Hebdidge

“Ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense”. If you think about this quote by Hebdige, it truly makes a lot of sense. Ideology is flawed in the sense that it is not applicable to everyone in every situation, and is constructed in certain ways. Common sense in the same way is flawed, because it is not necessarily true, but is widespread and assumed to be common understanding. Lets take the ideology of opportunity for example, in reference to the American dream. This is a false ideology, but it is common sense around the globe that the United States is the land of opportunity. How is such a message so misconstrued and believed falsely by so many people? In reality it is a myth, the ideology of equal opportunity in the United States is 110% myth. The ideals of equality and acceptance play the exact same way in this country, they are seen as common sense by much of the world, however those ideologies are false. Another aspect of this concept is the Things that go ‘unsaid’. Common sense often goes unsaid because it is in fact not real, but to question it would be to question widespread assumption, and furthermore order. For instance, in Winter Park people say don’t travel between New York Ave/Morse/17-92 at night. Why? Cause it labels “the other side of the tracks”? Because the people who live there aren’t wealthy, and the majority are African American so it must be dangerous? This is something that I’ve seen go unsaid, and is looked at as common sense, but is as far as I know a complete myth. This comes back to a fundamental issue in our society, and that is that people believe everything they hear to be truth. Ignorance sucks.

Baudrillard

One of the most interesting quotes from Jean Baudrillard is the following: “the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror” (229). Media manipulates images; they can make a bake sale look like exploitation and a massacre look like a fight for freedom. The power that the media has in our society today is incredible, and is at a point where it can change anything. Baudrillard talks about how terrorism would be nothing without the media. Its all and illusion that the media creates, when in fact they are just as much a part of the terror as the actual terrorists because they are helping them. For example, and I know this is extreme, in The Dark Night, the news network shows the public the tapes from the Joker. What does this do? It fuels the fire and makes people more scared then they should be. Why do we deem it necessary to take something terrible and give it more publicity than the super bowl? Can’t we see how much that hurts us? The prime example here would have to be the events of 9/11. It was nothing short of a spectacle, like an action movie….and guess what, it did exactly what the terrorists wanted it to do; it inspired fear and gave them credibility.

Habermas

Habermas is very interesting because he talks about how we define our culture today. He believes that modernity isn’t complete yet and that it still survives very strongly in post modernity. “The project of modernity has not yet been fulfilled”, he states, in describing how modernity has not yet finished. He believes that when you position modernity and traditionalism against each other that they yield anti-modernity, which looses both the historical notion of traditionalism and the progression of modernity.
One of the most interesting point in Habermas’s theory is when he talks about how consumerism has taken the place of democracy, and therefore choice. This is interesting because most would assume that consumerism yield a lot of choice, however he argues that the idea of choice that consumerism offers, isn’t really choice at all, but more a cloud of smoke. The choice between different types of toothpaste isn’t a real choice, because you’ve already gotten to the point of choosing between products. He says that the real choice comes in the form of whether or not one participates in consumerism, and that that choice is a product from how democracy has changed.

Macherey

“It is this rupture which must be studied” (23). Here Macherey is talking about the gap in the text. The rupture is the idea of a gap in the meaning of the text and the understanding. As humans our minds fill in gaps independently, whether or not they are in accordance with the original point of the author. This leads into Macherey’s point of how they reader and the writer are equally distant in their understanding of the text. Macherey says that the most important thing in the text, is what’s not being said. Understanding what is not being said is crucial to understanding the greater concept. This really makes me think about my interpretations of text, and the visuals I see in my daily life. It also shines a light on the erasure of events in our history. For instance, we all look at the holocaust and study it throughout high school, however what is not said here is what is actually most interesting. What is left out is the fact that the US had containment camps for the Japanese. While they were not slaved to death as the Nazi’s did to the Jews, it is a relatable concept. The difference in understanding also comes into play here in a very large way. What I understand the gap as may be completely different than my peer, therefore, can we every obtain a true, legitimate and valid understanding of what any text is trying to say? This is Macherey’s theory of the ordinary critic, or someone removed from the idea behind the text who expresses his or her knowledge of what the text is trying to say. We are in a sense, all ordinary critics.

