Late Blog post, Horkheimer and Adorno

Like i said before some of my post were not shown up on the website so i have taken upon myself to repost them.

Horkheimer and Adorno talk about mass media within American society. Mostly in television, film and radio. All these means of media are all related through the same idea that they create certain images as the norm. According to Adorno and Horkheimer this is called "sameness", which is the belief that even though America is made up of people with many backgrounds, they all have an identical idea of how something should be or what something should look like. The the means of media production, it is an easy way to spread ideologies.

I can relate a lot of this reading to our past theorists, Walter Benjamin and his theories regarding images and reality. " the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. The familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production." (45) People are unable to differentiate the real from the fake even though the movie is an imitation because of how realistic it is perceived. Because movies have such an influential impact on people , the audience filtering their ideas are creating hegemony.

Andrew Wells, Make up; Poster

Looking over my blogs i found some of my blogs were missing, but luckly I was smart enough to save my notes on my lap top.
This was my understanding of Mark Poster:
It is obvious that technology is advancing faster and faster and faster every year. Our technology is increasing at a faster speed because of the type of information we're receiving through the new technology; Televisions, computers, telephones (cell phones), consumer electronics, and publishing. Since the era of technology is currently active by Americans, its basic structure is based in the United States. A great quote to grab from Posters reading: " the dominant use of the english on the internet suggest the extension of American power as does the fact that email adresses in the United States alone do not require a country code." To go off of this quote i think that its important to say that its not the code that should be require for the U.S, its more of a favorable operation that the Americans hold toward smaller people. The only reason why the United States is capable of sustaining the no-country code is because it is considered to be a prosperous nation when compared to otehr countries. This thought of the country code is thought to create dominance amongst the other less fortunate countries.

One theorist that references Poster's notion is Baudrillard. He support these ideas through two terms: simulation and dissimulation. These words represent the idea of absence and presence in the same function. Virtual reality is an image that masks the absence of reality because one performs as if these creations of reality are taking place for real when they are not.

Appadurai - Mediascapes, 4-26-10

Appadurai touches on a notion known as "mediascapes," which "tend to be image-centered, narrative-based accounts of strips of reality" (35). This relates to any magazine, advertisement, television-radio-internet or book containing an ideology (which would be all of them). I found this reading to be somewhat similar to Marx and Althusser; they wrote that we experience life through the eyes of ideology and there is no possible way to escape all forms of ideology. Just like Marx and Althusser, Appadurai believes we experience different sectors of life through other mediums. Those media he refers to are mediascapes. He writes that we trust our media enough to string together half-realistic, half-fictional media texts into absolute reality. For example, if I happen to watch the mediascape television show "Cops," and predominantly view minorities getting arrested on the show, I may assume, through that one little mediascape, that minorities tend to get arrested more than caucasians. I may even go a step further in assuming that minorities commit more crimes than whites.

Of course, that is just a hypothetical example of the power and scope of a mediascape. Usually, I hope our culture takes mediascapes with a large grain of salt and I can only pray that people do not believe everything they observe through mediascapes.

Appadurai

It was interesting how in this reading many theorists we have studied before were mentioned such as Marx, Barthes, Benjamin, and Baudrillard. I liked the part when he talked about the "fetishism of the consumer" ( 42). The reading explains how a consumer has been transformed to the commodities. I found it interesting how the reading compared this concept to Baudrillards idea of the similacra. It is true how consumers are influenced by global markets to buy certain products. Consumers believe a fake reality because of how companies portray there products. They want to believe that what they show really makes you feel a certain way and believe that product will effect you in this ideal way. This makes consumers fall to the idea of the simulacra. We are influenced extremely easily to buy products because of how they are marketed. If you make your product desirable it will attract consumers because they will want your product to believe it will allow them the escape.

Pre-class Appadurai

I have to agree with Clem in saying that Appadurai does a great job in identifying all the theorists and linking them together.

This is what i got out of Modernity at large: cultural Dimensions of Globalization

Appadurai argues that the most constructive feature of using the concept of the cultural is the concept of difference. He defines difference as a contrastive rather than substantive property of certain things. Appadurai sees its main virtue in being a useful set of rules that are capable of highlighting points of similarity and contrast between an array categories such as classes, genders, roles, groups, and heritage. Describing the cultural dimension of something infancies the idea of situated difference (difference in relation to something local, embodied, and significant). I really liked how Devon put it in her blog post. "I think, often times, especially as students that are, for the most part, well-off and from upper-middle class backgrounds, we are ignorant of the fact that people exist outside of our own circumstances and that the experience we take part in as American citizens is by no means the norm around the world." I strongly feel the same way and i don't think theres a better way to put it. We are so inclosed in our own world that most of us are oblivious to what life is outside ours. We must search for a difference to better understand how we are inside.

Pre-class Appadurai

In this text, what is most interesting is that Appadurai uses a lot of the theorist we have studied this semester and makes everything come together. It all finally makes sense may I say? All the notions and theories we have learned have given rise to our consciousness and we can now understand such a text which we would not have grasped at the beginning of the year.

I would like to focus on the first part of this text. Looking back on history, the theorist makes a strong point on the evolution of interactions in the past centuries. In the past exchanges between social and cultural groups were almost impossible due to distances and technologies. But with the print technology, and transportation advancements new transactions were now possible. As Appadurai puts it, there has been a "technological explosion" in the past century (trains, airplanes, telephone, computers and internet) making exchanges possible on a whole new level. One would think that this has created an ability to share and understand culture in a global manner but not at all. It has only promoted a sort Americanization of the East. Appadurai gives us the example of the Philippines singing songs of our past and celebrating them more than we do, with a certain nostalgia but the problem is this was never part of the Philippine culture meaning they sense a nostalgia with out a memory, for something "never lost". This is the irony of what global culture is bringing to the table.

Appadurai Pre Class

Throughout this piece, it becomes clear that Appadurai is able to do one thing that no previous theorist has attempted to do, that being, crossing the national border and seeing how this postmodern culture has had grand affects globally. I think, often times, especially as students that are, for the most part, well-off and from upper-middle class backgrounds, we are ignorant of the fact that people exist outside of our own circumstances and that the experience we take part in as American citizens is by no means the norm around the world. Especially if we are to call ourselves critical readers, we must recognize our own perspective as one of privilege that must constantly keep in mind the fact that, whether we want it to or not, our privilege serves to oppress others. I think Appadurai makes that clear in his articulation of America and its overbearing power on the rest of the world, and the rest of the world’s consequent imitation of American culture, which he describes as a “rich testimony to the global culture of the hyperreal”.

On the other hand, I think we are also, in a more positive light, going to witness, more and more, the transnational spread of ideas, philosophy, and language as a result of the postmodern era for no longer are we a community based in simply face-to-face communication but we now have the potential to create “imagined” communities based in virtual realities that are fluid and unstable. Appadurai recognizes the diverse flows of cultural material moving across national boundaries, and although he may criticize this new global system within an intellectual, critical framework, I think it is just as significant to recognize the great potential these flows have in expanding connections with one another and broadening our own perspective, so it is not limited to the one-dimensional perspective of simply being an American.

pre class post for Appadurai

after reading the Appadurai reading there are definitely some things that can very easily be said. First of all I think it is really cool that this reading was actually pretty easy to understand, and secondly I can actually relate this one to a book now! I respect and understand what Appadurai (we will call him APP) was trying to say about economies and trading. There was a book I read about globalization entitled ‘The lexus and the olive tree” this book viewed the lexus as prominent globalizing markets such as those of the western world, and the olive tree as traditional economies like those of south america, Africa, and parts of asia. Well anyway it went on to show that too much globalization, although it connects people, will eventually stall and eat itself like an animal that is growing so fast it cannot sustain itself. The olive tree economies would get on board with this type of globalization and eventually kill themselves as well because if you are a small nation and all you have to offer is say the rainforest and the wood it can produce what is to stop you from clearing the entire basin and getting quick money? So in essence both types are self destructive, but if you have a n economy or culture that is a mix of the two and is aware of the possibilities of failure then you will be ok. I think that can relate to this article by showing that if one culture dominates trade or world culture then it will be counterproductive. I find it interesting, but not surprising, that war was listed as one of the cultural barrier breakers. I guess one could very easily argue that the entire British empire was built in such a way. I think it is very cool how APP talks about imagination being such a factor, I know there are some negative aspects about it, but at the same time it is such a comforting fact to know that the future isn’t completely scripted and that perhaps Lady Gaga will be gone soon…who knows but the reading was really good and definitely made me think about a lot of issues surrounding the topic, it seems that sharing of cultures is very good because if one dominates it usually doesn’t end well.

