups discussion was that it's fairly difficult to put into words how Jameson's theory is indeed reflected in our everyday lives. One of the first ideas that really stuck out to me was the idea that postmodernism comes from a radical break. With this thinking, we can see that Jameson is saying something against Habermas because he is claiming that Modernism has indeed ended.
Jameson continues in this line of thinking in explaining that we have had a break from the classics, and the past. He explains that postmodernism is saturated with new kinds of texts that are infused with culture industry that is no longer about the authentic genuine aesthetic forms, but about what can be mass produced the easiest, thus perpetuating capitalism the most.
It's not just culture he says, it's all of society that is altered in a way that relies on consumerism. This is especially relevant to my everyday life I do believe because a lot about the society we live in today is the "bigger, better, faster" mentality. Jameson conquers in this thinking when he explains that it isn't about the actual product or art form anymore; instead it's about how our society relies on a frantic economic urgency which produces fresh waves of what Jameson calls "ever more novel-seeming goods" (409).
This couldn't be more true today. Every six months Apple comes out with a bigger, better, and faster iPhone. Material goods are competing to make it to the top of the market every day, and in order to do so, items need to progress at a greater turnover rate. The faster the better!
It's important to realize that the postmodernism era is much different from classical modernism, essentially because of the economic system of capital. Postmodernism has turned society into a cycle of capitalism and consumerism. It's a totalizing economic system.
This is what I really got out of the first part of Jameson's text, and it is truly visible in our society today.
MC Guffee, Henry Jenkins... returns
“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” (457)
Henry Jenkins argues that through
the social media, communication is fostered through cyberspace, which
subsequently, lacks face-to-face interaction. Losing face-to-face interaction
strips the real from human interaction in multiple ways. Namely, it strips the
norms of face-to-face social interaction to allow each individual to say
whatever they desire. Conversing in such a manner has no true consequences,
which then causes social media users to feel a strange sense of anonymity.
Take for example, the Jackson Katz
presentation and how students utilized Yik Yak to publicly antagonize Katz on
both his physical as well as personal attributes. Free from owning what is
said, Yik Yak users can break social norms of conversation to condemn, harass,
and terrorize in ways that are horrifically problematic. Yik Yak turned a
public event, intended to help students grow as people and members of our
society, into a destructive roast of a prominent public figure. This roast was
not only destructive towards Jackson Katz, but also towards the Rollins College
community. As a reflection of our student body, Yik Yak users offensively
condemned Katz and in turn rescinded the hard work of Rollins College to create
our brand of global citizenship.
From name calling to profane
language, social media gives users the opportunity to enact the most offensive
instances of racism, misogyny, and other social injustices to terrorize others.
Although social media can have many positives, its loss of referent to reality
and face-to-face interaction is detrimental to our evolution as a society. A
sense of respect for oneself and especially others is lost when the social
norms of human interaction are boiled down to communication through social
media.
In my opinion, and in accordance
with Jenkins, social media allows users to “other” others by dehumanizing them and
revoking their right to be respected as real people out in the world somewhere.
In summation, social media removes the referent of reality from human
interaction to create a new form of interaction that has the potential to
dehumanize users without any repercussions.
BoredCaitlin, 11/6
When reading Jameson on Thursday, I thought a lot about the differences between Van Gogh’s “Peasant Shoes” and Warhol’s “Diamond Dust Shoes.” Jameson describes his reading of “Peasant Shoes” as “hermeneutical.” (Jameson 410) The piece gives the viewer “a clue or a symptom for some vaster reality which replaces it as its ultimate truth.” It allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions about the shoe’s origin, it’s story, so to speak. One could connect this back to Barthes and Macherey, because what’s most important here is what the work doesn’t say, and that “the work of art emerges within the gap between Earth and World.” In contrast, “Diamond Dust Shoes” leaves little room for interpretation. “Diamond Dust Shoes” has a specific purpose for existing, and what the viewer sees is essentially what they get. One can find similar differences in Disney theme park attractions. For example, let’s look at the Haunted Mansion.
While most of Disney’s newer attractions have a definite story, the Haunted Mansion focuses more on giving its viewers a memorable experience. It doesn’t have much of a story at first glance. It’s essentially some scenes of ghosts doing what ghosts do. However, the attraction’s appeal comes from allowing the viewers to fill in the blanks on their own. Why is this strange house haunted? Why is this room stretching? Why is a ghost following me home? The attraction doesn’t explicitly answer these questions, but allows the visitors to answer themselves.
In comparison to the Haunted Mansion, newer Disney attractions leave little to the imagination. By telling a definite story, they leave little for the viewer to interpret. Dinosaur’s premise is clear from the moment the visitor enters the building. In fact, the attraction’s preshow states directly to the viewers what they will be doing and why. It’s a different approach, but it’s not quite as appealing or invigorating as something like the Haunted Mansion.