Jameson and the "Impulse of Capitalism'

Hobby

Tuesday, December 2nd class

Our discussion from Tuesday sparked my interest and really had me thinking for the rest of the week and weekend. Jameson’s interest in the "impulse in capitalism" is significant to today's society and media. Our society and media really emphasize this impulse in order to continue the conventional wisdom of the American Dream that is orchestrated through all media outlets in American society. People consume, consume, and continue to consume in order to continue this conventional wisdom and to keep up in this materialism crazed society. In particular, we discussed in class advertising and the role it has on consumers. The example posed in class was Victoria's secret fashion show. This sexually charged program utilizes sexuality as a business means to capture attention and reel in money. Some people watch the show and therefore have an impulse to buy Victoria Secret lingerie. Seeing the lingerie as well as the reactions on the men’s faces I’m sure is recognized by many women and therefore they will have the urge to go out and purchase this lingerie to produce the same effect demonstrated in the fashion show. Victoria’s secret has become such a huge conglomeration thanks to their extremely eye catching, sexually provocative advertising. It makes the women look dominant and targets female audiences as well as male audiences. Women want to buy this type of lingerie in order to project these images that are advertised. This impulse in capitalism is prevalent everywhere since we lived in such a image and status conscious society. Also, our discussion of nostalgia really captured my attention in terms of movies and TV shows. Many movies depict the Americans past like Pearl Harbor, or Titanic. By making these movies really can spark nostalgic moments and memories in people’s lives. Therefore, this idea of nostalgia really has been prevalent in our media and still plays a role in major communication outlets. Bringing people back to the past really emotional and somewhat satisfying. Our media understands this and therefore uses this idea of nostalgia for movies and TV shows.

Jameson and Nostalgia

One of the concepts we talked about with Jameson was the notion of nostalgia, and how it is created as a longing for the past and a response for missing something that is happening in the present. Our media and popular culture today is filled with this concept. Movies and tv shows use this and they are considered unique. We have tv shows like "That 70s Show" or movies like "Marie Antoinette" that glamorize ages and popular cultures of the past. We watch shows from the past like "Leave it To Beaver" to connect us to different times. Why do we do this? It's different, and its not our normal lives and culture that we see each day. Ask most people and they will recall a past decade that they relate to and they wish they were a part of. They like aspects of it that are not things done today and seem attractive to them. Anything from dress, situations, and people are things that people can relate to and seem better than their own lives. It is for this reason that the media continues to use Jameson's idea of nostalgia in an effort to gain more followers.

The Plague is 9/11

As I was reading Foucault's, Discipline and Punish for my final paper, I made a connection that I wanted to share.

In the beginning of his article, he describes the plague that hit a nineteenth century town. All the people were to stay inside their homes, fearing death if they disobeyed. Everything that happened during this plague hold up was recorded by officials who would come by the houses daily to see if anyone had died, was deathly ill, or was still healthy. This event gave the officials the right to take over the power of the people. Foucault says that the plague is a type of dream for those who are in power because it gives them free reign to govern over the people how ever they please.

I related this to a modern day event, 9/11. I feel as thought the terrorists represent the plague. They was led into our country unknowingly. After that day occurred, we were scared, didn't want to travel or leave home. The Bush administration told us that we were at a code red and that everyone should look out for people who looked like "the terrorists". The people of America did not think twice when Bush told us that we were going to war to fight the terrorists. He had total control. He dreamed of this situation. Any thought?

"Wow, weather is so exciting!"...