West, Post-Class 4-25

"One essential step is some form of large-scale public intervention to ensure access to basic social goods - housing, food, health care, education, child care, and jobs. We must invigorate the common good with a mixture of government, business, and labor that does not follow any existing blueprint" (West, 630).

After describing the 1992 Los Angeles rights and explaining its analogous moral, West writes this quote above. He seems to lay out a design for a better society, sounding like a Utopian society. I, a more cynical man than Cornell West, will argue that most of these things our country needs to change, will not change. One topic he hits on is health care; Congress recently passed a universal health care bill, which will insure some 30 million Americans with health care. Already, the bill has come with little favor from those in the upper class. Remember Marx's golden rule, "Those with the gold, rule." My theory is that, within the next coming years, universal health care will become history in America, due to those with the gold in our country. Unfortunately, I will argue the same for "housing, food...education, child care, and jobs." Our society is too entrenched in the ideology of capitalism and I could not foresee ourselves digging out of that ideological box too soon.

Post class Derrida

Taking a look a Jack Derida’s Differance in class helped a lot to understand his actual theory. It is important to see that he refers to previous theorist like structuralist De Saussure or Post-structuralist Barthes to convey his ideas but he goes a step further: he claims that language is important in order to understand ourselves, that words are central. When we see a signifier and part of it is missing we still fill in the gaps subconsciously. This gap is what he calls the trace. It is gone but somehow we know it is still there. This trace is what influences our reading of the text and the less aware we are of this trace, the best it functions because we do not realize the manipulation.

De Saussure states that there are only differences in language but what Derrida tells us is we are only left with differences. I liked when in class we used the example of “dog” and looked in the dictionary. This made us realize that we define words by other words, therefore by difference. These differences create a chain, a system in which every concept is inscribed. Barthes would argue this refers to the intertextuality at play and Foucault would argue with the concept of systems. Also, defining words by differences means defining it the other. This relates to the idea of Othering. We have not studied these texts in class yet but theorist like West and Hook would agree that by noting difference, we define the Other, we choose to see them as different. And all this is based on language.

West, Post Class, meg143

In the article “Race Matters” by Cornell West, he brings up some very controversial topics that have been an issue with a very slow improvement for some time now. West discusses the concept of race from both sides of the political spectrum and how neither side seems to have a concrete solution to the racial segregation in our society today. “The paralyzing framework encourages liberals to relieve their guilty consciences by supporting public funds directed at “the problems”; but at the same time, reluctant to exercise principled criticism of black people, liberals deny them the freedom. Similarly, conservatives blame the “problems” on the black people themselves and thereby render black social misery invisible or unworthy of public attention.” (627). I found this quote very interesting because it shows that neither of the political parties have a positive way of looking at how to create a country free of racial discrimination. While the issue of race has definitely been improved over time there are still underlying issues that do not allow people of color to feel as though America is their home as well. West continues to describe how there is a constant desire to “fit into” the American ideals, which is not what our country was founded on. West continues to describe different statistics that show how much work our country still needs. “About one out of every five children in this country lives in poverty, including one out of every two black children and two out of every five Hispanic children” (630). There needs to be a positive solution that includes every citizen in this country, where no one is considered “the problem.” I think that West did a great job in this reading by giving positive ideas that could result in a successful change for our country. This consisted of admitting that we as American people are the most helpful resource of power and social change and need to come together as a country; and also that we need to focus on the common good of the country as a whole and consider us all as one. West also says, “One essential step is some form of large scale public intervention to ensure access to basic social goods- housing, food, health care, education, child care, and jobs” (630). And lastly that we need courageous leaders who, “can situate themselves within a larger historical narrative of this country and our world, who can grasp the complex dynamics of our people hood and imagine a future grounded in the best of our past, yet who are attuned to the frightening obstacles that now perplex us” (630). West has a strong desire to improve our country and create a place where everyone feels that they are truly a connected part of America.

Post Class, West, 4/25

Although it may be true that black people do commit more crimes than other races we must look at the reasoning for this instead of jumping to the conclusion that they commit more crimes because they are black. I don’t believe that there is any innate reason that blacks tend to commit more crimes than black but think that the reason that they commit more crimes is because of the way that blacks are treated by the rest of society. In the article Marked that we read in CMC 200 by Pager the inequalities of blacks trying to find jobs was discussed. Although I do not remember the exact details of the article basically the conclusion drawn was that whites who have created felonies have a better chance of getting hired than blacks who have not. Although there are laws in place that try and enforce equal opportunities for being hired and employers are not supposed to hire people based on their race, clearly these rules are not well enforced or followed. These laws are difficult to enforce because it cannot really be proven that race influences my employers hire their employees. I think that as long as these inequalities exist in society and blacks have more struggles than whites they will continue to commit more crimes. If they are forced to steal or sell drugs in order to make enough money to fulfill their basic needs because they cannot get jobs then that is what they will continue to do. I don’t think it is a matter of them being bad people or having lower morals but more of a matter of society making life to be more of a struggle for black people than white people.

Derrida Post Class

Without question, Derrida was the author I have had the most trouble with this semester, so I think it is important to go back and reflect on our in class discussion of his work in order to illustrate a couple key points I thought were significant. I think the most essential part of our discussion came in part due to Derrida’s multiple connections to a number of our previous theorists and how his theory summed up much what we have already explored throughout the semester. First, we can look at Derrida’s idea that language exists as a system, in which a word’s meaning is only constructed in relation to other words and the context in which exist. This notion of system is reminiscent of Foucault because it is a system that depends on the intertextuality in which a “systematic play of differences” abounds (127). This idea of difference can be directly connected to Zizek’s notion of Othering, a notion that pits ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ and in relation to Derrida, suggests everything (or rather everyone) is about difference. This is, of course, a concept borrowed from Edward Said’s Orientalism, and it can be said, us a reflection of Derrida, that language, not just people, is about Otherism. Moreover, with Derrida comes the advent of “differAnce,” which he declares is a term that is multivalent, meaning it may have many values assigned to it. “Multivalence” is an extremely important concept for Charles Jenks and his study of postmodern architecture, architecture that is often the culmination of many different origins, different styles, and a reflection of different historical themes. Both authors, Jenks and Derrida, take to heart the postmodern tendency of destabilization in which everything, whether it be a word’s meaning or an architect’s style, is fluid and always up to change. Along with traces of Jenks, Zizek, and Foucault, Derrida also makes a clear connection to our literary theorist Pierre Macharay in his expression that it is an absolute impossibility for anything to be conceived outside of the text and, as a result, there is no way to escape. Beyond simply literature, this can all be traced backed to Althussar’s theory of ideology, and the fact that, in the end, no one can get out of this overbearing system. Clearly, although I might have not been able to completely grasp Derrida in and of himself, like his own theory, I can understand him in relation to many of our other theorists, and his theory in the context of our previous discussions.

ANother awesome post class blog for 4/20!!!

