VAGABOND, West and Hook

In response to Clem's post, I love the example you have provided regarding colonization in history. While we can list many different ways to argue Otherness, we can all agree that one of the biggest "Self" vs "Other" is through our skin color.

“Reading the Other” and "Race Matters" both discuss the importance of willingness to transgress racial boundaries. Hooks encourages biracial encounters to overthrow the dominant white hegemony in an attempt to challenge the racists.

In Peace & Conflict, we discussed the different types of peace: positive and negative. Positive peace consists of stable peace whereas negative peace has underlying issues such as racial inequality, poverty, unemployment...etc. Because poverty and social issues are not familiar with facilities and regulations, lacking the examination problem on the structural problems rather than focusing in on one specific example that ignores other relevant events or taking on one specific political position that is determined by a predisposed point of view.

I agree with what Devon was saying, instead of posing “them” (African Americans/other minorities) against “us” (the dominant hegemony), we must unite to understand ourselves as “we” – a collective unit that works together in synergy rather than in opposition or our socioeconomic structure would collapse at the lack of coherent society.

VAGABOND, Foucault

When reading Foucault, the first thing that came to my mind was George Orwell’s concept of the Big Brother.

Looking back at my daily activities, it seems as if I have a choice but unfortunately we don't. I think about my actions and realize that while some of my decisions are governed by my sense of morality, it does not measure up to this notion of fear.

Fear, what a familiar term we have talked about in CMC. Is it not the adrenaline rush we enjoy when we get a thrill? The notion of replaying certain framing of the shots all contribute to this idea of a spectacle.

For instance, I feel that while I may have a choice over things such as what time to wake up and whether or not I want to switch up my daily routine, I ultimately still have to go to class and get ready for it. The notion of free will seems so readily available but it isn't.

Another fleeting hope of this freedom is the Academic Honor Code. While we do not nee to have to write the AHC on every assignment, the consequence is that our work will not be assessed or looked at/given credit for. So...free will? I think not.

Is not the societal pressure, above all others, basically drafting and forcing all of usto participate in hegemony?

After all, Big Brother only functions because we more or less give up our ability to question and think, thus resulting to total passivity and focus on the mandated “good citizenship.”

VAGABOND, Derrida

Derrida is, hands down, the most complicating theorist we've covered so far.

I find his philosophy really redundant because he still doesn't reach a conclusion. Also, I don't see his reasoning behind his theories. From the beginning of the semester, we learned about the Ferdinand de Saussure's language and signifiers. I understand Derrida approaches de Saussure's theory with the idea that history only matters because we learn about differance and differences.

Putting de Saussure aside, I think it is interesting how he talks about the "truth." While CMC has trained my petty conglomerate washed mind to reconsider everything, I believe that there was never an absolute meaning nor truth/reality for any possible change to occur.

On page 130, Derrida says:

Differences are thus 'produced' - differed - by differance. But what differs, or who differs?

I suppose this is the most enlightening quote throughout this article. I find this interesting because the relationship was examined and the philosophical sense is revealed. When I read this, I thought about intertextuality and how we claim originality yet we are back to the topic of, what is the original?

VAGABOND, Herman and Chomsky

It is important to remember when doing the rest of the readings for this semester that we are focusing on concepts which we refer to as Ideotexts and Politexts. So what's the greater narrative that Chomsky and Herman argue?

Well, I'm unsure if I even know what is going on. I mean, WOW! this is one of those readings that burst your "I think I'm ready to face the evils of the world" bubble because you aren't. I honestly thought I already understand what is happening to our world, modern or post-modern. I mean, after all, the media merely sends “messages and symbols to the general populace…to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (257) right?

Apparently not so... My awareness regarding (post)modern society revolves around money, and when I mean revolve it is more like orbiting. I try to grasp the concept of real and virtual - yes, I understand the notion of video games but what about the stock market? All these huge figures of numbers are discussed and civilians who invest fret over this, however, what is supposed to be backed up by a stable currency (gold) is not even with us in reality. So, does this boil down to how the stock market, as in our economy, is an illusion because it is a mere concept???

So, everyday, we live our lives worrying about bills - or uh, the thing we use to exchange for more things...they're just mere ideas for more ideas? I mean, if you think about it, what is money but a face and some numbers printed on paper? Why do we toy with this notion of the real and the unreal or surreal?