In class today we talked about Bourdieu's article, "On Television". I liked the point that was brought up about making everything exciting on television. The example of the Weather Channel was given and I started to think about it. I think it is pretty funny how a spectacle is made out of the weather. I was doing an internship at Wesh 2 News last semester. One night, before the 11 o'clock news, a siren went off and the anchors took off, sprinting towards the studio. I sat there, confused at what had just happened and I was told that there was a tornado warning in the area. I understood completely why they would want to get on the air to warn people, but they stayed on the air for a good hour and a half, for practically nothing. Not to mention I was the one who had to take the angry phone calls from the viewers who were missing the season debut of the Office.

Anyway, as I was watching the anchors, they kept being extremely concerned and saying the same information over and over. I asked why they were staying on the air for so long and someone told me that it was policy. I personally think that the news company thought they would get more ratings by making a small weather warning look like a catastrophe. Because this event only happens a couple times a year, they knew that they would get some excitement into the program by following the tornado minute by minute. I guess this way is more exciting, but the anchors should try to change it up, not always follow the old journalistic ways that have worked throughout the past.

Scripting Reality

Today in class I realized why the film was called "The Truman Show". Truman is True Man, as Truman is the only real person on the set of the television show. Everything else about his reality was completely scripted, right down to the times when his neighbors would walk past his house. This idea of scripting reality carries over into reality television, which is widely recognized as scripted. The Hills is famous as a reality television show that has very little basis in reality. On reality contests such as American Idol and Last Comic Standing, the producers have control over who stays and who goes home.

In class we also discussed how the news is scripted, and how there are only a few story types we are presented with. We discussed how the weather became scripted by the Weather Channel. I started to make connections to my prior class, social psychology, where we thought about how real life is often scripted. When we think of a first date, we think of the awkward picking up of the girl at her parent's house, the romantic comedy movie, the dinner at Olive Garden, and the terrifying kiss good night. Real life, through constant media reinforcement, becomes scripted. When consumerism is written into the script, that's where the bureaucracy wins.

Boudieu - On Television

When talking about television in comparison to the contemporary art movement that Manet led in the nineteenth century, Bourdiue says, "If a vehicle as powerful as television were oriented even slightly toward this kind of symbolic revolution, I can assure you that everyone would be rushing to put a stop to it." (329)

Television is totally structured in ways which it always has been. It is mainly for our viewing pleasure, yet sometimes has programs which inspire us to do ore with our lives. Journalists have the control to make us think in certain ways. If you are watching the nightly news and Katie Couric tells you that we should all put our money into Mac Computers because PC's are going down the toilet, I'll bet you at least half of her audience will do so.

Audience rating are a big part of television programming. If a TV show has a horrible rating, it will be off the air within 2 weeks. How do the people behind the ideas of these shows know what is going to make it and what idea is not? Well, when one has a news program, the most important thing is to have people know about it. It is important to use all different types of media (newspapers, internet, etc) to publicize the new show. This article reveals the truths about how television is extremely political.

Butler - Gender Trouble

"Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest, a cause for anxiety."

In Judith Butler's article, she grapples with the idea that women have been wrongly looked at for years. When we are born, we are told by are parents and the media how we should act, either as little girls or little boys. If you're a boy, you are told that you should go play with trucks and tools. If you are a girl, you should like pink, play with princess dolls and have an unhealthy infatuation with Barbie. But why are we placed into these two categories, and what if the way you are does not fit under the name category which you have been given.

Butler believes that women have been oppressed due to a universal patriarchy run by men. To an extent, I do believe her. When I look at McDonalds kids meals, the toys are different for girls and boys. For a boy, the ad is usually in blue, green, or red and shows a "tough guy" modeling with the specific toy. Usually it is a transformer doll or something. For the girls, it's usually Barbie or something like that. One time I saw that instead of toys they were giving out games. The girls game was a "Bratz" game. On each game space the girls would be told, "Looks like you have to come up with a new hair style!", or "Meet Brandie at the mall at 6:00!". When I looked at the boys game it was a scientific search! This is a prime example of what Butler addresses throughout her article.