Well even though I already did a post class post this week I decided to do another one because the email said to…lucky me haha. Well anyway I think the best way to view Hooks is to compare it to West. Now looking at them both independently they both look at some very interesting social phenomenon and express ideas that should be taken into account, personally I think Hooks is a little nutty to say the least. If you look at the way West’s paper is set up it is pure genius, it is simple, easy and it goes like this…he sets up the problems that have been happening, looks at cultural, political and social aspects of it, offers some information as to why these things have been happening and then…you guessed it….he comes up with solutions of the problems. When you are reading West you feel as though you are reading something similar to “Letter from Birmingham Jail” because of the flow, syntax, and overall demeanor. When I was reading Hooks I felt like I was listening to Malcolm X on 10 redbulls and steroids at the same time. Once you wash down hooks, which believe me takes a long time, you begin to see what the author was finally trying to get at and the ideas are very interesting. I too believe that the other has been exploited and taken advantage of culturally and other ways. I think that by co-opting this “other” people have made a lot of money such as Nike, and yeah Vanilla Ice too haha just kidding he was awesome. I think this topic is very hard to address sometimes because of the heated nature that most debates often tend to go to on the subject. I think the real solution here is not a multi-cultural lens that makes every single word offensive, like my wonderful generation today…so sad, but instead one word…pride….put it aside for 10 minutes and erase the hate. Believe it can happen, look at veterans…there is no apartheid or racism in a foxhole now is there?

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.

Pre-class Hook

For centuries whites have oppressed those they deem racially inferior, by claiming they were educating the savages for example or bringing them religion…yeah ok right. We all no European colonization of India or Africa was only a matter of land, new products such as raw material or foods. We can also mention the “free humans”. In our western ideology we think that this is set in our past, we feel so good about ourselves because we freed black people from slavery and almost think that they should thank us. But in reality is all this really over? In reading Hook we realize that no, it isn’t. Even though we tell ourselves we are not racist, we do not participate in the act of Othering, we do. It is ingrained in our ideology. It is embedded in our psyche. Before this text I honestly did not see that. And this ideology is perpetuated by the media, even celebrated by it. We use the Other as a commodification, like Benetton adds, presenting children of different races playing together. They say, look we promote diversity and battle discrimination. But in reality they attempt to get a gold star from consumers who think that by purchasing in their store they are doing an anti racist action! All Benetton really does is increasing the gap between us and them, pointing out that “they” are different.

Another interesting point Hook makes is that of sex. I don’t know if this applies to everyone but I understand what he is saying here. When whites express the desire to have sex with the Other, they think it is a way to understand and know the Other but also as a way to change themselves. We think this action erases racial imperialism as we try to become the Other. but it does not eradicate the politics of racial domination it only promotes them. Hook says the only solution is the mutual recognition of racism at work in our western society.

Pre Class 4/22 Hooks

When reading Bell Hook’s piece, “Reading the Other,” I was quickly reminded of some information I recently came across when doing my literature review for CMC 200. When exploring the various portrayals of black males in the media I found some information on how black males are commonly portrayed sexually that backs up a lot of what Hooks is trying to say. Hooks argues that ethnicity is often used in mainstream white culture to transform the experience of pleasure. A sense of sexual desire is often created by taboo and curiosity associated with the Other. I found that there are two common portrayals of black males in the media. The first being the hyper sexualized black male we often see reflected in rap lyrics and music videos. Hooks states, “Constructing the black male body as site of pleasure and power, rap and the dances associated with it suggest vibrancy, intensity, and an unsurpassed joy in living.” Lyrics in rap songs often are imbedded with misogynistic messages leaving viewers with the feeling that black males are sex hungry and extremely sexual. From my perspective this is the most common portrayal of black males in the media. The rap and hip-hop industries are huge and are dominated by black males. My guess is that besides sports, these industries probably give black males the most exposure to mainstream culture. The other common representation of black males in the media is the asexual black male. When I was first exposed to this idea I was surprised since it is the complete opposite of the other most common portrayal. The reasoning behind this makes sense though. Since there are so many images in the media of black males as misogynistic and hyper sexual people often times immediately associate these stereotypes with black males. Therefore, in order to avoid these stereotypes and have the black male play a different role sex must be completely removed from the picture. If the black male is represented as asexual hopefully viewers will not be as quick to come to conclusions based on stereotypes and ideologies. The desire of the Other common in rap and hip-hop not only enforces black male stereotypes but also makes it difficult for black males to take on other roles without losing their sexuality completely.

West Pre-Class

Cornell West highlights an essential point when looking at any sort of overwhelming social issue – whether it be racial inequality, poverty, crime, social integration, or unemployment – we must look at its 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. West recognizes the fact that in dealing with race-related issues, neither the historically-based Democratic nor Republican perspective will generate solutions; instead we must focus on the discourse that serves this issue and the inherent problem in this discourse that must be dealt with if we ever want to be able to start making progress. In essence, “the common denominator of these views of race is that each still sees black people as a ‘problem’ people…rather than as fellow American citizens with problems” (627). Neither side is correct, you see, rather a revolutionary event must take place – we must generate a new approach to how we deal with these continual, overpowering issues that will not be resolved until we look in the mirror and realize instead of posing “them” (African Americans) against “us” (Caucasians), we must unite to understand ourselves as “we” – a collective people who must work together rather than in opposition if we are to ever succeed in creating a coherent society based on a sharing of common values and beliefs. In a postmodern society that prides itself on eclecticism, deconstruction, and diversity in our art, architecture, and philosophy, it is time we start embracing such ideals concerning ourselves as “people” – a people that is not homogenous but, on the contrary, multicultural and multiracial, an idea that should break the color line and lead us into this new era of a cultural revolution with an optimistic vision.

Pre-class Hooks

Hooks talks about "the other." He discusses how "the other" is often depicted by race, ethnicity, or skin-color. The part of this reading that most stood out at me was the part which talked about Heart Condition. Heart Condition was a movie about a white, racist male who got a heart transplant from a black man. "This film offers a version of racial pluralism that challenges racism by suggesting that the white male's life will be richer, more pleasurable, if he accepts diversity"(374). I personally thought that this film seemed like a good lesson. I thought it seemed to discriminate against racism, but "not surprisingly, most black folks talked about this film as 'racist'"(374). This immediately reminded me of my CMC 200 class because we read an article on Black Women on Television. Many people who are of a minority race are often classified as "the other" and they are aware of it. We read about different TV shows in which black women were offended as to what their stereotypes were portrayed as. For many white people, including myself, we do not realize when things could be considered racist. For example, Heart Condition does not sound racist to me, but it clearly came off that way to a number of black folks. I feel terrible that minorities are classified as "the other" and I feel bad that I often do not notice when people are being classified as "the other," but the ideology of "the other" will never go away. People classified as "the other" can try to escape the ideology of it, but as we have learned before, there is no way of escaping ideology. "The other" is here to stay.

Jean, Derrida

Derrida brings up an interesting discussion about language. It is interesting how he relates so well to earlier theorists we studied. He uses the idea of the gap like Barthes and takes this concept to another level. He shows how everything is connected through Differance. Many words come form the same way from the same spelling but mean different things. Also so many words have different meanings. Derrida makes you think how language truly is everywhere. From photos to thoughts and writing it all is a part of language. You may draw a picture differently then someone but if you draw a dog no matter how you draw it is still a dog in your mind. The language is still there. Same when you see a symbol. That symbol represents an aspect of a word or thought. This is interesting and relates to Desaussure and his concept of the signifier and signified how every picture is a symbol for a type of language. Derrida relates extremely well to early theorists and explains the meaning of language much further and deeper showing no escaping from linguistics.

post class for 4/20/10

well today was definitely interesting with our debates and talks of differance and the ideas of language. I think it is something i have a good deal of trouble wrapping my mind around, but the truth of the matter is I just don’t care. I don’t mean this offensively to anyone, but it just seems as thought it is a waste of time. Jenkins, Habermas, Marx, Barthes, De Sausser all of these men had relevant ideas about interesting topics. Here we come to derrida ad we have something so abstract the man who wrote it most likely does not understand it. I just don’t think he was able to see the folly in his work. we live in a world where a language no longer is the barrier between a people, and it is also something that is constantly changing. How can you ever attempt to define or categorize something that is changing so rapidly? I understand this man wanted only to look at the differences and various other things about language, yet at the same time i am left wondering truly deep down inside what it is that this man planned to accomplish or did he realize at the onset that he was never going to take care of this. I read the reading, and yes i admit i did not understand it very much, there were some things i did and some i didnt. I find it much easier to relate Derrida to others than i do speak about his work in any shape way or form. I think this reading was really good but it is something along the same lines as Descartes, it is reall hard to unpack and once you have unpacked it you dont have near as much understanding it as you did unpacking it, leaving you with an empty feeling and nothing but contempt for the writer. enjoy the west reading guys! it is a ton easier than this one!

