“...there no longer does seem to be any organic relationship between the American history we learn from the schoolbooks and the lived experience of the current multinational, high-rise, stagflated city of the newspapers and our own daily life” (Jameson 418)
What this quote tells me is that the relationship between what we see in reality and what we are told in school can be drastically different. The version of history we are taught in school is presented from an extremely biased point of view. How many of us were taught that Christopher Columbus “discovered” America? How many of us questioned what we were told back then? There is very little, if any, relation between what we’re told and what actually happened. When we’re constantly told something when we’re young, we rarely question it. Usually, when we grow up, reality hits us like bricks and a lot of the things we think we know turn out to be total bollocks. We realize that are the products of our surroundings and the things we are taught, and not everything we were taught was always correct. In the case of history, we were told what our schools wanted us to think. Instead of being presented with an accurate version of history with multiple viewpoints, we were presented with a biased and whitewashed single point of view.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Kayla Salyer -- Horkheimer and Adorno
Despite our attempt at obtaining originality and uniqueness, we seam to be slipping more and more into a lack of individuality. Today, attempting to be different, makes you the same as everyone else. Why is this so easy to fall into? Why is conformity so easy? Our culture is all grouped together under the same umbrella. Everything ties into each other, leaving no room for air to breathe. Uniformity is overcoming every action under the all and mighty word: Consumerism. Everything has turned itself into an industry. "Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce" (Horkheimer and Adorno 53). Everything in culture, just like all movies, has the same 'skeleton', and because we conform to the consumer culture, taking whatever comes through this filter, we become blind to the mass production. We become a product of the culture that is "infecting everything with sameness" (Horkheimer and Adorno 53).
Sameness is is infected through culture and the media that pertains to it. We are so used to the plots of movies, songs, television shows all being the same."The average choice of words in a short story must not be tampered with" (Horkheimer and Adorno 55). I see this, everyone sees this, yet we seem to do nothing about it. When I think of a trend in movies, or a similar plot line that pertains to all movies, I like to think that that is just that way because it is the plot that most people like. I like to think it is the product of all the fails and successes. Is this true? Are we merely thinking that we have used all the ideas that are out there, and that there is nothing else to see? Is this because we are all aimed, by culture, to one particular stand point in which we will be better, easier consumers?
Sameness is is infected through culture and the media that pertains to it. We are so used to the plots of movies, songs, television shows all being the same."The average choice of words in a short story must not be tampered with" (Horkheimer and Adorno 55). I see this, everyone sees this, yet we seem to do nothing about it. When I think of a trend in movies, or a similar plot line that pertains to all movies, I like to think that that is just that way because it is the plot that most people like. I like to think it is the product of all the fails and successes. Is this true? Are we merely thinking that we have used all the ideas that are out there, and that there is nothing else to see? Is this because we are all aimed, by culture, to one particular stand point in which we will be better, easier consumers?
Jameson Reflection, 10/29
As I was reading Jameson, I began to notice a lot of connections to previous theorists that we have read throughout the term. There is one quote from page 410 that states,
"I am very far from feeling that all cultural production today is 'postmodern' in the broad sense I will be conferring on this term. The postmodern is however the force field in which very different kinds of cultural impulses--what Raymond Williams has usefully termed 'residual' and 'emergent' forms of cultural production-- must make their way."
This quote relates back to what Habermas was saying, that postmodernity has not yet been fulfilled. In fact, both theorists feel as if modernity is still present in our world today, and we are waiting for that shift into postmodernity.
Jameson also talks about aesthetic production and how it widely impacts our society.
"What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming good (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation."
This ties in with Benjamin's theory about aesthetic reproduction and how frequent it has become, along with the loss of aura through such reproduction. Jameson's quote also relates to Beaudrillard and his theory of the popular demand for simulacra. As a society, we get more satisfaction from the simulation rather than nature. Jameson takes it a step further and asserts that this aesthetic reproduction is driving consumerism due to the high success and demand there is for it.
I immediately thought of the ride Soarin' at Epcot when reading this section of Jameson's passage. The reason being that is provides the riders with a certain joy and instant satisfaction through aesthetic reproduction.
When you ride it, you feel like you are flying through various parts of the world. You heard sounds and smell certain smells that tie the whole experience together, making it feel real. But it's not, it's simply a simulation. And even though we know it's a simulation, we still travel to Epcot and wait in the line to experience it. We are *actively participating* and we become consumers, contributing to the profit that Disney is receiving off of their aesthetic production.
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
Brooke Bumgarner Horkheimer and Adorno
When beginning this reading I was a bit nervous about what to expect. Horkheimer and Adorno's theory is filled with complexities, however, one of the initial statements is quite simple; "Culture today is infecting everything with sameness".
The theory goes on to explain how media, political oppositions, buildings and more are always claiming to be so different, yet they are founded on the basis of others that have come before them. They are not in essence authentically different and original.
So one must wonder, if everything is infected by sameness and American culture and life is structured through everything before it, is there such a thing as authentic and original? Further, if everything is perpetuated by this theory of sameness, are we really living in a unitized, and totalizing culture? Horkheimer and Adorno write, "the conspicuous unity of macrocosm and microcosm confronts human beings with a model of their culture: they false identity of universal and particular. All mass culture under monopoly is identical, and the contours of its skeleton, the conceptual armature fabricated by monopoly, are beginning to stand out" (Horkheimer and Adorno, 53).
This made me think of the matrix, about the agents and how they are essentially all identical.
Regarding industry, we can think of the sameness in the terms of technology, where "its millions of participants, they argue, demand reproduction processes which inevitably lead to the use of standard products to meet the same needs at countless locations"(Horkheimer and Adorno, 54). When reading this, my best understanding is this: In order for mass production to be effective, standard, or at points substandard reproduction sets the tone for the most in the desire to unify everything. We start to see how this plays into production costs and how product differences, despite different pricing tiers, are becoming more and more the same.
Now you see, this idea of unity or totality, isn't just happening within production and industry. The ideas of totality are affecting us in areas of art, politics, and culture as a whole. In a society that pushes for totality, style and authenticity is seen as power, and due to the structure of American economics, politics and social norms, power is something that must be regulated and reserved. So, as I understand it, if totality cannot be reached, and style is furthered in various outlets, power cannot be truly held in one mighty facet, but instead others seek to gain power and this would create an unequal power structure, where some could come to power in ways and through ideas that the standards American culture is based off of now, would not like.
The theory goes on to explain how media, political oppositions, buildings and more are always claiming to be so different, yet they are founded on the basis of others that have come before them. They are not in essence authentically different and original.