VAGABOND, Jamesson

In the very beginning of this semester, Dr. Cummings already talked about how we understand the world by framing certain events with corresponding periods. In this Jameson reading, the presence of distinct “periods” in our culture which marks the ending of one and beginning of another is once again mentioned.

For example, from vinyl records to cassette tapes, CD's to iPods...Succeeding periods that deal with the notion of legacy (think Volkswagen's punch buggy commercial) is a naturally operating ideological system.

Generations serve the interest of companies because it helps the consumers figure out the trends through different eras. In fact, the clothing brand, GAP, prides itself the ability to mend the (generation) gap. Our pursuit for "faster, stronger, better" conflicts us because we do not understand what's the "better" one - AT&T or Verizon, PC or Mac. When we were given too many choices and too many media messages are involves in persuading us, we would recognize nothing in the end. While some may simply say there is no need to change or "if it ain't broken don't fix it," we may feel like we have done evolving the revolution and nothing original is left to create and there is no longer room for change.

VAGABOND, Horkheimer and Adorno

Adorno and Horkheimer's ideology revolves around the notion of driving our culture towards sameness. This kind of homogenous attitude results in conforming those who are different into a hegemony. Furthermore, this can lead to certain ethnic groups being intolerant of other distinct groups. Aside from the obvious intercultural conflict, this also shapes the way one culture tries to embody. Let's use the United States of America for example.

American television show usually revolves around a typical theme: flaunt money & the riches such as Teen Cribz, they target specific audiences in order to assure favorable ratings. Disregarding reality TV, fictional characters represent typical people, television networks secure audiences that are seeking to identify with a specific group. As these characters demonstrate idealized standards of attractiveness, the bar is set for viewers as to how they should look. The popular media also sets a basic norm for how one should act, talk, and dress. Furthermore, the escalated drama presents problems that are plausible but the heightened intensity causes viewers to apply poor communication skills to their lives.

For one of the CMC 100 projects, my group and I examined The O.C and Dawson's Creek - two popular teenage sitcoms one taken place in the 90's and the other in the millenia. We looked at how the social scene portrayed as been changed over the course of time. Not only are the clothing and lifestyle way more "glamorous," a lot of the scenes are more vulgar and is borderline PG13 because it challenges a certain ideal which most people are not able to reach.

In other words, these shows are your life, only better (this reminded me of how te virtual is better than the real and the real is jealous of the virtual.) I say this because teenagers gravitate towards shows with such outrageous themes because it gives us a "myth" to live up to.

VAGABOND, Poster [make up]

Mark Poster's take on the virtual community was mind provoking and ground breaking because of the time his theory was presented. I also considered virtual communities such as Second Life and The Sims and real online communities such as facebook, myspace etc.

To be honest, I am probably one that most would consider a facebook addict but it's because I definitely think these kind of social mediums help me stay in touch with friends from high school and reconnect with friends I had back in elementary school.

However, back in the myspace days, what is "real" is not "real." People constantly Google images and post it as theirs through a fake account. Or here's another example - meet sexy singles in your area. This YouTube vlogger, Natalie Tran, does a great job of approaching this topic with a satire attitude in hopes of shedding light to what has become of this "online" community trend.

Watch her reenactment of Single Girls Looking For Fun Ads.

VAGABOND, McGuigan [make up]

McGuigan's article, "Love the Skin You're In," discusses the vintage and reminiscing appeal of something new. Perhaps like wine, the older the better. I thought about the term "tradition reinterpreted" Jencks coined when looking at postmodernism architecture because of how certain values that has proved to exist over time are "worthy."

I remember talking about Johnny Rockets and Steak n' Shake as well as the (movie?) theatre in a certain university that preserves this "old" atmosphere because they apply certain value to it. In the 50's, family was something that was constantly emphasized and those restaurants believe that they are ideas that deserve to be held on to so they put a certain twist to this tradition and present it in a different light.

I also thought about how in Ipswich, England, the majority of the buildings that exist could not be remodeled differently - they try to preserve this vintage feeling because it part of their identity. I suppose Jenck's notion of tradition interpreted applies here as a way of repackaging the city through the old.

VAGABOND, Dorfman and Mattelart [make up]

Spring break has just ended and I spent it with my friends from high school who came to visit Orlando.