Pre-Class Derrida's "Differance" 4-19-10

In the final sentence of an essay, the writer usually intends to leave the reader with a great lasting impression - something profound, yet encompassing of their finished work. The final sentence of Derrida's essay reads, "The question bears (upon) each of the words in this sentence: 'Being/speaks/through every language;/every where and always/.' " (140).

What? Um...I honestly found myself frustrated after the second page. But I was a little disappointed being left with that last quote. Is that the last thing Derrida wants me to grapple with? I read that last sentence over and over, taking a literal interpretation, then breaking down every word - relating that term back to the text - and piecing it together again. Still, what does that mean? Taking a literal interpretation, Derrida argues that all life has a voice through some heard or silent language, all the time and in all corners of the world. Great - that's an argument, but how does it pertain to critical media? Does this mean that simply existing grants us a voice and, through this voice, we speak some language that is received by others, whether heard or not by everyone? This seems like quite an abstract and broad quote and I still do not fully understand Derrida's intentions within. So, if anyone in our class can please help me understand what the author means by this quote, I would greatly appreciate it.

Pre class for Difference for 4/20/10

Well...looks like i went and did it again...i think i already did this post on foxday but who cares, another chance to bash the french for me haha, sorry Clem...well anyway i think this is good because last time i mixed up the message of the piece. I find it interesting that they chose to look at the semiology of the word difference, i mean seriously werent there better words out there? normally words that are discursive have the most interesting histories but nevertheless it all worked out. I found it actually quite brilliant how the author was able to tie all of this into freud. I mean a lot of people can tie things into freud but tying the no point of origin or conclusion in the consciousness to the fact that the word had a very foggy background was very interesting and it made me look at freud a little bit more. Switching to Derrida I think the language of the piece was a little interesting because it was written in almost what seemed to be like a letter or some personal memoir that he would tuck away for a rainy day. From what i can gather this entire work was the man trying to piece together the differences and similarities and history of the word differance...which seems a little interesting if you ask me haha. I believe my favorite line (the saving grace) of the piece was "Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences" (Derrida pg 127). Well this is really cool, it can be very easily linked to Habermas and Marx when you think of ideology and the public sphere and how everything is a link within the larger chain. it really made me think back to the idea that there is only ideology and we cannot operate out of it, only in it or for it. I think that this idea could be applied to a variety of different words as mentioned previously, but at the same time I think this was a good word because to me it almost seemed like play-on words because the man was looking for the differences in difference. Overall i thought it was a pretty good read and was satisfied with it. i mean it was a little hard to understand but overall a very good piece

Postclass Foucault

Talking about Foucault in class was very interesting because it enabled us to analyses deeply his text and come to a better understanding of his theory. Foucault’s work is directed towards a critical view of systems and power relations, basically hegemony. In the quote “Inspection functions ceaselessly” (94) he speaks of the plague in France during the 17^th century. But this applies to our current state of constant surveillance and control. I really liked Foucault’s analogy of the plague and of any political government. He compares the two and claims that any political program is a utopia of the plague. Only in a state of plague would the people controlled be disciplined because of the fear of the disease. This is why we live in a world where there is a cult of fear nurtured by the hegemonic systems in place. He continues by claiming “our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance” (101). Zizek would argue with the statement but this quote reminds me of Bourdieu. We want to be under surveillance in a way, we enjoy being looked at, our constant need to be on TV, reality shows. There is almost a sense of voyeurism and jouissance of showing of everything. I am thinking of facebook and twitter. We picture these tools as a spectacle, as entertainment but in reality they are only tools of surveillance. Anyone can see our information and our lives. We know people can look at it but we don’t know who. It is this idea of power being visible and unverifiable that Foulcault puts forward. I like to think that he is right to say that our way of living is comparable to the Panopticon.

Bourdieu Post Class

I think our in class discussion of Bourdieu and his take on television and its adverse affect on American society is relevant to a range of issues we are facing today. First and foremost, as Herman and Chomsky articulated in their piece concerning the manipulative nature of today’s media and its consequent dumbing down of society, Bourdieu, too, seems to agree that we, especially as Americans, are not moving in a progressive direction. Instead, he cynically, and rightfully so, appears to think of Americans as mere subjects of complacency that have become so brainwashed by these “technological innovations” that our ability to not only critically think, but simply think at all, is quickly dissipating. We accept what is given to us as truth without question, which is dangerous for our ability to think on our own but also dangerous for a range of other essential human capabilities such as the ability to be creative and different, to be imaginative and think “outside of the box”. It seems as this innate human quality is increasingly difficult to get a hold of, for now, we are simply just handed the information, easily accessible by either television or internet, and deem this information as genuine. If Oprah says so, how can you disagree? What she sanction is true is sadly mass accepted in that everyone believes. Another example of such irrational influence came just this morning when I tuned in to CNN to see a what-was-meant-to-be intellectual discourse between scholars concerning Obama and his lack of agenda with the black community. And guess who had the most to say over the attending Yale professor and well-educated, world-renowned author? Al Sharpton: a man who dropped out of college to later become James Brown’s tour manager; surely someone who has slim to none political experience yet always finds himself at the center, and a very vocal center at that, of the political debate. It is frightening to see how much public power this man has had in the political scene over the past decade and how this power has translated into the influencing of thousands to tens of thousands. It is time we start putting forth individuals in leadership positions who are more than a pretty face or more than a loud voice if we would like to continue positioning America as the greatest nation in the world.

Post Class, 4/18

One thing that interested me a lot that we talked about in class this week was how people believe in he things that certain media figures say but the people that they listen to don’t necessarily have any credibility. People like Anderson Cooper, Oprah, Barbara Walters and Larry King are all looked at by many people as trust worthy individuals that deliver true information. While some of these people may be creditable sources a lot of them are not more qualified than the average American to deliver accurate information. When I looked up some of these people on google I noticed that some of them, such as Anderson Cooper did have degrees from prestigious universities such as Yale. Others such as Larry King have never even been to college. It amazes me that people put so must trust into Larry King to deliver information and he hasn’t even been to college. I seems that people may only listen to him because he can talk well, is good at interviewing people and he has been around for so long. It goes to show that being intelligent does not necessarily coincide with being a good news anchor. People like getting their news from people that are attractive to look at and people who are good public speakers. As critical media students we must look deeper into things and not just listen to what these people say because other people do but we must take what they say as an opinion and look at their credentials to judge whether or not we should trust the information that we get from them.

Post Class, 4/18

Foucault Post-Class Thoughts (4-18-10)

I had a phone interview for an internship at CNN's video research library in D.C. on Thursday. Everyday, CNN tapes and gathers video of certain political events around D.C. and the responsibility of the intern is to keep track of these videos coming in and email/transport them to anyone around the CNN headquarters who might need it that day; also, the intern has to pull up old video on command, if need. Essentially, the intern acts as the omnipotent observer of all public, political action around the political headquarters of America. Quite an eerie responsibility now that I think about it. Surveillance is not exactly my cup of tea, but media relies on constant surveillance of interesting people and events to keep drawing our attention to their networks. Example: if ESPN did not conduct constant surveillance on all the most popular and interesting sporting events around the world, would they have such a dominant control on the sports media market today? Most likely, no, they wouldn't.