So one must wonder, if everything is infected by sameness and American culture and life is structured through everything before it, is there such a thing as authentic and original? Further, if everything is perpetuated by this theory of sameness, are we really living in a unitized, and totalizing culture? Horkheimer and Adorno write, "the conspicuous unity of macrocosm and microcosm confronts human beings with a model of their culture: they false identity of universal and particular. All mass culture under monopoly is identical, and the contours of its skeleton, the conceptual armature fabricated by monopoly, are beginning to stand out" (Horkheimer and Adorno, 53).
This made me think of the matrix, about the agents and how they are essentially all identical.
Regarding industry, we can think of the sameness in the terms of technology, where "its millions of participants, they argue, demand reproduction processes which inevitably lead to the use of standard products to meet the same needs at countless locations"(Horkheimer and Adorno, 54). When reading this, my best understanding is this: In order for mass production to be effective, standard, or at points substandard reproduction sets the tone for the most in the desire to unify everything. We start to see how this plays into production costs and how product differences, despite different pricing tiers, are becoming more and more the same.
Now you see, this idea of unity or totality, isn't just happening within production and industry. The ideas of totality are affecting us in areas of art, politics, and culture as a whole. In a society that pushes for totality, style and authenticity is seen as power, and due to the structure of American economics, politics and social norms, power is something that must be regulated and reserved. So, as I understand it, if totality cannot be reached, and style is furthered in various outlets, power cannot be truly held in one mighty facet, but instead others seek to gain power and this would create an unequal power structure, where some could come to power in ways and through ideas that the standards American culture is based off of now, would not like.
Monday, October 27, 2014
10/26 Reflection Marx
Boy, where to even start with this post after all of last weeks discussions!
It felt sort of like this meme...
(^Please excuse language) Except for... what is real? And how can we even begin to know what the "real world" is?
After talking about Karl Marx and his theory on ideology, I am stuck on this idea of reality and what ideologies do to said "reality". Like Marx points out, and the above meme reflects, most of us are simply coasting through life following and adhering to the social constructions around us because we have never been told to think critically about the life we are living. I don't know many people who see the world the way I do, and quite honestly, I don't believe I would see the world this way without being a CMC major. Many are not conscious in every day life. Most people within the greater American culture have accepted ideologies that have been created to reinforce and contribute to the social constructions of a class system at an unconscious or subconscious level. Because we live in a society that is heavily reliant on an economic class structure, ideologies become sort of a tool of power, or are used as manipulation by those in the ruling, or upper class. So at the end of the day we are all scurring around and rushing through life doing what we believe we are supposed to do, acting the way we believe we should be and are acting the way that has been socially constructed and defined as right, for us. We are not the creators of our own lives, as we were told and taught in kindergarten. No, we are the product of a cycle, a cycle that is rarely challenged and rarely questioned for its roots.
You see, American culture is a society in which equality, and reality, do not really exist. For if all actions, decisions, reasons and explanations are based on this system of ideologies, well then, how can one escape what has been set as president before him, and how then can we begin to call this reality?
At the end of the week, I leave this class once more feeling as though reality is not and never will be a "reality". Ha Ha. Get it? Because we still don't know what reality is! Therefore, reality is not definable, nor is it something we can claim to know. What is real? And when will others start to wonder this too?
It felt sort of like this meme...
(^Please excuse language) Except for... what is real? And how can we even begin to know what the "real world" is?
After talking about Karl Marx and his theory on ideology, I am stuck on this idea of reality and what ideologies do to said "reality". Like Marx points out, and the above meme reflects, most of us are simply coasting through life following and adhering to the social constructions around us because we have never been told to think critically about the life we are living. I don't know many people who see the world the way I do, and quite honestly, I don't believe I would see the world this way without being a CMC major. Many are not conscious in every day life. Most people within the greater American culture have accepted ideologies that have been created to reinforce and contribute to the social constructions of a class system at an unconscious or subconscious level. Because we live in a society that is heavily reliant on an economic class structure, ideologies become sort of a tool of power, or are used as manipulation by those in the ruling, or upper class. So at the end of the day we are all scurring around and rushing through life doing what we believe we are supposed to do, acting the way we believe we should be and are acting the way that has been socially constructed and defined as right, for us. We are not the creators of our own lives, as we were told and taught in kindergarten. No, we are the product of a cycle, a cycle that is rarely challenged and rarely questioned for its roots.
You see, American culture is a society in which equality, and reality, do not really exist. For if all actions, decisions, reasons and explanations are based on this system of ideologies, well then, how can one escape what has been set as president before him, and how then can we begin to call this reality?
At the end of the week, I leave this class once more feeling as though reality is not and never will be a "reality". Ha Ha. Get it? Because we still don't know what reality is! Therefore, reality is not definable, nor is it something we can claim to know. What is real? And when will others start to wonder this too?
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Kayla Salyer, Louis Althusser and Karl Marx
Looking back on the discussion of Louis Althusser and Karl Marx, I find myself questioning everything I have thought was solid for a long time. I thought I had control of my actions, my surroundings, my own mind for god's sake. Now, to my despair, I am forced to face the reality. A variety of ideologies has taught me what to think and how to think. It has formed my opinions without my permission and limited my existence. Alright, maybe this is a bit of an overstatement. But I am forced to find myself stuck between a rock and a hard place.
One example of this lack of control is from Louis Althusser in his essay 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses', in which we can see the perpetuation of inequality by every individual. For example, I believe everyone should get an education. In reality, I don't at all. I would like to think these nice thoughts while I sit in my air conditioned bedroom, writing on my ridiculously over priced laptop, while eating as much food as I please. Yet the reality is that I do not wish this. If I did, and if it was true, than our entire system would collapse.
We can't see ideology, we can't escape ideology. Ideology has its grip on us like the universe has its grip on the world. We can reach Mars, we can reach the Moon, we can even reach the stars, yet we will constantly be surrounded in space, in the universe. There is no way to escape. The only thing that we can do is see ideology for what it really is, and how it can manipulate us in ways we may not like. To be aware of how our social structure has been built, is the best that we can do. As bad as these ideologies sound, how else would we form the world? There will always be ideologies, are ours the right one?
One example of this lack of control is from Louis Althusser in his essay 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses', in which we can see the perpetuation of inequality by every individual. For example, I believe everyone should get an education. In reality, I don't at all. I would like to think these nice thoughts while I sit in my air conditioned bedroom, writing on my ridiculously over priced laptop, while eating as much food as I please. Yet the reality is that I do not wish this. If I did, and if it was true, than our entire system would collapse.