While most of Disney’s newer attractions have a definite story, the Haunted Mansion focuses more on giving its viewers a memorable experience. It doesn’t have much of a story at first glance. It’s essentially some scenes of ghosts doing what ghosts do. However, the attraction’s appeal comes from allowing the viewers to fill in the blanks on their own. Why is this strange house haunted? Why is this room stretching? Why is a ghost following me home? The attraction doesn’t explicitly answer these questions, but allows the visitors to answer themselves.
In comparison to the Haunted Mansion, newer Disney attractions leave little to the imagination. By telling a definite story, they leave little for the viewer to interpret. Dinosaur’s premise is clear from the moment the visitor enters the building. In fact, the attraction’s preshow states directly to the viewers what they will be doing and why. It’s a different approach, but it’s not quite as appealing or invigorating as something like the Haunted Mansion.
Ivan 11/6 Freddy Jameson
Jameson's reading has been the thickest reading I believe I have encountered so far. That being said, I believe this reading has shown me just how far I've come as a theorist and at the same time how far I still have to go.
Jameson stated that contrary to what other theorist had said, modernism was indeed done and what replaced it was an era of excess and overabundance. For the majority of the products introduced to the common consumer, fewer and fewer ended up being huge improvements and instead boiled down to being bigger and newer.
What really stood out for me during this reading was the example between "Peasant Shoes" and "Diamond Dust Shoes". Whereas the Peasant Shoes held a story, the Diamond shoes no longer had a deeper meaning. Although the excess newer shoes could reach more people, they made no connection to who the people were. The diamond shoes went "wider" but the peasant shoes were "deeper".
I have to agree with Jameson in that nowadays, it seems that things are replaced/upgraded weekly. There is no more time to grow those deep connections between the user and the item because the item's life expectancy is greatly reduced. Products are no longer build to last years, they are built to last until the next update. And even then, the new upgrades are superficial. The new system depends completely on the consumer wanting the new. Without people reaching for the next thing, no one would spend the excess money on minor changes.
Jameson stated that contrary to what other theorist had said, modernism was indeed done and what replaced it was an era of excess and overabundance. For the majority of the products introduced to the common consumer, fewer and fewer ended up being huge improvements and instead boiled down to being bigger and newer.
What really stood out for me during this reading was the example between "Peasant Shoes" and "Diamond Dust Shoes". Whereas the Peasant Shoes held a story, the Diamond shoes no longer had a deeper meaning. Although the excess newer shoes could reach more people, they made no connection to who the people were. The diamond shoes went "wider" but the peasant shoes were "deeper".
I have to agree with Jameson in that nowadays, it seems that things are replaced/upgraded weekly. There is no more time to grow those deep connections between the user and the item because the item's life expectancy is greatly reduced. Products are no longer build to last years, they are built to last until the next update. And even then, the new upgrades are superficial. The new system depends completely on the consumer wanting the new. Without people reaching for the next thing, no one would spend the excess money on minor changes.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Jameson and the Wizard of Oz
Since we're talking about Jameson in class again tomorrow, I thought I'd write about him. When reviewing my section in class, pages 425-433, Jameson spoke a lot about Bonaventura and how it's this hotel that is representative of something bigger. It has glass mirrors on the exterior to repel whats outside and it hides what is going on inside. "A repulsion for which we have analogies in those reflector sunglasses which make it impossible for your interlocutor to see your own eyes and thereby achieve a certain aggressivity towards and power over the Other." Then he talks about the elevators inside. "Here the narrative stroll has been underscored, symbolized, reified and replaced by a transportation machine which becomes the allegorical signifier of that older promenade we are no longer allowed to conduct on our own..."
After trying to dissect what Jameson said, I believe that he's paralleling the Bonaventura with capitalism and how greatly it impacts our world without us even being conscious of it. We don't really know what goes on behind the scenes, but we are active consumers that help capitalism thrive and that is what our world has become.
This made me think of The Wizard of Oz.
In the movie, the Emerald City contains this shiny green building where the great and powerful Oz works. No one has ever seen the wizard of Oz, and no one really knows what he does, but he controls those around him and they actively and passively obey without question. That's how capitalism works. We are programmed to be consumers, regardless of if we know exactly what is going on behind the scenes or not, and it runs our world. It has power and control over us. It practically makes our decisions before we even have a chance to make them ourselves.
Sorry Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Jameson that Guy.... I thought I could write about him because we are covering him again tomorrow.
Jameson was really hard to understand from page 425-433. First, I am going to focus on the part that I found most interesting that wasn't space or cognitive mapping because I am struggling to understand that nonsense.
"This historical novel can no longer set outt to represent the historical past; it can only 'represent' our ideas and stereotypes about that past (which thereby at once becomes 'pop history')" (419). Our history is learned through simulacra of what we portray as history. Learning through history books, we will only continue to focus on certain aspects of our history.
Jameson focuses on capitalism's affect on all the systems that are in place. I don't know how he critics everything through capitalism because he is never straight up.
- cognitive mapping
- disjunction
- simulacra
- semiautonomy - capitalism has replaced self-governance.