While we are on the topic of sports media, I had a conversation with Dr. Cummings after class the other day and I figured I could share it for ya'll (you all). During my lifetime, I cannot count on two hands the number of professional athletes who have damaged their legacy due to some life changing scandal, blown up by the media. Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, Ray Lewis, Ricky Williams, Mark McGwire, and Plaxico Burress are a few names that come to mind (Interesting side note: I typed all those names into google and the first links to show on the search pertained to those athletes' own scandals, not their stats or accolades). If we ask our parents, I doubt they can name 5 sports icons from their childhood whose names were tarnished by problems off the field. To some extent, I feel this rise in pro-players' scandals has a direct link to the closer surveillance following athletes today. Pro-sports commissioners have established their own panopticon on their athletes. Why? My guess is to keep the purity of the sport or make sure everyone "plays by the rules." It simply baffles me that professional leagues expect their athletes to be revered as shining sports idols, incapable of fallacy. Pro athletes are human too and they make mistakes like the rest of us. The sports media can build up Ben Roethlisberger one day as a dominating QB in the NFL and chastise him the next day for sexual assault charges the next day.

Sports commissioners expect their athletes to be idealized as the perfect humans, yet when they make mistakes like any normal person could, what do they expect then?

Foucault, meg143, 4/15

Today’s class gave me a much better understanding of Foucault’s theory and ideas. Foucault’s interest is surrounded by the idea of the “panopticon” originally a design for a prison where the guards have a view into every cell of the prisoners, much like a big brother world. The class began giving out ideas of what other systems they felt acted like a panopticon, such as empty cop cars, the honor code, airports, and the London cameras. Each of these ideas were very interesting and I have a lot of experience with the London cameras and definitely agree that it is a system much like the panopticon. When I first got to London I could not believe how many cameras there were, they were literally everywhere. On average anyone spending a day in London is photographed or caught on video over 200 times. I never thought I could get used to this, cameras on every street corner, on every bus, in every elevator, and on almost every building. However, the strange thing was that I did get used to it, after a while you start to notice them less but you never forget that they are there, much like a panoptican effect, even if you aren’t sure if someone is watching you, you assume that they are. A couple weeks into my time in London my roommate and I were out to lunch and someone stole her purse off the back of her chair, we both panicked and weren’t sure what to do, until we realized that there had to have been a camera nearby that recorded the incident. We informed the restaurant and were disappointed to see that it seemed where we were sitting was out of reach of both cameras near by. We also called the police about the incident and we were basically told that there was not a lot that they could do. This was so disheartening, with all of these cameras, how was crime not reduced or easier to prevent? After this I felt that the cameras were only there to make people think they were always being watched. This was until I was in my flat one day, when I decided to open the balcony door, which we weren’t supposed to do but it was very hot in the flat and I was on the 5^th floor and didn’t think anyone would mind or notice. Literally within 10 minutes I got a phone call from our supervisor in our building asking me to please close the door because it was dangerous. I couldn’t believe it, there were even cameras that could see our flat and I’m sure inside as well. This was very creepy and gave me a different view of the London cameras, and I began to feel like I was constantly being watched again. I think that this camera system is a very good example of the idea of the panopticon of our world. Foucault says, “This induces the inmate a state of consciousness and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). Where the inmates in prison behave because they are always being watched, and the citizens of London may adjust their actions according to the cameras, and how our entire society is under the eye of this Hegemonic and Repressive State Apparatus.

Foucault

This is the first time since Zizek that I have really enjoyed and made a connection with a reading. The points that Foucault makes in “The History of Sexuality” are incredibly intriguing; they are on the level with Althuesser’s notion: “there is no practice expect by and in ideology.” Its really mind-blowing stuff. On the most basic level he is saying that sex and sexuality today are a social construct. We all know that sex today does not have nearly the same meaning or social or economic significance that it did in the early 20th century or even 20 years ago. We can see this in the increasing level of sexuality in advertising. Take the pin-up girls from the WWII era and compare them with today’s Victoria secret ads. Look at the Calvin Klein ad we watched in class not too long ago (remember, the mark your spot thing, which btw didn’t even make sense). Foucault is saying that this hyper-sexuality has extended from the discourse of sex (Freud is the first thing that comes to mind) and its normalization. What intrigues me the most is thinking about what life would be like if this discourse had not been established. Granted it was bound to happen, as it is human nature to pursue knowledge and an explanation for what we are and why we do what we do. And we know “there is no practice except by and in ideology,” so this discourse and the ideology that permeates from its acceptance is instilled in us from the time we are very young. The normalization of sex is a construct of man and the general social acceptance of that notion makes it more and more acceptable. We become desensitized to it and it takes more and more every time to truly shock us, if anything is capable of shocking us anymore. And this is our own fault. We created the discourse necessary to perpetuate this cycle.

Bordieu

On Tuesday we talked about Bordieu, and how television rules our society: "Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle class morality. They are always telling us what we 'should think' about what they call social problems"(329). For example, Bordieu's quote about how cultural icons are “treated with a respect quite out of proportion with their intellectual merits.” This reminds me of many movies including Bruce Almighty when he created crazy spectacle for ratings and also to be well-liked and respected as a journalist. When we have these types of stories in real life that are crazy and over the top, it becomes normalized and people go to even further measures in order to top the news stories. Therefore, "making everything ordinary" is what ends up happening when the news stories are always trying to top eachother to get viewers attention. This relates to other theorists in the fact that spectacle is what gets people's attention and when people see the same thing all the time they need to be hit over the head with a bat to get thier attention. This relates back to Zizek because of the fact that our society needs out of this world stimulation in order to be heard, (because we have caused the increase of spectacle over the years.) This is why movies like 2012 are put out there because our culture needs the crazy spectacle because we have become desensitized from all of the shocking things that have happened with the media since the 1950's. For example, when "All in the Family" aired, people didn't expect such controversey on television and therefore they had to warn people not to watch it and put a message out to the public that they shouldn't watch if they get easily offended. I really like taking The History of Radio and Televsion the same semester as this class because the history really helps understand media better and how our culture became the way that it is today.

Andrew. Chomsky etc.

After reading Chomsky on Sunday I found it to be very difficult to understand but when we talked about it in class yesterday. First off many of Chomsky ideas finally clicked and reminded me of previous theorists we have talked about in class. His ideas can tie with Althusser, Baudrillard, etc.
After yesterdays class I learned Chomsky's 5 essential ingredients of the propaganda model. The propaganda model essentially illustrates that the media, which is controlled by few large companies, impact our entire nation in five different ways. The dangerous thing about propaganda through the media is that people choose to accept the world views broadcast and society becomes welcoming to the large amount of advertising. Americans specifically have this sort of opine and recline attitude towards media, where people elect to sit back and just accept what life throws at them. People tend to consume simplistic forms of media, which advertisers are fully aware of. According to Chomsky, advertisers will tend to steer far away from serious complexities and controversy. Advertisers would not want to spend money to have their commercial air during a documentary about the Holocaust or something that is of a heavy subject.
What help me tie Chomsky theory with the past theorists that we learned about was the soul use of the television. Louis Althusser's idea of ideology and how viewers are more inclined to agree to be subjects and accept information given to them rather than asking questions (ISA). Viewers are more inclined to listen to an "expert" reporter or news station. It is there in which these high power companies are able to input certain ideologies. The inforamtion becomes so realistic that the viewers are creating hegemony. This is also known as Horkeimer and Adornos theory.

Foucault, Pre Class 4/15/10

I seemed rather comfortable with this reading. Foucault wrote part of the reading, Discipline and Punishment, like a narrative which made it easier for me to understand. Foucault talks about how “Visibility is a trp.” Whether it be during the time of the plague or the Panopticon being able to be viewed makes on vulnerable and gives power to the viewer. Rulers would have much power over their subjects if the viewer knew he could be viewed at all times but did not know when he was being viewed. When Foucault wrote this in the 1970’s he believed, “In a society in which the principal elements are no longer the community and public life, but, on the one hand, private individuals and, on the other, the state, relations can be regulated only in a form that is the exact reverse of the spectacle.”During the 1970’s this may have been true but in the more recent past the internet has brought the public sphere back into the lives of many members of society. Social networking sites such as Facebook are in a sense a virtual form of the public sphere. People can view each other’s virtual selves in the form of a “profile” and have discussions with each other. One again people are making themselves visible to the public. You have no way of knowing who looks at your profile and when they look at it. In this sense by putting yourself on a social networking site you are making yourself an inmate. Those who can view your profile have a certain power over you. Schools can get students in trouble based on what they post on Facebook and bosses can fire their employees. In the past few days a law was passed saying that your emails are no longer private and can be used against you in the court of law. One of the main forms of communication between individuals today, through which many people share private information, is now open to surveillance. Foucault thought that the decline of the public sphere would cause the decline of power due to surveillance but the internet has made surveillance even easier.