Now that I've read and learned about Dorfman and Mattelart and where the are going with their observation/argument, I realized the immense impact of Disney as a signifier. I say this because my friends asked me which amusement park I prefer or recommend (Disney, Universal, or Sea World). After a debate about the killer whale, my friends crossed that off the list and I told them Universal is honestly better because it is more entertaining, whereas Disney is more about the atmosphere and the city that was constructed around a certain ideology. My friends still decided to go with Disney because "it's kind of pointless to come to Florida (esp Orlando) and not go to Disney."

I think Dorfman and Mattelart would point out that Disney is very successful in creating this "must" experience. As a matter of fact, the reason we (as in, citizen of the world) all recognize Disney characters could be argued as how the company markets this hegemony of America. By building more Disneylands across the world enables more people to be exposed to the Disney culture. To an extent, this causes people to not have a reason to visit one in their lifetime.
As a matter of fact, the ideology is so popular that even the people in Myanmar recognize the characters when there is no existing trade between U.S and Burma. Does this mean that Disney offers the ultimate "peace" we seek to find? Would this constitute as a virtual better than the real?

VAGABOND, Marx & Althusser

“Ideology” is defined as “A baseline definition of ideology would contrast it with the notion of ideas” (30). To be honest, this definition was more like a chicken and egg banter than anything else. My point being: does a baseline definition of ideology contrast the term with ideas? Or does it put the term above ideas, or maybe even before ideas.
I think it is interesting to see how ideology, depending on the interpretation, can be political or economical etc. By comparing the present to the past, I suppose we always look back thinking the people in the past were such barbarians for doing things a certain way – what gives us the right to determine what is “right” and “good”?
Marx and Althusser examines the ideological structures of civilizations which ultimately argue that Ideology and is a form of hegemony. Althusser also has a similar approach as Barthes: Barthes believes that “gap” (what is not said) is the key to understanding the message, and Althusser claims that ideology is understood by the author above all else, therefore it is necessary to read between the lines to get the whole idea (tmesis). Interestingly, the American culture is the most apparent and prominent concept because it embraces the ever popular American Dream. Here, Marx would argue that the American Dream the perfect result from a "false consciousness" that depends on the idea of a "conscious acquiescence" (35). Although the American Dream says that hard work leads to success, it is only a small percentage of those that achieve this – most just get lost. While this guarantees a lot of hard working people because it embodies great principles, yet it is crucial to remember that the American Dream was an idea the bourgeoisie imposed on the general public.
However, I also acknowledge the reality of the vicious circle. If thousands don’t support the notion of the American Dream, it would cease to exist and we would be free of the “submission" (49).

Shutter Island.

I just watched Shutter Island and I just have to say I definitely agree with Scott and how it relates to so many theorists - especially Benjamin- whose work we've studied.

To start with, there is the notion of realism. How do we know authenticity when we can no longer distinguish one from another?
I also thought about the Iron Cage and how those that "know" are the ones that are "damned."
Then there is the concern with truth. How do we know we're not insane?

VAGABOND, Baudrillard

In today's readings, I think it is interesting how Baudrillard speaks about terrorism and how images conveyed by mass media contribute to the fear in the excerpt from The Spirit of Terrorism. In this piece of writing, Baudrillard argues that we are confused by the reality and the fiction - tying into Bejamin's theory regarding authenticity.

One interesting quote regarding mass media is: "The image consumes the event, in the sense that it absorbs it and offers it for consumption" (228). This is very true and understandable because popular culture has conditioned us in only believing those we see with our eyes (this is changing due to the rise of photoshop etc.) hence news reporters always provide coverage that are loaded with images. Mass media always throws in words like "newest update" or "breaking news" to capture audience's attention and to compete with other companies for viewers.

In "The Precision of Simulacra," Baudrillard compares the real and the imaginary using "masks." He argues that we "pretend" and it is merely never a constant state because we switch back and forth. I suppose in relation to the previous essay, it could be said that images from September 11 will always be remembered but it is amplified because of the "fiction" that was infused in making the shrouds of dust resemble the face of a devil or how some people believe that September 11 was a plotted demise or it could've been prevented from "prophecies" such as folding a dollar bill a certain way. I think all of these are "fictions" that intertwine with the "truth" in order to provoke a certain emotion such as nationalism within us.