Class Response on Jameson

I think one of the things we discussed in class that Jameson touches on is the idea of intertextuality. We discussed how we reference parody’s in society, not necessarily in a mocking sense, but in a way that honors or celebrates something. We used the example in class of the Venus de Milo sculpture and how the Victoria Secret Fashion Show uses the same idea as a way to celebrate the brilliance behind it. I thought the class on Tuesday was a direct example of how our culture uses ideas from the past and reconfigures them to make original works or art. I believe this is where many theorists struggle with post modern culture because we live in a society that is continually reproducing original ideas. If this is the case, then what will make our post modern culture unique?

Judith Butler from 'Gender Trouble'

"Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest, a cause for anxiety."

We are separated often by race,class, ethnicity, and gender. The political assumption is that there must be a universal basis for Feminism according to Butler. Feminism is associated with the notion of oppression and even masculine domination. Butler explains how the claims of a patriarchal society are no longer as credible as they once were, and how feminism is misunderstood.

In my opinion the term women, is troublesome. It is troublesome in the sense that women are still separate from men in terms of what they have the ability to accomplish. I am not a feminist, I feel if I were I would understand more of what Butler is trying to accomplish with her piece.

"The identity of the feminist subject ought not to be the foundation of feminist politics, if the formation of the subject takes place within a field of power regularly buried through the assertion of the foundation."

In my opinion she is trying to say that the feminist's identity ashould not control their identity as representing themselves.

SW...Mostly Parody

I don’t know why but Brian’s comment made me thing immediately of Derrida.
“During the class discussion on Jameson, we discussed schizophrenia as “the breakdown of the signifying chain.” By this, I think he meant that “schizophrenia” arises when there is a break down between Signifiers and the Signified.”
For some reason this made me think of binary oppositions and Derrida’s idea of deconstruction. How we can’t get around the absence and the presence. By just switching it to absence/presence doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t get around the trace that it already is. It is not meant to destroy the binary opposition, to make them equal, simply to understand what it is a trace of. To become aware of these constructed ideals.
Isn’t parody intertext in many ways? I mean if parody means to mock something, one must have an idea of the piece being mocked in order to fully understand it correct? Again I will bring up Lisa’s ever so present example of family guy. This show mocks many things—possibly my favorite, is Starwars—and in these parodies there is obviously intertext at work. This sense of a trace as well. What might happen is one day, someone will parody Family Guy, and eventually the idea that Starwars was ever an “original” could be lost in trace. Kinda like how through language we lose meaning (anyone remember the “flesh eating dwelling that reproduces?).
Are all parodies intertexulized? Is all funny intertext parody?

--Scarlett Wishes

Jameson

During the class discussion on Jameson, we discussed schizophrenia as “the breakdown of the signifying chain.” By this, I think he meant that “schizophrenia” arises when there is a break down between Signifiers and the Signified. He says that the Signified is a creation of cultural inter-textuality between multiple Signifiers. When, for one reason or another, there is a break down, and the Signifiers do not add up to any specific Signified, schizophrenia occurs. He describes schizophrenia as a “heap of fragments,” or a bunch of stuff that doesn’t quite fit together. This notion works well with the notion of pastiche. Pastiche is imitation of an original without any particular motive. It is like parody, but without the motives of illuminating the original. The concept of pastiche reminds me of schizophrenia because pastiche is bankrupt. It is an imitation without a cause. Pastiche is a “heap of fragments” (of signifiers) that imitate those of the original, but they do not come together to signify anything. Pastiche uses signifiers of the original because they are familiar, and without a purpose. These two concepts definitely capture the notion that Post-Modern culture is moving from “depth” towards “surface.” By this I mean that without the connectivity between Signifiers and the Signified, we are losing a deeper level of understanding and we are moving toward sameness.