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.”

Jean, Foucault

I find Foucault very interesting. I like how he opens with the quarantine theme described using surveillance. When he goes on to discuss “how this image of the plague is that of disorder” (96) and how it turns to isolation it makes me think of many movies of today’s time such as those of the Resident evil movies. This zombie disease breaks out and all of a sudden cities are shut down people quarantined and taking away from their families. The idea of the disease spreading and getting worse causes people to monitor the sick and hide them away. We all see this on shows like ER when they have small pox outbreaks; they instantly seclude the sick to isolation and surveillance watching there every move so no one else will be affected by the outbreak occurring. We see this idea of surveillance occur all over television and film in many ways not just sickness. This idea of showing power over people by putting them away or watching them without knowing fascinates human beings. More and more shows continue to come out with this over riding theme of being secretive and in control.

Post Class 4/13, meg143

I felt that today’s class was very helpful in making connections between different theorists no matter what time period they were writing in. Herman and Chomsky have interesting theory and I would be very interested in reading their book about the political economy of the media. They discuss about the mass media and how, “individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (257). This theory ties into ideology with Althusser and how individuals are fitting right into the public structure set up for them by the mass media, ruling class etc. This also relates to Adorno and Horkheimer who discuss how the media industry creates a sameness among our society. Our discussion then went on to Bourdieu who also discusses how the media makes everyone “ordinary” and takes away from any uniqueness we used to hold because our universe is based on advertising. Bourdieau also goes on to discuss the people in our society who are considered famous and influential, “the most important of these figures are treated with a respect that is often quite out of proportion with their intellectual merits”(329). We looked at a picture in class of Barbara Walters, a famous, high paid, well known interviewer who is normally seen interviewing actors, singers, etc. who is now also interviewing political figures, even the Dahli Lama. It was a bizarre picture to see, two people who have been very influential but in drastically different ways. We had a debate over why and how we thought Barbara Walters was given the opportunity to interview the Dahli Lama. Some people felt that she asks good questions, and is well known and has a lot of publicity, and others argued that she probably doesn’t write her own questions and she looked out of place interviewing him. Either way both of them are considered influential, one for their intellectual merits and one based solely on publicity.

Post class for 4/13/10

I thought a lot about different tv shows i knew and loved in my highschool days and even now with relation to adorno and bourdieu and our conversation about the topic of sameness and making everything ordinary and scripted. I look at something from the late 60’s like scooby doo...which was a wonderful show by the way, but anyway things on that show were not as visceral or violent as they are today. there was a uniqueness in the different shows of that time. Yet i have been thinking a lot about modern shows and i come to the idea of Entourage, this show is clearly scripted and shown to the viewer to increase the already large aspirational gap. The main character Vince cant even drive a car in the earlier seasons and all he does is go around doing cool stuff and fornicating with everything that moves. Looking at the way that his brother and others (especially businessmen/women like Ari and Barbara). It spawned an entire way of acting even more pretentious in shows to the point where it was actually funny. It was a sort of hyperreal because it was so exaggerated. Yet at the same time it has spawned a good deal of spin-offs on certain characters that are in the show such as the yelling and screaming and profanity of the hypermasculine Ari, or the pretentious boyhood actions of Drama or simply the token stoner Turtle. Well i know it was a bit of a harder stretch to make but at the same time i see a good deal of shows starting to portray women the same way they are in that show as well as the way a “successful” man or woman should act and conduct themselves in society. It is actually really sad to see this, because when one good idea comes along they simply put out a ton of spin offs and bleed the entire idea dry until it is nothing left. Really sad isnt it.

Bourdieu pre-class

I think Bourdieu’s piece “On Television” is extremely reminiscent of an argument we have suggested time and time again in our media critique discourse, that being, the fact that often what is offered up by media is merely a reflection of what the powerful deems “significant” and “worthy of our time and attention” as it is these stories that support the status quo and promote our unconscious acceptance of hegemonically-supported beliefs and ideals. Instead of the media, specifically here, that of journalistic forms, being a channel for a public discourse that puts individual thought and argument into circulation, the media simply circulates what has previously been generally accepted as fact and “suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and, above all, leaves their mental structures intact” (329). Bourdieu illustrates the fact that the media does not exist to broadcast a variety of views that allow the audience to choose from a range of perspectives, on the other hand, it merely functions as a tool to serve the establishment, and give more power to the powerful rather than giving more power to the people.

I think he is extremely insightful on his take of “systems,” as well, and the relation of television to the system for he suggests you cannot take into account an “individual” (journalist’s) opinion, as heard/seen on television, without first understanding this individual’s connections to the larger system, and the fact that what he has to say is not simply his thought but has much to do with who is writing his paycheck. As a result, “you can’t understand anything if you don’t understand the field that produces him and gives him his parcel of power” (334). And, unfortunately, often times this pressure to please the man in power overshadows the individual’s absolute freedom to express his opinion, which merely results mainstream, generalized thought being supported and promulgated in a sort of cyclical direction that does not offer room for progressive thought and thus the ability to create change ceases. In the end, we are being shown what is thought to be what we want to see.

pre class Derrida

First of all, like everyone said, why does he have to write so much to say something he could have said in a much simpler way! He is such a typical French, it makes me annoyed to be French. Why do we over- develop everything and feel forced to analyze the same thing for 40 pages in french culture... I apologize to everyone and I hate it.

But anyways, I couldn't even read it in english because it makes no sense, I had to find the french version of this text to understand what he is talking about. first of all Derrida coined the word différence and différant. the first one meaning not identical, dissimilar. it is the space, the gap between things. the second term means to put of to later, to displace, to push away. but a literal translation is "deferring". so differance is a coinage between difference and deferring. by coining the term he tries to express the notion of temporization and space together. it is the moment after the past and before the future but it is not the present it is a mark in between, a trace, it precedes the being. this differance is the origin of differences in language, it is a web of traces that permits differences. it is the gap in language, it is a gap in the presence, in the being.

Pre-Class Bourdieu, 4-11

After reading Bourdieu I have learned taken a different critical approach on journalists and the news television media. Journalists are the face of major news media organizations. Some of us may agree that we do not believe in Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's philosophies, yet they are the face of Fox News and pull in millions of viewers every night. Journalists have a certain power of persuasion and after we have followed them for long enough, we gain trust in that their news shows and segments will be informative and fact-oriented. As CMC majors, we recognize that journalists must have an attractive appeal to the camera and the media has recognized we enjoy directly staring at attractive people while they tell us news. Honestly, would news be more boring if someone off camera was simply reading news to you? I know I do not nearly enjoy news as much reading it in newsprint or on the radio, than on television.

I had taken a sociology course last semester, in which we read an article about how human beings are programed to naturally trust attractive people more than unattractive people (Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the article, but will try to find it soon). There is no coincidence a nice face sells on television and there is no question that giant media outlets can use attractive people to push persuasion, rather than factual news. Not to point fingers or start political fisticuffs but Fox News explicitly uses attractive journalists for their news segments. Notable primetime Fox News journalists: Shepard Smith and Megan Kelly.

VAGABOND [rambles: existentialism]

VAGABOND [rambles]

So I was watching my friend play Madden on PS3 and I noticed that one of the best traits of the game was how realistic it is. For instance, Sprint and Bing.com are both companies who are advertised in this game - just like the real NFL.
Apparently, when synced online the advertisements/commercials are updated live.
Fascinating relations with product placement and the fact that we are so accustomed to advertisement that in order for something to be "real" it has to undergo mass production.