VAGABOND, Habermas

In Habermas' text, I thought about fashion and how the styles keep coming back. What is vintage now was "hip" back then, yet we are all about dressing vintage because it is in style. Isn't it interesting?
To start with, I thought it was interesting how many theorists try to define “modernity” and its relationship and importance with the traditional and the present. I suppose I still believe that something that is modern is more or less sophisticated and tasteful (white, ivory, dark brown decor). I also suppose it could imply that - after reading Habermas - something modern is something classic because “a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (99).

When I think of modern, I think of contemporary, something that is a break from the traditional. Perhaps classicism has been around for so long that we have grown accustomed and bored that we need something more eye-catching because it is refreshing. If I were to think of a modernity, I would think of technology. Why? I suppose it is because of how the simple idea of a phone can be transformed into something like the BlackBerry or the iPhone. Just the concept these gadgets try to sell as are ridiculous a decade ago. Seriously, "there's an app for everything" would not be comprehended by the population back then. Also, the QWERTY pad function would probably only confuse people because we would just think it is unnecessary and too unnecessarily complex.

“Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative” (100). This quote reminds me of historical movements where every idea is eventually replaced by another. For example, as I've responded to Jackson's response to my post, racism and sexism were so "normal" that no one gave it much thought. Eventually though, it was protested against and now it is "wrong" to do so.

Ultimately, what I derived from the Habermas reading is how intertextuality plays a role between him, Macherey, and Benjamin regarding the notion of mass reproduction, modernity, and fashion.

VAGABOND, Lyotard

Can this be anymore difficult to comprehend? :(

I personally think postmodernism is so whimsical because of we can only define it by comparing it to modernism. I understand the binary opposition concept, yet it only makes me feel like I am thinking on terms of "good v bad" "light v dark" etc.

The most painful part of this reading was how I felt like I understood what he was saying in one sentence and in the next, he's lost me.

To be honest, the first thing that came into my mind was the game called "Marco Polo." In my opinion, this is a game - an action and reaction. You don't see it but you ultimately "catch" someone because you understand the concept after focusing.

If this article was to answer the proposed question: What is postmodernism? I would say it is the molding and transformation process that is capable of evoking,

Another idea which caught my attention was the notion of reality...

VAGABOND, Jencks

In the reading, Jencks discussed oxymoron and juxtapositions: unwholesome whole, disharmonious harmony...etc

I remember in John Berger's "Ways of Seeing," he talked about how some advertising companies incorporate renaissance/romantic art and add the postmodern ingredients to it, causing confusion and unexplainable "desire" in consumers. This seems to be the notion of juxtaposing world views and other tastes that make it more realistic.

What is also notable is, those advertisements are basically the paintings that mix classical and modern styles that is open to discussion and and interpretation. (Although I think most advertisers wishes viewers to accept the hegemonic reading and buy whatever product they are trying to sell...)

In the reading, Jencks coins the term "anthropomorphism" to describe a theme in postmodern architecture. This is an interesting name because I know the root word is anthro - which means man/men - and pomo just sounds like "post modern" shortened. Jencks explains the meaning of the phenomena of this word as buildings which are designed to suggest certain the human body's form. This reminds me of a rather famous restaurant building:

VAGABOND, Macherey

I remember back in school, those times when I am doing something I am not supposed to be doing in class - texting, facebooking, chatting with the other person, flipping through magazine...I have always been jerked back to the humdrum class lecture by silence. It's interesting but I always tense up and cautiously note what is happening to my surroundings as soon as the teacher stops talking.

"Silence is golden."

Well, that's nothing new. Coming from a family where the loudest wins...I certainly know the power of silence. I know that a mother who refuses to speak a word is worse than one that is raising her voice.

However, regardless of speech. The International Baccalaureate and CMC certainly does an excellent job on nurturing us to become wonderful critics. Aside from speeches from communication courses, I also know about the silence in writing.

What is not being said here? What is left out in this argument?

Macherey sums it up in the end, "It is this rupture which must be studied" (23). Indeed, from everyday magazine articles that persuade you to invest in another piece of pop culture to the everyday lectures on "going green," I think it is important to question what is being said through what is not being said.

More importantly, I was struck in awe by Descartes' quote: "I ought to take cognisance of what they practised rather than of what they said" (15). I definitely agree with the point being made here. After all, is it not our nonverbals that is more convincing than what is actually being said? Our actions speak louder than words, and if we don't practice what we preach, who is to believe our argument?