We can't see ideology, we can't escape ideology. Ideology has its grip on us like the universe has its grip on the world. We can reach Mars, we can reach the Moon, we can even reach the stars, yet we will constantly be surrounded in space, in the universe. There is no way to escape. The only thing that we can do is see ideology for what it really is, and how it can manipulate us in ways we may not like. To be aware of how our social structure has been built, is the best that we can do. As bad as these ideologies sound, how else would we form the world? There will always be ideologies, are ours the right one?10-26 ideology
Ideology..... I liked our class on Thursday when we were talking about Ideology. It is hard to hear sometimes that everything is constructed a certain way and our views on something have been taught to us and not learned. The Ideology of the "American Dream" is one that has been taught to us our life. The idea that "we" can be anything that we want to be when we grow up is false. Most people in America will not have a chance to be the President of The United States. There are too many factors that go into being the President but unless your family is in a higher tax bracket or you go to a prestigious Ivy league school. The ideology of an immigrant from central America to come here and become a millionaire is an ideology. It works with sports most of the time. There is an ideology in sports that if you work hard that you can make it to the Major Leagues. The percentage of college baseball players to play in the Major Leagues is less than 3% I believe. For myself, I have been engraved by this ideology that anybody can make it to the big leagues. There are so many people that come from nothing to actually make something of themselves through sport. This ideology can affect us in how much I let baseball or sports take over my life. Ideologies are socially constructed and I believe it is very necessary to be aware of the ideologies and how they work in or for our culture too not become to engulfed in them. Kind of like the Matrix. Where each day we get up and do the same thing over and over but truly never stopping to see the world and why we are just going along with the flow because that is what society wants us to do.
Mind Blown, Reflection 10/26
The discussion we had this week in class was mind-blowing. As we began to talk about ideologies, and how it impacts every individual in our society, whether we are aware of it or not. It got me thinking that when we're young, we think that we can be whoever we want to be, believe in whatever we want to believe in, form opinions however we chose to form them. However, this is not the case. Yes, we do have some control over the people we become but a lot less than we think. Since we are so consumed in a culture that thrives off of ideologies, we are basically told exactly how to think about different concepts. To put this more into perspective, I used to think of people as empty baskets from the time they are born and their whole lives they can collect whatever they want to put in their baskets. However, it's more like we're computers that have programmed hard drives that you cannot rewire. You can save different things on this computer that make it different than another computer, but every computer has that same hard drive. Ideology is that hard drive.
Furthermore, I started to think about how everyone strives to be unique and different in this world of sameness. It's difficult to be unique and different when we are surrounded by ideologies tellings how to think and act. There is a song (that I'm going to send to Dr. Cummings to play in class) called Kids by Style of Eye that talks about how by not being mainstream, you're being mainstream. It also ties into when we discussed originality and how something can be classified as original if it's all been done before. One verse of the song goes,
"I'm wondering what is up with kids around here
you're trying so damn hard to come off weird
you bought your image in package deal
generic hipster got no sex appeal
you're so authentic yeah you're oh so real
you hurt yourself today to see if you still feel"
The song's main argument is that we all want to fit in, but we all strive to be different because being different makes us 'cool'. Yet, how can it be considered different if we're all doing the same things that are considered 'weird' or 'not the norm'?
"I'm wondering what is up with kids around here
you're trying so damn hard to come off weird
you bought your image in package deal
generic hipster got no sex appeal
you're so authentic yeah you're oh so real
you hurt yourself today to see if you still feel"
The song's main argument is that we all want to fit in, but we all strive to be different because being different makes us 'cool'. Yet, how can it be considered different if we're all doing the same things that are considered 'weird' or 'not the norm'?
MC Guffee, Dick Hebdige
"Thus, when we come to look beneath the level of 'ideology-in-general' at the way in which specific ideologies work, how some gain dominance and others remain marginal, we can see that in advanced Western democracies the ideological field is by no means neutral" (Hebdige 2012, 128.)
Thinking about Western democracies, but more specifically the United States democracy, I began to think of how my experience with public education was more highly ideological than I had previously realized. Although our country boasts the powerful separation of church and state in its very foundations, its not hard to see how Christianity is still very much an underlying ideology in our country's consciousness. For instance, in elementary school my classmates and I all made ornaments. The ornaments were little pictures of us that we decorated to give to our parents. Presumingly for Christmas, we gave our parents these ornaments and we lived happily ever after. However, revisiting this practice shows exactly how the ruling class governs the body's of the state. Since ornaments are made for Christmas trees and virtually no other religious holiday featured an object to hang ornaments from, it is exclusively a Christian practice. Thus, even the kids who aren't Christians and don't celebrate Christmas, are forced to acknowledge the existence and dominance of both.
On the other hand, at my elementary school we also received many days off in respect to Jewish holidays. So there! My education wasn't all bad. Our democracy isn't still dominated by Christianity because we do get days off for Jewish Holidays too! And just when I return to thinking everything is at equilibrium in the world...
"First, the Other can be trivialized, naturalized, domesticated. Here, the difference is simply denied ('Otherness is reduced to sameness')" (Hebdige 2012, 133.) While I assumed giving kids the day off of school in respect to the Jewish religion defied the hegemonic nature of our society, it actually worked in opposition. Not only did we receive the day off, but we also had no idea why and never cared to know why. Therefore, by giving students the day off without explanation, we equate those days off to the same as a Christmas break without adding any nuanced information to educate what the Jewish holidays even mean. Instead, we reduce the otherness of the Jewish religion to sameness of Christianity which causes Jewishness to lose it's "noise" as Hebdige would say.
Investigating my public school education for only a few minutes revealed the immense power of ideology and how it works to condemn otherness. Although I distinctly remember learning about the separation of church and state, now I wonder if it ever happened? Or if it even can happen at this point.
Thinking about Western democracies, but more specifically the United States democracy, I began to think of how my experience with public education was more highly ideological than I had previously realized. Although our country boasts the powerful separation of church and state in its very foundations, its not hard to see how Christianity is still very much an underlying ideology in our country's consciousness. For instance, in elementary school my classmates and I all made ornaments. The ornaments were little pictures of us that we decorated to give to our parents. Presumingly for Christmas, we gave our parents these ornaments and we lived happily ever after. However, revisiting this practice shows exactly how the ruling class governs the body's of the state. Since ornaments are made for Christmas trees and virtually no other religious holiday featured an object to hang ornaments from, it is exclusively a Christian practice. Thus, even the kids who aren't Christians and don't celebrate Christmas, are forced to acknowledge the existence and dominance of both.
On the other hand, at my elementary school we also received many days off in respect to Jewish holidays. So there! My education wasn't all bad. Our democracy isn't still dominated by Christianity because we do get days off for Jewish Holidays too! And just when I return to thinking everything is at equilibrium in the world...
"First, the Other can be trivialized, naturalized, domesticated. Here, the difference is simply denied ('Otherness is reduced to sameness')" (Hebdige 2012, 133.) While I assumed giving kids the day off of school in respect to the Jewish religion defied the hegemonic nature of our society, it actually worked in opposition. Not only did we receive the day off, but we also had no idea why and never cared to know why. Therefore, by giving students the day off without explanation, we equate those days off to the same as a Christmas break without adding any nuanced information to educate what the Jewish holidays even mean. Instead, we reduce the otherness of the Jewish religion to sameness of Christianity which causes Jewishness to lose it's "noise" as Hebdige would say.