Ignoring the problem

I think one of the most interesting quotes from Jameson is where he says “the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror” (485). What I found so interesting about this is not its degree of negativity, but rather its reflection of reality. This is one of the major elements that plays into consumerism that most people don’t ever look at or think about. Think about the way that our goods are produced, and the way that they get into our hands. I’m not talking about the salespeople who you buy from, or even the truck drivers who transported the goods to the store, I’m talking about the people involved from the creation of the good, the originators. And I’m also not just talking about material goods, but ideological institutions as well. To feed the demand of a consumerist culture, the pressure on the supply is tremendous. Tie this in with the necessity to turn a profit, and one will find that democracy frequently yields neglect somewhere along its lifeline. A very basic example of this would be a sweatshop. Nike is the cliché example to use here so lets go with it; when one buys a Nike shoe do they look at it and wonder how the sole got stitched into the base? Or do they admire the fabric and colors as the new owner is strapping them on. Here comes the second reason for the affluence of what Jameson is talking about; ignorance. In a society so infused with the ideals of greed and selfishness, we are not taught to look deeper than the surface, or think about the negative result to us receiving something positive. We accept and move on, having paid $150 for a pair of Nikes that were made by a 14 year old getting paid below a percent of that per week. The demands of the well-off in the world are fed by the blood, sweat and tears of the exploited lower class…and this is not a recent development.

Butler "Gender Trouble"

Playing gender is concept we have discussed heavily in communications courses.  It is thought that we are not necessarily born with gender, but we learn gender.  Society holds certain expectations for how females are to act and look, as opposed to how a male is to act and appear, thus we learn to act our gender through hopes of upholding of societal gender norms.

Feminist theory would like to challenge this to some extent.  If society's beliefs help mold our "feminine" or "masculine" growth, we must make sure society holds acceptable and fair ideals of the female and male genders so that we can be influenced in a proper form.  Society has placed certain characteristics on the female gender that some deem unfair, thus projecting females to act out that form, and others to expect the same from them.  This influences occupation, salary, treatment, and all aspects of gendered life.  As we discuss in communications, feminists are not seeking female domination, but rather fair treatment for the sex.  Similarly, Butler states "although the claim of universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind of credibility it once did, the notion of a generally shared conception of  'women,' the corollary to that framework, has been much more difficult to displace" (193).  Women have had difficulty displacing their gender expectations in society.  Even though they have gained ground, and male dominance is not as present or strong as it used to be, women are still struggling to change societal norms.

Parody-Post Class

The images we viewed in class on tuesday were quite thought provoking.  We viewed some great works of art, such as the sculpture of the female form, as well as the painting of a worker's worn boots.  As Sydney suggested, they provoked a sense of wanting to know more.  We can admire the female, as well as ponder who's shoes those were.  Most, upon seeing the image, would want to know the hard working man and his story, behind the panting of the boots.

However, as we tend to recreate past, we have essentially created parodies to these finer ideas and pieces.  We see the beauty in the sculpture of the female form, and want to recreate it in a "modern sense,' or in a sense that perhaps we can relate to better.  Similar recreations were found in the Victoria Secret Angels and Britney Spears advertisement.  As both of these ads were difficult to place the product attempting to sell (VS doesn't sell most of those garments in the show, and Britney's ad was simply vague), they were meant to provoke a feeling the "original" or more historical pieces were able to draw from viewers.  I would argue that the feeling is not the same however.  Viewers might be attracted to the sex appeal of these "parodies," but very few will be able to see the artwork behind them.  Very few want to look further into the stories behind them.  They seem far more material.   Dare I say, they lost their aura.

The same applies to the  painting of the worker's old boots, and its comparative parody piece, Andy Warhols pop art painting of a few womens shoes.  We do not get the same feeling as the previous.  We are not provoked to deeper thought.  We essentially take it for what it is.