Just a quick question - this made me think about the following theorists/theories:

• Althusser - RSA/ISA
  
• Jameson - removal of the essence of the real
  
• Benjamin - mass reproduction
• Dorfman - total passivity (playing the game = willing to accept advertisements as because real games have certain qualities/characteristics)
  

Anyone know more that can enlighten me?

pre class for Foucault 4/ 13/10

After reading the Foucault reading I can seriously say…thank you dr. cummings…the last reading was nearly impossible for me because it is very hard for me to understand how someone could actually talk about a topic like that for that long and not thing themselves to be a tad inane, but this was the perfect length and a good topic and not too cryptic all at once. I found the first piece about discipline and punishment better how he said “ (they) were both 2 ways of exercising power over men, controlling their relations, of separating out their dangerous mixtures”. yet looking back at the time of the plague, the medical technology and knowledge of the time, and the extreme volatility of the bubonic plague one can only wonder if the right thing was done. Personally I look to Thomas Malthus and his Essay on Population as wella s Darwin, if you look at the way England and Europe was at that time a certain piece of land can only support a significant number of people and when that number gets to high something such as war, plague, or famine takes care of the population. That is all this was, natural selection at its finest. I think looking at the method that they used to take care of it was a little extreme, but at the end of the day would you rather die a horrible death (believe me the plague really wasn’t a good way to die seriously you bleed out of almost every exit you have on your body). It is only obvious that people will say that you give up your personal freedoms for the idea of protection, this is how horrible dictatorships and communism start, but at the same time during a medical emergency like that isn’t something called martial law instituted anyway. I think it is very interesting to try and make a claim like that during an epidemic that wiped out almost a 1/3 of Europe. I don’t know it thought it was interesting, but if you want a nice connection check out Thomas Malthus and think about the world around you. People are like ticks, we destroy the world and suck the blood out of it, every now and then the world likes to shake us off or scratch at us.

Pre-Class Derrida

First of all, I think it would have been possible – and much less confusing, time consuming, and annoying – for Derrida to write this without coining his own term and going on and on about it. This piece was extremely difficult to get through let alone get my head around. I did not much care for his prose. Regardless, I definitely agree with Devon that he is discussing something very similar to de Saussure’s notion of value; that a word’s value is determined by the existence and use of the other words. I am definitely seeing the connections to de Saussure and even Barthes in his argument. I would also like to point out that Molly made a good point about intertextuality and the formation of differences. You should all check out that post as well as Devon’s.

Pre Class, Bourdieu, 4/7, meg143

The reading “On Television” by Pierre Bourdieu shed a new light on how the media, particularly TV, have such an extreme control over our society and our greater world. The reading starts by discussing the massive changes that came into journalism when TV media became popular. It was the first form of universal news that has had a great impact on our political and cultural standpoints. I definitely agree with this and feel that television changed our world but I also feel that the impact of the Internet has been even greater. It is hard to fathom what will be the next new media tool that will change life, as we know it all over again. As Bourdieu discussed the differences between popular TV news and controversial TV news I was surprised at his connection. He discussed what it takes for a news channel or newspaper to be popular among the masses, “It must attempt to be inoffensive, and it must never bring up problems, or if it does, never bring up problems that pose a problem” (328). I found this very interesting and true, that many of the issues that are brought up over political or cultural values, have a lot of controversy. And the big news networks want to do whatever they can to continue increasing their viewers and ratings. If a controversial topic came on the news and was presented in a way that many people disagreed with than viewers would no longer want to watch that program. This reminded me of the difference between CNN and Fox News, two networks very different from each other, one in support of a more liberal and democratic standpoint and the other much more conservative from a republican standpoint. However, both networks continue to do well because they still have such a wide spectrum of viewers who agree with their bias or opinion. Bourdieu also continued to talk about the power of media in who becomes a “public figure” and what light they are represented in. Journalists and different media outlets are in almost complete control of public expression and can have a very big impact on the person’s reputation according to how they are presented to the public. As we continue learning, our media has many different techniques and tools to keep people watching their programs, and how you are represented in the media is how you are represented to the world.

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?

Pre class for 4/8/10

Well after reading the very interesting Difference reading some interesting things definitely come up for discussion. One of the issues that came up with me was the fact that Derrida felt that the western tradition has a very partial and common sense view of the nature of writing and speech and writing….well seriously let me pose this question, given the nature of most of the population, say 65% of today’s americans and write something that is completely cryptic and “beautiful” and see if they understand any of it. Yes I agree there is an underlying problem in the way that we are teaching and valuing language and speech in america, but at the same time there is a time and a place for the kind of existential mumbo jumbo that a good deal of these theorists in this paper are going on about. A language exists so that one person can communicate with another, seemingly we have these for different cultures and there are gaps that can be bridged for trade and everything in between, but at the end of the day all speech is is vibrations in the air. I know this makes me sound boorish or some “stupid Americano” but at the same time I am just interpreted at why some of these people want to cast the first stone on the West. If you go to any bar in Manchester or Liverpool good luck understanding their good ol cockney accents and slang, but you never hear a word about that do you? So funny to me, all these people would have to do would be to sit down and watch a guy Ritchie film and they would want to go and commit suicide….they write in ways that make it so hard to understand you almost don’t want to read it, so if the way they write is the measure of a writer isn’t it counterproductive if no one wants to read what you have written? We have come to this bridge a couple of times but it seems to lead to the same place every time and I would simply like a little bit of closure on the issue. Well I was just thinking….Oh yeah you guys should definitely go see REPO MEN…very depressing movie but offers a very interesting model of what could happen in the future, I will have to mention it to DC and see if there are any more correlations.

Pre-class Derrida

Derrida's piece was a little hard to understand, but it had to do with difference. He discusses how there is difference in understandings about words, symbols, and writings. This article mentions De Saussure a fair amount of times. Derrida relates to De Saussure because they both discuss the understandings of words. Another term that came to my mind while reading this was intertextuality. Barthes talked about intertextuality earlier in the semester. He talks about how people understand pieces due to past experiences they have had. Therefore every person comprehends things differently. Intertextuality is one of the main reasons there is so much difference in understanding words, symbols, and writings. If every person had the same background experiences then there would not be much difference in symbols, words, or writings.

Pre Class Derrida

Derrida’s piece was perhaps one of the hardest I have grappled with this semester, yet I feel as though his overall message was quite similar to De Saussure’s take on words, their context, and an understanding of language. It seems as if Derrida is suggesting an idea that parallels that of De Saussure, in which words can only be understand by what they are not, and it is this difference that stand as the word’s defining measure. In light of this, Derrida must be suggesting that a word can therefore never be fully understood in and of itself but should be considered in the context of a sign as the relationship that exists between the signifier and the signified. I think Derrida’s introduction of “differAnce” is employed as an example of the multi-dimensional dynamic of language in that it must be deconstructed and picked apart if ever to be fully understood. However, it seems as if every deconstruction of a word, at least from Derrida’s perspective, results in only more difference and more differentiation. The complexity of his analysis is a bit over my heard currently, so I look forward to other people’s take on Derrida’s theory.

Pre class Bourdieu

I really like this guy. He manages to put into words many of the thoughts I had on TV but that I had trouble expressing. First of all he speaks of the evolution of French television. In the 1950s, the programs offered were cultural, historical adaptation of classics. But after the 1990s the topics had all shifted to talk shows, game shows that people are dying to be a part of in the audience or on the set. A kind of voyeurism and exhibitionism to quote Bourdieu, which was such a foreshadowing of our obsession with reality TV shows nowadays. TV became this dump of fake reality because they “must reach” the largest audience possible. And it has. It is the most powerful means of news diffusion. And journalists owe their importance to the monopoly of this media. Because of this they can impose on society the way they view the world, their opinions and solutions. They have become a sort of middle class spiritual guide. We believe the news because we feel like we have to. It’s the news. It is a form of consensus and audience ratings that pushes us to agree. Everyone is watching it then it must be right. The problem is TV and the news are not oriented towards anything complex or of a symbolic revolution like art or literature as Bourdieu puts it but only confirms what we already know and leaves our mental structure intact. We are told how to think, this system promotes social conformity. For example everything on the news now seems to be about human interest: movie stars, royal families, visiting politicians… it reduces important subjects to tabloids, it creates a political vacuum, depoliticizing everything to reduce it to scandals and anecdotes. We still manage to get a “lesson” drawn out of the event, some sort of moral or ethical lecture. Bourdieu states all these issues and claims that he know that his solutions are of utopian range but he asks us to see television with a critical thinking and realistic understanding of the situation. Other wise it will remain a vicious circle.