Investigating my public school education for only a few minutes revealed the immense power of ideology and how it works to condemn otherness. Although I distinctly remember learning about the separation of church and state, now I wonder if it ever happened? Or if it even can happen at this point.
BoredCaitlin, 10/21
Seeing the Star Wars parody of “Somebody That I Used to Know” in class on Tuesday got me thinking about how fans interact with the media they consume. Fans aren’t content to sit idly while they look at a text. Some fans like to analyze on a deeper level and come up with theories and “headcanons” for what the text doesn’t explain. It reminds me of what Barthes wrote about how the pleasure of a text comes from what isn’t there, what it doesn’t explain. This allows fans to create their own interpretations, and through the power of the Internet, they can share their interpretations and discuss with other fans. Fans also like to produce content of their own, and by doing so, find a way to “talk back” to the texts they enjoy. Fans create in their work what they would like to see in the canon of the text, but the text ultimately doesn’t give them. Jenkins describes fan works as a “space for various minority groups to tell their own stories or to question hegemonic representations of their culture.” In a way, fan works provide an outlet for viewers to question what they see in a text, or sometimes, what they see in other aspects of their fandom. To explain this, I’ll use an example from one of my own fandoms, Pokemon. NateWantstoBattle is a musician on Youtube who writes Pokemon parodies of pop songs. His parodies are clever re-workings of the song lyrics to make them Pokemon-related. In two his parodies, he addresses the competitive battling aspect of the Pokemon fanbase and just how intense competitive battling can be. Whether it’s the battling itself (with his "Payphone" parody) or the insane amount of preparation competitive battling requires (with his "Blurred Lines" parody), he found a way to talk back to the fandom and give them something to relate to.
I’ll link both of those parodies here:
I’ll link both of those parodies here:
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Kayla Salyer -- Dick Hebdige
Diving deep into culture, subculture, and hegemony Dick Hebdige forms complexities in places I never thought existed. I never thought culture could be such a complex concept, with so many different layers and meanings. A simple way to look a Dick's ideas of culture is to put them into simplistic terms. In a watered down scenario, we can see that culture has two basic definitions; one of intellect, and one of aesthetic pleasure, or material things. This can also be interpreted as culture being both a process and a product. These two things tie hand in hand to make culture what it is. But how does a dominant culture come to be? Why aren't subcultures dominant? Looking at this simply we may see that the dominant culture uses subcultures and controls them in a way that will solely benefit them as a whole. One way in which this is done is to put lower and middle classes into an ideological world which looks real in itself. This leads me the most fascinating point Dick makes. We define subculture as deviance towards the mainstream, to the ordinary. Culture defines it as such in order to make it acceptable. It defines subculture as a phase that will eventually be put back in line. This is put forth by none other than the media. The media puts subculture into culture; order is repaired by incorporating it into life in a convenient way that we would simply see as a phase. It doesn't stop here. Subculture then turns into an economic institution fueled by media. It becomes a commercialized product that we sell to the people to reinforce the culture itself.
Dick Hebdige's argument goes far beyond what I have been able to articulate. The importance that I have taken out of this is to always question why things are the way that they are because they are probably far more complex than you could have imagined. His ideas on culture and subculture reach far beyond what meets the eye.
Dick Hebdige's argument goes far beyond what I have been able to articulate. The importance that I have taken out of this is to always question why things are the way that they are because they are probably far more complex than you could have imagined. His ideas on culture and subculture reach far beyond what meets the eye.
BoredCaitlin, Hebdige
“Williams tentatively endorsed the new mass communications but was concerned to establish aesthetic and moral criteria for distinguishing the worthwhile products from the ‘trash’” (Hebdige 126)
Often in academia, and in our culture at large to a lesser extent, there seems to exist a need to separate “high culture” from “low culture,” or as Hebdige puts it here, “worthwhile products from the ‘trash.’” (For the purposes of this post, I’ll be referring to pop culture as “low culture.) From a certain perspective, I can understand why this separation exists, but I find the consigning of pop culture as “trash” to be problematic. It implies that popular culture is simply fluff for the masses and isn’t worth looking at on any deep level. In many cases pop culture can be seen as fluff, but does that automatically mean it’s not worth analyzing? If anything, I think it’s just as important, if not more so, to look at pop culture critically because it has a much wider audience, and thus a wider sphere of influence. I’m not saying that works of high culture can’t be influential on the public at large, but the average person isn’t going to curl up in bed with say, The Great Gatsby or any work of Shakespeare for light reading. Pop culture has power, and it’s imperative for audiences to be critical of the texts they consume.
Often in academia, and in our culture at large to a lesser extent, there seems to exist a need to separate “high culture” from “low culture,” or as Hebdige puts it here, “worthwhile products from the ‘trash.’” (For the purposes of this post, I’ll be referring to pop culture as “low culture.) From a certain perspective, I can understand why this separation exists, but I find the consigning of pop culture as “trash” to be problematic. It implies that popular culture is simply fluff for the masses and isn’t worth looking at on any deep level. In many cases pop culture can be seen as fluff, but does that automatically mean it’s not worth analyzing? If anything, I think it’s just as important, if not more so, to look at pop culture critically because it has a much wider audience, and thus a wider sphere of influence. I’m not saying that works of high culture can’t be influential on the public at large, but the average person isn’t going to curl up in bed with say, The Great Gatsby or any work of Shakespeare for light reading. Pop culture has power, and it’s imperative for audiences to be critical of the texts they consume.
Brooke Bumgarner- Hebdige
As I read Dick Hebdige's theory, it is interesting to me to think about how we define culture. I wonder if I were asked, how I would define culture.
Hebdige writes, " In the early years, when it was being established in the universities, Cultural Studies sat rather uncomfortably on the fence between these two conflicting definitions-- culture as a standard of excellence, culture as a 'whole way of life'" (Hebdige, 125). So we are left with the question of whether culture is defined in certain fields of excellence, or whether it encompasses life as a whole.
Hebdige relates to Barthes' notion of culture in saying that it "extends beyond the library, the opera-house and the theatre to encompass the whole of everyday life" (Hebdige, 126). As I consider their line of thinking, I wonder if culture does extend to encompass the whole of everyday life. I begin to wonder if we live in simply one big culture made up of many subcultures which do account for everything and everyone.
Hebdige relates culture with historical ties, and the classics, as does Barthes in a way. When we think about culture, often times we think of the classics, such as the arts and academia. However, contemporary culture accounts for much more, where Barthes' "application of a method rooted in linguistics to other systems of discourse outside language (fashion, film, food, ect.) opened up completely new possibilities" (Hebdige, 126).