This is not to say that these news pieces are not to be enjoyed, as Andy Warhol is one of the most famous artists, as well as Victorias Secret is a highly successful brand, but they simply cannot expect to provoke the depth of thought as they seem to be targeting.

Parody "On Television"?

While reading “On Television” by Pierre Bourdieu, I wondered, what exactly would he consider “good” or even “decent” television to be? Bourdieu alludes to the possibility of a more critical thought employed in programming. He states that the television industry (especially the TV news programs) is a slave to viewer ratings and approval. Thus, the only topics to make it to the small screen are already understood by the masses or can be easily comprehended. The topics are light in the intellectual sense and are not trying to produce. I immediately thought of the floods of entertainment news programming, at topic that Bourdieu dabbles little in, surprisingly enough. Supposed “important” informative programs, like CNN and even now BBC are fraught with what Bourdieu deems as frivolous stories, like Presidents unproductive meetings, and now even Hollywood star stories once reserved only for the infamous pages of cheap grocery store tabloids see the prime time.

Bourdieu suggests the mindless programming be replaced with captivating, questioning, offending works. Are there such works on television today? To coincide with the week’s other reading by Jameson, I think that thoughtful programming does exist, however, it is in a sort of parody form of the other shows. For example, Comedy Central distributes a number of politically questioning programming, like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Chocolate News, and even South Park. These shows make political statements and present unnerving scenarios. They often offend greatly, but some how receive audience approval as well. Through comedy, and the “laughter effect,” people can be stimulated by opinionated programming. If its all fun and games, how can it seriously offend? Perhaps the easily offended people do not watch these shows, or misunderstand the content’s paradoxical sense (as often is the case with the extreme right wing and The Colbert Report). Yet, perhaps even, it is because of their large differences with the “ordinary” shows, they have become a cultural phenomenon. Now the question becomes will this type of parody programming become the norm, and if so, will it then become the ordinary for Bourdieu as well?

Jameson- Post Class

On Tuesday we discussed Jameson. There were many parts of this discussion that I found to be very interesting. The Victoria Secret Fashion Show has been made to sell the brand. None of the outfits that the "angels" wear are actually for sale. These women are on display to the world so that Victoria Secret can get major publicity and keep selling products, which in turn promotes the idea of capitalism. Jameson would say that the actual look of the angels (skimpy lingerie with wings) is a pastiche of the way that romans used to celebrate women's bodies through the work of art. When we looked at the picture of the sculpture of the woman's body from an earlier period, it was obvious the artist was trying to represent how beautiful women's bodies are. The Victoria Secret Fashion show stole the idea of making a woman look like an "angel" and used this image to sell products. This idea of borrowing something from the past to sell products does not always work though. As we saw in class, Britney Spears tried to do this, but she ultimately looked like she was just playing around in her underwear. I guess we could look at this example and compare it to a parody (something that tried to mock the original but ultimately is funny). Everything we do is intertextual in some sense. It is crazy to think about all of the things we take from the past.

Jameson Post Class

Today in class we covered several terms that we read about in “Post-Modernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”, by Frederic Jameson. Out of all of the terms that we talked about there was one in particular that interested me than the others; this term was nostalgia. According to Jameson, nostalgia is the representation of a historical past.
There are many films and some television shows that have been made in the past and/or present that represent a certain time period. These are meant to give the viewer a certain idea of what that time period was like to live in. Immediately I thought of the television show “That 70’s Show.” As stated in the title, this comedy portrayed the ways that those who were growing up in that time acted like and the things that they did.
We talked about this show in class one day as an example of representation of the old in the current day, and how its representation was a way for those of us who didn’t live in that time period to experience what it was like (according to the creators). When watching this show there are certainly situations between the group of friends and between the families that I can relate to. This is what makes the show so funny. A comedian Dane Cook said in one of his older skits that the things he says are funny because they are true. I completely agree with this. A lot of the times that I am laughing at this show it is because I can relate to what’s going on. This show holds a great nostalgia because its permission to relate to and laugh at its situations makes you feel like you could have been a part of this time period.