Pre Class 4/8 Derrida

From my understanding of the essay “Differance,” the word differance means either “to defer” or “to differ.” Derrida argues that words and signs can never depict exactly what they mean. Although there is a general understanding of what words mean that is commonly excepted in culture words themselves only have the meaning that we give them. This obviously seems very similar to Saussure’s theory present in his “Course in General Linguistics.” It is my understanding that the theorists differ in that Saussure argues that words and sign differ from culture to culture depending on the language used. Derrida takes this one step further and says that this is not the only way that words and signs are removed from their meanings but their meanings can also change based on whether they are used in text or speech. That is why he uses the word differance to illustrate that it has a different meaning than difference although they are pronounced the same way. Derrida also argues that, “The trace is not a presence but is rather the simulacra of a presence that dislocates, displaces and refers beyond itself.” I took this as meaning that as symbols, words, similes, metaphors, etc. are all used in order to try and convey a meaning the meaning eventually becomes distant from its original form. This I thought could be related somewhat to Benjamin as well as Baulliard. They both make arguments about how reproduction changes the original. By trying to simulate the word you use to portray a certain meaning although the words (or symbols or signs) may be able to be used interchangeable Derrida still believes that some part of the meaning is lost in doing so. Similarly Benjamin sees part of the essence of a painting as getting lost in its reproduction and Baulliard sees a changing of meaning in simulacra.

RESPONSE to King Kriggle. Post-Class (4-5-10) Jackson

Yo King,

I'd like to rant on something you were surprised about - the scope and power of advertising. I am in a class called "History of TV & Radio" (highly recommended) and my professor said, verbatim, "Television runs exclusively on rating." We have all heard of ratings - CBS has been boasting for years that they have the #1 rated primetime slot of major networks. When a network runs highly rated shows, the asking price for ad-space during those shows increases. In other words, a popular show will attract many viewers - more viewers, more competition for ad-space. According to my professor, Dr. Rodgers, the process by which a network television show is picked up starts and ends with the advertisement. When a show goes under review, there will be a screening with several representatives of major corporations; in that screening, all it takes is one representative to say, "Hey, I think this show will fit well with my company's selling points." At that point, the show will receive funding from that one (or several other) corporations to shoot a contract-oriented number of episodes. If the ratings on that show rise, then the bidding for advertising space during that show will exponentially increase. If the show tanks and no one watches it, the corporation sponsoring the show can back out of their funding and the show can get dropped right there.

Contemporary example: If you have been following the primetime Sunday night series "LIFE" on Discovery channel, you should have noticed that Target is its primary sponsor. As far as I have heard, LIFE has received great ratings; if it were to run for a second season, Target probably would get outbid by Coca-Cola, General Electric, GM or some other major corporation as the primary sponsor.

So, that's my long-winded way of theorizing that advertising fuels our viewing pleasure. This should not be a new concept for us to ponder, as most of us have lived in a capitalist society all our lives. But I just wanted to go into a little more depth.

VAGABOND post-class 4/1 [response to Clem]

As Jameson says it creates a privation of history by making a new representation of something that exists. Also it changes its ideology.

Clem,

I agree with the connection you've made. It's interesting how what is unnoticed, unsaid - the notion of the gap and the rupture, if you will put it - is what our ideology thrives on. I feel as the the dominant hegemony lies within the mystery of it all because when it is pointed out and made aware, no one realizes that the way we perceive and believe is all manipulated a certain way.

I thought about the gender ideology, how men perceive alpha males - better males - as controlling, aggressive, and capable of taking care of those around them. I also thought about how women are "followers" - as my boyfriend who constantly jokes that men are better at navigating/has a better sense of direction because they are leaders. Maybe throughout time, we have been conditionalized to believe that maybe men are indeed from Mars and women are from Venus. Does this explanation really explain our differences, or is it just me who finds it as an excuse that further separates us?

What I'm trying to get at is, who and since when did this kind of stature come to being? Who is responsible for this kind of ideals?

Herman and Chomsky Post Class

One quote that immediately stood out to me in our discussion of Herman and Chomsky was that in which: “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness” (57). I feel as if this idea is one that is discussed about frequently throughout our CMC major, an idea which poses amusement as a parallel to a sense of mindlessness where he who is being amused is able to lose himself within such mediated forms as film and forget about the important things, things such as the pain and suffering, which are simply pushed aside in replace for a simple laugh or two. This immediately reminds me of a reading we discussed in CMC200 which is a content analysis and audience reception analysis of the film “Rush Hour 2”. This piece is an actual literal articulation of the problem with the mindlessness of contemporary society’s most infamous form of amusement (film) by describing how this comedy desensitizes its audience to the shock of its blatant racial stereotypes. The film is littered with race-based ignorant assumptions and powerful racist insinuations, however, because it is expressed in a joking manner, the audience merely accepts the offensive language instead of what it should/needs to be doing, that being, taking on a critical approach and questioning the implications of such a blatantly bigoted discourse. As Herman and Chomsky suggest, the audience becomes so entrenched in the laughter brought on by the film, that the obvious underlying message is completely overlooked. I think the problem with this is the fact that although, yes, it is just a movie, we are still being overtly exposed to problematic themes that may very well be entering our unconsciousness and embedding themselves within our own base of knowledge without us even being aware. With the absence of a critical position, the media is able to do exactly what these two authors fear; their propagandistic message can manipulate our individual thought and is able to inconspicuously replace its thought with that of our own.

Post Class, 4/4 Ann

After class on Tuesday I thought more deeply into our conversation about Tiger Woods in relation to Adorno and Hork’s “The Cultural Industry.” In class we talked about the hype that was recently involving the Tiger Woods scandal. This relates to Adorno and Hork’s theory that, “no one has to answer officially for what he or she thinks.” After Tiger Woods got into a car accident near his home it was a while before he made any statement about what had happened. He did not want to make a statement because he did not want people to find out what had happened between him and his wife. He had no obligation to make a statement but the media pressured him into making a statement. By not saying anything the media also began to make assumptions about why Tiger Woods wasn’t making any statement about the accident. We also talked about this scandal compared to the OJ Simpson scandal in the early nineties. I think that in some ways people were more surprised by the Tiger Woods scandal than OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson was a football player and I think that more negative stigmas and stereotypes are associated with football players than golfers. Because of the history and prestige associated with golf I think people were more surprised with Tiger Woods. Golfers are usually rich, white men. It takes a lot of money in order to get involved in golf due to the price of equipment and course fees but football on the other hand is more accessible for children to begin playing at a young age. I think that the media hyped up the Tiger Woods scandal and tried to add to the shock value which was possible due to the reputation of the sport of golf.

Post class Jameson. The scream and Scream

After looking at the painting the scream in class today I could not help myself from relating it to the masked killer of the movie Scream 1,2 and 3. First of all the name is clearly related and the mask looks a lot like the face of the figure in the painting with some extra distortion. When Munch painted this, he was expressing the feelings of isolation and alienation that one can feel at times or all the time. In its historical context, this painting makes sense and is important. In Scream the movie, the killer is/are characters that feel isolated and alienated which is why they act like they do (which is still ridiculous but I don't make mainstream horror film...). But what I am trying to get to here is the fact that when we watch this film, when I watched it before I honestly never made the connection and that is the problem. As Jameson says it creates a privation of history by making a new representation of something that exists. Also it changes its ideology. In his painting, Munch is trying to express real feelings but by using this in a film it has made it a commodity. We now see kids wearing the scream mask on Halloween for example. By reproducing these objects and selling them it takes away from the original painting its essence and also makes it into something stupid and ridiculous. We no longer see its depth and its ideological meaning.