However, Hebdige retreats that under Barthes, we are brought back to the two conflicting definitions of culture. On one hand we have the "standard of excellence" (125) and "a marriage of moral conviction" (126) and on the other we see culture as a "whole way of life" (125, 126).
So once more we wondered, could culture truly be considered a whole, or complete way of life, or was it more synonymously related to Thompson's definition as "'the study of relationships in a whole way of conflict'"(Hebdige, 127).
Through this view, ideology acquired significance it had not in the past. Perhaps a totalizing way of life was what was idealized, however, could a culture ever be a "whole way of life" (125)? Or is that just a desired ideology?
From this point, Hebdige goes into how ideology and hegemony play roles in society and, culture. Ideology he says, works at an almost unconscious level. While hegemony, is produced and reinforced through ideologies. Hebdige explains that "all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, and the most taken-for-granted phenomena can function as signs... These signs are, then, as opaque as the social relations which produce them and which they represent. In other words, there is an ideological dimension to every signification" (Hebdige, 128). So, if all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, then there is indeed ideology entrenched in our culture, in fact, all facets of culture would be ideological.
It's proven that culture is indeed not a whole way of life, because as ideologies are introduced so is a power structure. Hebdige explains "some groups have more say, more opportunity to make the rules, to organize meaning, while others are less favorably placed, have less power to produce and impose their definitions of the world on the world" (Hebdige, 128).
At this point, Hebdige summarizes how hegemony plays its role. Dominant groups desire to frame the subordinate, which is the only way hegemony can be successful. Hence, creating subcultures, through power structures where classes prevent the idealized totality of culture.
Hebdige writes, " In the early years, when it was being established in the universities, Cultural Studies sat rather uncomfortably on the fence between these two conflicting definitions-- culture as a standard of excellence, culture as a 'whole way of life'" (Hebdige, 125). So we are left with the question of whether culture is defined in certain fields of excellence, or whether it encompasses life as a whole.
Hebdige relates to Barthes' notion of culture in saying that it "extends beyond the library, the opera-house and the theatre to encompass the whole of everyday life" (Hebdige, 126). As I consider their line of thinking, I wonder if culture does extend to encompass the whole of everyday life. I begin to wonder if we live in simply one big culture made up of many subcultures which do account for everything and everyone.
Hebdige relates culture with historical ties, and the classics, as does Barthes in a way. When we think about culture, often times we think of the classics, such as the arts and academia. However, contemporary culture accounts for much more, where Barthes' "application of a method rooted in linguistics to other systems of discourse outside language (fashion, film, food, ect.) opened up completely new possibilities" (Hebdige, 126).
However, Hebdige retreats that under Barthes, we are brought back to the two conflicting definitions of culture. On one hand we have the "standard of excellence" (125) and "a marriage of moral conviction" (126) and on the other we see culture as a "whole way of life" (125, 126).
So once more we wondered, could culture truly be considered a whole, or complete way of life, or was it more synonymously related to Thompson's definition as "'the study of relationships in a whole way of conflict'"(Hebdige, 127).
Through this view, ideology acquired significance it had not in the past. Perhaps a totalizing way of life was what was idealized, however, could a culture ever be a "whole way of life" (125)? Or is that just a desired ideology?
From this point, Hebdige goes into how ideology and hegemony play roles in society and, culture. Ideology he says, works at an almost unconscious level. While hegemony, is produced and reinforced through ideologies. Hebdige explains that "all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, and the most taken-for-granted phenomena can function as signs... These signs are, then, as opaque as the social relations which produce them and which they represent. In other words, there is an ideological dimension to every signification" (Hebdige, 128). So, if all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, then there is indeed ideology entrenched in our culture, in fact, all facets of culture would be ideological.
It's proven that culture is indeed not a whole way of life, because as ideologies are introduced so is a power structure. Hebdige explains "some groups have more say, more opportunity to make the rules, to organize meaning, while others are less favorably placed, have less power to produce and impose their definitions of the world on the world" (Hebdige, 128).
At this point, Hebdige summarizes how hegemony plays its role. Dominant groups desire to frame the subordinate, which is the only way hegemony can be successful. Hence, creating subcultures, through power structures where classes prevent the idealized totality of culture.
MC Guffee 10/21
Regarding virtual reality through the internet, Poster denotes, "If such experiences become commonplace, just as viewing television is today, then surely reality will have been multiplied. The continued Western quest for making tools may at that point retrospectively be reinterpreted in relation to its culmination in virtual reality. From the club that extends and replaces the arm to virtual reality in cyberspace, technology has evolved to mime and to multiply, to multiplex and to improve upon the real."
Multiplying the real through the creation of virtual reality is detrimental to both our health and our pursuit of happiness. As I have experienced through media portrayals of life, virtual reality sets our expectations of reality out of reach. With higher expectations of reality, the individual is destined to be disappointed over and over again as real life can't measure up to the immediate satisfactions of the imagined world. Reading Poster's assessment helped me realize just how dangerous the multiplication of reality will be on the human psyche.
From a young age, I was enthralled by television and film's ability to captivate my attention as well as my imagination. At first I considered this captivation a positive and loved watching shows that portrayed all the happiness life has to offer. Each stage of my life I watched television that correlated to my next phase in life. For instance, when I was in elementary school and middles school, my dad and I always watched One Tree Hill together. One Tree Hill was a show depicting the trials and tribulations of high school students in a quant town in North Carolina. Unfortunately, depictions of typical high school events such as sports games and prom gave me extremely high expectations for my own experience in high school. Once in high school, I found myself rather disappointed in my experiences because they failed to live up to the caliber of media's high school portrayal.
Don't get me wrong, I still consider myself a positive and rather jovial person, however, I wouldn't deny that the narratives from television and film left me frustrated with reality. Constantly expecting more from the real when reality can't produce the same effect leads me to recall when Baudrillard asked "But does fiction actually outstrip reality?" To which I would answer, yes it absolutely does! Thus, I conclude creating multiple realities from the potential of virtual reality is dangerous because it leads to an apathetic mindset towards reality when in actuality, reality is the only genuine experience.
Multiplying the real through the creation of virtual reality is detrimental to both our health and our pursuit of happiness. As I have experienced through media portrayals of life, virtual reality sets our expectations of reality out of reach. With higher expectations of reality, the individual is destined to be disappointed over and over again as real life can't measure up to the immediate satisfactions of the imagined world. Reading Poster's assessment helped me realize just how dangerous the multiplication of reality will be on the human psyche.