"It also suggests that some of our most cherished and time-honoured radical conceptions about the nature of cultural politics may thereby find themselves outmoded" (430).
Jameson says a lot of things that all the previous theorists are talking about. This is a terrible blog post. I feel that I am re-reading Jameson and I am understanding it but I don't know how to talk about it. Jameson uses the spheres quite often like Appaduri was using when we read him. I am excited to hear about space and how ideologically it affects us or is us. Also cognitive mapping. Jameson ties in with Appaduri more than I realized.
Brooke Bumgarner -- Pierre Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu addresses one of the worlds biggest issues, that of class structure. Other theorists have attempted to confront this issue of "high" and "low" culture, however, I believe Bourdieu elaborates on it in a way that is more understandable, and perhaps observable in our culture.
"Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of art favours those who have had early access to legitimate culture in a cultured household, outside of scholastic disciplines, since even within the educational system it devalues scholarly knowledge and interpretation as 'scholastic' or even 'pedantic' in favour of direct experience and simple delight" (Bourdieu, 250).
This is an extremely important quote, not only in relation to the framing of what Bourdieu calls "legitimate culture" but also in the structure of classes. He is explaining that the dominant way of classifying "legitimate" or high culture is dependent largely on who has access to high culture in the beginning. Think about it this way, the cycle of wealth circulates among the same percentage of people predominately in the US. Unless by some unexpected fortune, someone who has a 9-5 job is not regularly attending the New York City Opera or Ballet.
However, what is interesting to think about on a more personalized basis, is how exactly, and who exactly gets to decide what this "legitimate" culture is. Bourdieu explains that the reading of art demands a certain level of logic and intelligence. He further notes that "a work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded. The conscious or unconscious implementation of explicit or implicit schemes of perception and appreciation which constitutes pictorial or musical culture is the hidden condition for recognizing the styles characteristic of a period, a school or an author, and, more generally, for the familiarity with the internal logic of works that aesthetic enjoyment presupposes" (250).
So, he argues, that one cannot enjoy such legitimate culture within the arts without the proper level of competence which gives us the ability to decode art in a way that allows for the enjoyment of its deepest parts.
When he begins to speak, on page 251, of how "nothing could be obscene on the stage of our premier theatre, and the ballerinas of the Opera, even as naked dancers, sylphs, sprites or Bacchae, retain an inviolable purity" my mind begins to wonder how this relates to our class structure.
In this meme, we see this scene on the bed, in full dress, and the caption jokes that it is "basically porn". This makes light of what Bourdieu argues. "The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile-- in a word, natural-- enjoyment, which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an affirmation of the superiority of those who can be satisfied with the sublimated, refined, disinterested, gratuitous, distinguished pleasures forever closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences" (Bourdieu, 251). This, is what makes Bourdieu's theory particularly interesting. And this is, he says, is how society validates the creation of social classes.
"Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of art favours those who have had early access to legitimate culture in a cultured household, outside of scholastic disciplines, since even within the educational system it devalues scholarly knowledge and interpretation as 'scholastic' or even 'pedantic' in favour of direct experience and simple delight" (Bourdieu, 250).
This is an extremely important quote, not only in relation to the framing of what Bourdieu calls "legitimate culture" but also in the structure of classes. He is explaining that the dominant way of classifying "legitimate" or high culture is dependent largely on who has access to high culture in the beginning. Think about it this way, the cycle of wealth circulates among the same percentage of people predominately in the US. Unless by some unexpected fortune, someone who has a 9-5 job is not regularly attending the New York City Opera or Ballet.
However, what is interesting to think about on a more personalized basis, is how exactly, and who exactly gets to decide what this "legitimate" culture is. Bourdieu explains that the reading of art demands a certain level of logic and intelligence. He further notes that "a work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded. The conscious or unconscious implementation of explicit or implicit schemes of perception and appreciation which constitutes pictorial or musical culture is the hidden condition for recognizing the styles characteristic of a period, a school or an author, and, more generally, for the familiarity with the internal logic of works that aesthetic enjoyment presupposes" (250).
So, he argues, that one cannot enjoy such legitimate culture within the arts without the proper level of competence which gives us the ability to decode art in a way that allows for the enjoyment of its deepest parts.
When he begins to speak, on page 251, of how "nothing could be obscene on the stage of our premier theatre, and the ballerinas of the Opera, even as naked dancers, sylphs, sprites or Bacchae, retain an inviolable purity" my mind begins to wonder how this relates to our class structure.
In this meme, we see this scene on the bed, in full dress, and the caption jokes that it is "basically porn". This makes light of what Bourdieu argues. "The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile-- in a word, natural-- enjoyment, which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an affirmation of the superiority of those who can be satisfied with the sublimated, refined, disinterested, gratuitous, distinguished pleasures forever closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences" (Bourdieu, 251). This, is what makes Bourdieu's theory particularly interesting. And this is, he says, is how society validates the creation of social classes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)