From a young age, I was enthralled by television and film's ability to captivate my attention as well as my imagination. At first I considered this captivation a positive and loved watching shows that portrayed all the happiness life has to offer. Each stage of my life I watched television that correlated to my next phase in life. For instance, when I was in elementary school and middles school, my dad and I always watched One Tree Hill together. One Tree Hill was a show depicting the trials and tribulations of high school students in a quant town in North Carolina. Unfortunately, depictions of typical high school events such as sports games and prom gave me extremely high expectations for my own experience in high school. Once in high school, I found myself rather disappointed in my experiences because they failed to live up to the caliber of media's high school portrayal.
Don't get me wrong, I still consider myself a positive and rather jovial person, however, I wouldn't deny that the narratives from television and film left me frustrated with reality. Constantly expecting more from the real when reality can't produce the same effect leads me to recall when Baudrillard asked "But does fiction actually outstrip reality?" To which I would answer, yes it absolutely does! Thus, I conclude creating multiple realities from the potential of virtual reality is dangerous because it leads to an apathetic mindset towards reality when in actuality, reality is the only genuine experience.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Ivan Moreno, Eco 10/2/14
Eco was a bit easier to understand than the other theorist because it was something that I had experienced first hand. People have become accustomed to having everything available to them at the click of a button and of having everything work correctly. This ideal pattern makes it so that when something goes wrong, people are unable to deal with it and instead become heavily inpatient and irritated.
The example given in class and the chapter was that of Disneyworld. This "world" brings together the ideal situations that people would find themselves in to truly enjoy a new environment. However, by taking out all of the "malignant" aspects to the world, Disney has created a fake so convincing that it raises the bar too high and makes reality unable to meet expectations. This utopian creation takes away from reality by presenting only positives and no negatives. Therefore, when people decide to go and visit the countries or the environments that they fell in love with at disney, they are baffled by the lack of unconditional love and magic.
On a broader scale, people of the newer generations are no longer able to handle disappointment as well. The dependance on a fake world or a bubble makes it difficult to properly educate because no one wants to live in a world of fear or mishaps. In most cases, people would prefer to be oblivious to the outside world's problems rather than face them.
Kayla Salyer, Eco
Looking specifically at Disney, as is the perfect example, I want to do my best to dive into what Eco is saying in his piece. First off, I find the most simple explanation is that the U.S is filled with cities that imitate other cities. This poses the question of: "are they real?" Both Disney and Las Vegas Nevada are perfect examples of this.
The real question when it comes to CMC is: "Why is this relevant? Who cares if they are imitations? What effect does this have?" One important way to look at this is that Disney and Las Vegas is that they take everything that is bad, inconvenient, or unpleasant out of the place or object that they are reproducing. Much like film, they are creating these worlds or objects from a biased lens. This means that they can manipulate it in any way that they please, and some do not realize it. Many believe that this is exactly what it is, it is an exact replica of the actual thing. This makes us lose site of what is real, and what is a biased reproduction.
Another interesting thing to look at is that some people actually prefer the human reproduced thing, rather than the actual thing in nature. Some prefer this convince, or think that we can create something better than its original. I believe that we are very much in love with ourselves; we believe that we can do it better than anything, or anyone else. We are so convinced that what we create now, in the modern world, is better than what was created in the past (in general). Branching off a little bit, I want to ask, what is progress? Is progress only in the technological world? In the intellectual world? I am going to leave you with this to think about among some of Eco's ideas.
Another interesting thing to look at is that some people actually prefer the human reproduced thing, rather than the actual thing in nature. Some prefer this convince, or think that we can create something better than its original. I believe that we are very much in love with ourselves; we believe that we can do it better than anything, or anyone else. We are so convinced that what we create now, in the modern world, is better than what was created in the past (in general). Branching off a little bit, I want to ask, what is progress? Is progress only in the technological world? In the intellectual world? I am going to leave you with this to think about among some of Eco's ideas.
In Defense of World Showcase?- Bored Caitlin, 9/30
Part of World Showcase’s appeal to its visitors is the idea of traveling the world, going “around the world in 80 minutes,” so to speak. Each of the eleven pavilions attempts to present to its visitors a taste of its representative country. But is this taste “real?” I would say yes and no. It’s real in the sense that the park’s designers actually visited each country and did extensive research to present visitors with as authentic a taste as they could. World Showcase isn’t real in the sense that it’s a simulation. It isn’t the real Eiffel Tower or Temple of Heaven that the visitor sees in the park, but reasonable replicas. The visitor is also essentially viewing each country from the designer’s point of view, and there’s only so much one can pack into a small theme park pavilion. This is why I find it extremely problematic when some visitors believe that World Showcase is a reasonable replacement for actual world travel. In fact, the authors of The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World tackle this attitude straight on, saying “critics might say that one cannot gain a full appreciation of any diverse nation by visiting a two-acre theme park pavilion. We agree, but think they’re missing the point... inspiration is the main goal of World Showcase--the inspiration to actually visit these countries. [The visitor is] the judge as to whether it works.”
MC Guffee, 10/2
"An allegory of the consumer society, a place of absolute iconism, Disneyland is also a place of total passivity. Its visitors must agree to behave like its robots."
In this quote, Eco is asserting that the experience of the consumer society correlates to the experience of Disneyland in that they provoke an innate sense of consumer duty to buy-in both mentally and financially to their production of tomorrow. Disney does in fact have its own unique set of rules and regulations for its patrons which when removed from the context of the park seem quite unfitting. Disney aims to produce a utopian society that features the highest technological advancements to leave visitors in awe of the potentials of reality. However, this reality they have created is severely distorted to fit the consumer culture and restrict the consumer's imagination. By confining the imagination of the consumer and propagating the future, a spell of control is spread over the visitors. This spread of control not only allows Disney to herd visitors around like sheep, but also lead the sheep to drink from their shops, restaurants, and other product placements.
Comparing Eco's stance on Disneyland to Habermas' on the "cult of the new," it is evident that both were aware of the unifying illusion behind displaying a utopian society. Both theorists are warning readers about the consumer rabbit hole that twist and turns but has no perceivable end. Rather, the consumer is convinced of a better tomorrow through improved technology and the immediacy of satisfaction. In both cases, the consumer is made to feel their life and its materials are inferior to the possibilities of their lives. Disney and the "cult of the new" display themselves as a necessity to a better life through immediate satisfaction and capturing the imagination of the consumer.
Disney projects their view of the future to stimulate in their visitors a sense of inferiority that propels consumers to accept this dreamscape as not only pleasurable but also the ultimate. Thus, reality, as Eco mentions, fails in comparison to Disney and alongside Habermas' "cult of the new" we begin to truly comprehend the power capitalism and the projection of utopian society can have over the public.
In this quote, Eco is asserting that the experience of the consumer society correlates to the experience of Disneyland in that they provoke an innate sense of consumer duty to buy-in both mentally and financially to their production of tomorrow. Disney does in fact have its own unique set of rules and regulations for its patrons which when removed from the context of the park seem quite unfitting. Disney aims to produce a utopian society that features the highest technological advancements to leave visitors in awe of the potentials of reality. However, this reality they have created is severely distorted to fit the consumer culture and restrict the consumer's imagination. By confining the imagination of the consumer and propagating the future, a spell of control is spread over the visitors. This spread of control not only allows Disney to herd visitors around like sheep, but also lead the sheep to drink from their shops, restaurants, and other product placements.
Comparing Eco's stance on Disneyland to Habermas' on the "cult of the new," it is evident that both were aware of the unifying illusion behind displaying a utopian society. Both theorists are warning readers about the consumer rabbit hole that twist and turns but has no perceivable end. Rather, the consumer is convinced of a better tomorrow through improved technology and the immediacy of satisfaction. In both cases, the consumer is made to feel their life and its materials are inferior to the possibilities of their lives. Disney and the "cult of the new" display themselves as a necessity to a better life through immediate satisfaction and capturing the imagination of the consumer.
Disney projects their view of the future to stimulate in their visitors a sense of inferiority that propels consumers to accept this dreamscape as not only pleasurable but also the ultimate. Thus, reality, as Eco mentions, fails in comparison to Disney and alongside Habermas' "cult of the new" we begin to truly comprehend the power capitalism and the projection of utopian society can have over the public.
Welcome to the Desert of the Real
I enjoyed watching The Matrix this week. I have seen The Matrix so many times that it allowed me to not worry about the plot of the movie and just focus on the dialogue. What is real? The idea of the matrix is quite fascinating. If I compare it to real life I would say that it is the world that engulfs our life that we accept and are not critical of. The people in the Matrix go through life not questioning anything they are mindless to say. When neo gets to see the real world he has a panic attack, because he realizes that everything he knew was a lie. I think that as people we can get like this on issue in this world. If we go to Disney World but we don't know what they are trying to do then we are mindless and stuck in this "Matrix."
I think the best example in class that helps me realize what Baudrillard is getting at is the Epcot: World Showcase. When we walk in to Epcot we know that the Japan part is not in Japan. But we think that we get a sense for what Japan would be like because of Epcot. So is our idea of Japan real then?
My favorite part of the Matrix is when Cypher is eating with agent Smith and he is sitting there talking with him eating a steak. He tells agent Smith, that he knows that this steak is not real, but he chooses to remain ignorant because life is easier that way. At that point he says "Ignorance is Bliss." We all do this is in life choosing to know something but because it does not affect your life directly to not truly believe it. We know that genocide is going on in Africa but we choose not do anything about it because it does not affect our life. Our society has started to take Ebola serious because it has made its way into the United States, but a couple months ago it was not realistic because of how far away it was. Ignorance is Bliss.
I think the best example in class that helps me realize what Baudrillard is getting at is the Epcot: World Showcase. When we walk in to Epcot we know that the Japan part is not in Japan. But we think that we get a sense for what Japan would be like because of Epcot. So is our idea of Japan real then?
My favorite part of the Matrix is when Cypher is eating with agent Smith and he is sitting there talking with him eating a steak. He tells agent Smith, that he knows that this steak is not real, but he chooses to remain ignorant because life is easier that way. At that point he says "Ignorance is Bliss." We all do this is in life choosing to know something but because it does not affect your life directly to not truly believe it. We know that genocide is going on in Africa but we choose not do anything about it because it does not affect our life. Our society has started to take Ebola serious because it has made its way into the United States, but a couple months ago it was not realistic because of how far away it was. Ignorance is Bliss.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Ivan Moreno, Zizek 10/2/14
Fear is a very powerful driving force and according to Zizek, our current culture is dominated a bit too heavily by fear. Unfortunately, the majority of today's media is spent on covering fear both near and "far" from the United States. By simply turning on a TV, one can flip through to a channel that has some sort of update on a nearby threat, be it war, crime or disease.
At the same time, our culture has taught us to be a prideful population almost to the point of being hubris. "The real horror happens there [not the US], not here [the US]" (232). This idea of other-ing makes us feel invulnerable and therefor have careless actions believing that we are in no immediate danger.
As stated in class, even within our fictitious television or films, America is completely fascinated with the idea of an attack or a catastrophe happening. The fascination does not become terror because of the mentality that it cannot happen. However, as Zizek commented shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th, "America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise" (233). Current media has numbed the general public to the idea of an attack and has even led some to believe that they would be able to step up and rise as heroes in the event of an attack, but instead it seems that even the most popular media could not prepare the majority for an actual catastrophe. Imagining something and thinking about a reaction is one thing but actually having to react to a current event can be completely different.
At the same time, our culture has taught us to be a prideful population almost to the point of being hubris. "The real horror happens there [not the US], not here [the US]" (232). This idea of other-ing makes us feel invulnerable and therefor have careless actions believing that we are in no immediate danger.
As stated in class, even within our fictitious television or films, America is completely fascinated with the idea of an attack or a catastrophe happening. The fascination does not become terror because of the mentality that it cannot happen. However, as Zizek commented shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th, "America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise" (233). Current media has numbed the general public to the idea of an attack and has even led some to believe that they would be able to step up and rise as heroes in the event of an attack, but instead it seems that even the most popular media could not prepare the majority for an actual catastrophe. Imagining something and thinking about a reaction is one thing but actually having to react to a current event can be completely different.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Kayla Salyer, Dorfman
Alright, so clearly this piece "Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club" has a lot of different topics and ideas. It ranges from the politicized sides of Disneyland, to the relationship between the adult and the child. This being said, I want to just focus on what I find are the most interesting points in the piece.
First, the argument that animals are used because they represent everyone, no matter their class, country, or race, is genius! I was rarely introduced to Disney as a child (yes, this may seem odd), but my family was very... down to earth. We had no television, no plastic toys, and my fairytales mostly consisted of Brothers Grimm stories. This makes me feel like more of an outsider, at least as a child. So these ideas are slightly new and intriguing to me. But back to the animals. The idea that we no longer need to struggle with where they are from, their race, their background, makes them relatable to everyone. It gives people that window of similarity to the rest of the world. We are no longer such strangers, if we can all see eye to eye through Disney. This is a huge underlying factor that Disney has given us without even realizing it. It opens the doors for so many different possibilities.
Digging in deeper, I want to look at the relationship between adults and children pertaining to Disney, which has become so prominent in our world. Disney is an adults utopia. It enables adults to project their ideals to their children, in a safe environment, in which they will, in thought, protect them with innocence. It is the adults ideal world. It is safe, magical, and forgiving, unlike the real world. One quote, darker than the rest of the piece, sticks out to me in an obvious way, "Similarly, readers find themselves caught between their desire and their reality, and in their attempt to escape to a purer realm, they only travel further back into their own traumas" (Dorfman and Mattelart 2012, 113). This slips us into deeper waters. It is suggesting an escape by adults through Disney, an escape that is projected onto their children. Although this escape may be to a purer realm, it actually slips them deeper into their own twisted past.
Dorfman seems to be slipping from a light and cheerful mode to a much darker one. From what I can understand, his opinions on Disney may vary from the beginning of the essay, to the end.
First, the argument that animals are used because they represent everyone, no matter their class, country, or race, is genius! I was rarely introduced to Disney as a child (yes, this may seem odd), but my family was very... down to earth. We had no television, no plastic toys, and my fairytales mostly consisted of Brothers Grimm stories. This makes me feel like more of an outsider, at least as a child. So these ideas are slightly new and intriguing to me. But back to the animals. The idea that we no longer need to struggle with where they are from, their race, their background, makes them relatable to everyone. It gives people that window of similarity to the rest of the world. We are no longer such strangers, if we can all see eye to eye through Disney. This is a huge underlying factor that Disney has given us without even realizing it. It opens the doors for so many different possibilities.Digging in deeper, I want to look at the relationship between adults and children pertaining to Disney, which has become so prominent in our world. Disney is an adults utopia. It enables adults to project their ideals to their children, in a safe environment, in which they will, in thought, protect them with innocence. It is the adults ideal world. It is safe, magical, and forgiving, unlike the real world. One quote, darker than the rest of the piece, sticks out to me in an obvious way, "Similarly, readers find themselves caught between their desire and their reality, and in their attempt to escape to a purer realm, they only travel further back into their own traumas" (Dorfman and Mattelart 2012, 113). This slips us into deeper waters. It is suggesting an escape by adults through Disney, an escape that is projected onto their children. Although this escape may be to a purer realm, it actually slips them deeper into their own twisted past.
Dorfman seems to be slipping from a light and cheerful mode to a much darker one. From what I can understand, his opinions on Disney may vary from the beginning of the essay, to the end.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Life in plastic, it's fantastic?
One of the most powerful quotes from Dorfman throughout this reading was "children's comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be" (112).
This brought me back to CMC 100 because I remembered we talked about the effect of certain types of toys that put a damper on the creativity of children. It prevents them from thinking further and creating scenarios in their minds. When a child handed a doll, they already know what that doll looks like. However, if that child was not provided with a doll, they could come up with one in their minds and make her look however he/she wanted her to look.
Stemming off from that, the quote I previously mentioned stuck out to me specifically because it is explaining a hegemony. By creating comics or things of similar nature, we are telling children how to look or act. In a way, we are stripping them of their creative nature and personal identity of who they actually want to become.
Take Barbie for example. This doll gives little girls the impression that beauty is long hair, a skinny waist, and a perfect smile. Little girls can recognize that Barbie is attractive and many aspire to achieve that look. But what's so toxic about this is that we shouldn't want our children to aspire to be something that is unrealistic and unattainable. We are automatically setting them up for downfall.
Go Forth and Be Critical: BoredCaitlin, Dorfman
“In juvenile literature, the adult, corroded by the trivia of everyday life blindly defends his image of youth and innocence... For the adult, in protecting his dream-image of youth, hides the fear that to penetrate it would destroy his dreams and reveal the reality it conceals.” (Dorfman 113)
The attitude that Dorfman reflects on here is one that I see pretty often in the Disney fandom. For many fans, Disney is the embodiment of childhood. They have deeply personal connections with their favorite films and characters. They use Disney as a way to escape day-to-day drudgery and reminisce about a simpler time. In moderation, that nostalgia isn’t a bad thing. I enjoy watching a Disney movie or going to the theme parks when I’m feeling down. It helps me keep going. However, this attitude becomes unhealthy when it blinds the fan to Disney’s faults. I’ve seen many fans who refuse to believe that Disney is anything but perfect and magical. They aren’t willing to criticize Disney, because their connection to it is so personal, to criticize Disney would be criticizing a part of themselves. I remember feeling this way when I was younger. I would quickly jump to Disney’s defense if I heard someone criticizing it. As I got older and started thinking about media more critically, I became more willing to acknowledge Disney’s flaws and thinking about ways they could be better. This could run the gamut from criticizing narrative problems to analyzing the way Disney represents other cultures. Nowadays, I welcome any and all critical analysis of Disney. I have learned that there's nothing wrong with being critical of something you enjoy. It makes you an educated viewer. However, not all Disney fans feel this way. The Tumblr blog Walt Disney Confessions allows fans to post anonymous thoughts about anything Disney related, and here this anti-criticism attitude can show itself, often in disturbing ways. Another Tumblr blog, Walt Disney Confessions Rage, responds to the more problematic confessions. Their responses are intelligent, eye-opening, and well worth checking out.: http://waltdisneyconfessionsrage.tumblr.com
Side note: I welcome being critical of Disney, but I will jump at your throat if you try to perpetuate a false urban legend. Baudrillard thought that Walt Disney was actually frozen and that made me want to throw things...
The attitude that Dorfman reflects on here is one that I see pretty often in the Disney fandom. For many fans, Disney is the embodiment of childhood. They have deeply personal connections with their favorite films and characters. They use Disney as a way to escape day-to-day drudgery and reminisce about a simpler time. In moderation, that nostalgia isn’t a bad thing. I enjoy watching a Disney movie or going to the theme parks when I’m feeling down. It helps me keep going. However, this attitude becomes unhealthy when it blinds the fan to Disney’s faults. I’ve seen many fans who refuse to believe that Disney is anything but perfect and magical. They aren’t willing to criticize Disney, because their connection to it is so personal, to criticize Disney would be criticizing a part of themselves. I remember feeling this way when I was younger. I would quickly jump to Disney’s defense if I heard someone criticizing it. As I got older and started thinking about media more critically, I became more willing to acknowledge Disney’s flaws and thinking about ways they could be better. This could run the gamut from criticizing narrative problems to analyzing the way Disney represents other cultures. Nowadays, I welcome any and all critical analysis of Disney. I have learned that there's nothing wrong with being critical of something you enjoy. It makes you an educated viewer. However, not all Disney fans feel this way. The Tumblr blog Walt Disney Confessions allows fans to post anonymous thoughts about anything Disney related, and here this anti-criticism attitude can show itself, often in disturbing ways. Another Tumblr blog, Walt Disney Confessions Rage, responds to the more problematic confessions. Their responses are intelligent, eye-opening, and well worth checking out.: http://waltdisneyconfessionsrage.tumblr.com
Side note: I welcome being critical of Disney, but I will jump at your throat if you try to perpetuate a false urban legend. Baudrillard thought that Walt Disney was actually frozen and that made me want to throw things...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)