Post-class Dec. 2

One of the most interesting topics discussed in class today was how Jameson defined the difference between a pastiche and a parody. It was brought up that a parody “mocks an original” and is associated with a sense of humor. Jameson further expands the idea of a “parody” to include a mockery with substance, something that is created to honor or show respect to the original piece of work, something not necessarily with a negative connotation in the least. However, when Jameson describes a pastiche, he uses strongly negative words, including associating a pastiche with an “empty” or “bankrupt” recreation. A pastiche lacks important political and historical meaning.

In class, the Victoria’s Secret fashion show was brought up as an example of a pastiche of the human body. Unlike the vestiges from Ancient Greece celebrating the beauty of humanity, the Victoria’s Secret extravaganza exploits the body in order to make a profit and sell lingerie. Although I understand how Jameson can find recreations like this “empty” in the sense that they do not place a value upon thought, creation, and representation like many classic remnants of artworks do, I think these representations are valuable in a different mindset as well. They denounce what Jameson describes as the current dominate form of culture- that which is postmodern. Culture and art in Jameson’s postmodern sense idealizes the virtues of capitalism. The works are made for the purpose of profit, no longer expression. This is not to say this form of art and culture is less worthy of production than the intellectual works, but it does show the shift of values of the culture of our time. Although the works are pastiche and lack, as Jameson suggests, historical and political impact in the intellectual sense, they are meaningful in the capitalist society and thus are a huge part of our current culture.

"It's Just Made for Television"

"Its just made for television" caught my attention. I interpreted Bourdieu’s statement as means to validate the variety of topics that are seen on TV. Recently, TV has become more sexualized and orientated towards drugs and alcohols. These themes are frequently found in almost every television show aired. I interpreted Bourdieu's quote as the justification for the inappropriate content found on TV. I think this statement can be used to justify the exorbitant amounts of sex and drug use that is often incorporated in any successful show aired. Sex and drugs are two themes which do capture viewer’s attentions and make these shows successful. These topics are appealing to many and make the television shows interesting. It's nearly impossible to watch a TV show that doesn't have sex and drug use or a reference to either of the two. TV impacts so many people and has the power to reach so many audiences so people on all levels are being influenced by the content found in television shows. In addition, I think the quote “ The evening news on French TV beings together more people than all the French newspapers together, morning and evening editions included. . . When the information supplied by a single news medium becomes a universal source of news, the resulting political and cultural effects are clear” ( 328). With this being true, so many French citizens are connected through this powerful communication outlet. This is fascinating because it really validates how TV affects people and can have an impact on what they see and hear about reality and worldly news. American TV has been known to falsify reality and alter the news. Since this outlet is so powerful and influential it’s hard for people to differentiate what’s been altered and what hasn’t. Therefore, maybe we aren’t getting the correct information and news but it’s playing a role in how we view the world and the rest of media.

bourdieu

This article made me realize how powerless everyone really is. Bourdieu says, “Through pressure from audience ratings, economic forces weigh on television, and through its effect on journalism, television weighs on newspapers and magazines…the weight then falls on individuals journalists, who little by little let themselves be drawn into television’s orbit” (335). Pretty much a loop of people and forces exist, each limiting the other. Television limits audience’s receipt of information. Censoring information and giving information which isn’t exactly true. For example, they can decide on what stories they tell, how they tell them, and what filming techniques they use to present the story. For instance in an article we read in cmc100, tv fosters a sense of fear. We all think our house is going to get broken in to. We have distorted views of minority groups. We think everyone who is marginalized is also a vicious killer. The portrayals help to keep the marginalized marginalized. And the media conglomerates know what they are doing. They are the puppeteers pulling the strings on their journalist marionettes. Pushing them in the way of “right” stories. Stories that fit into their ideals and don’t really contradict their culture. After I watched part of Outfoxed in cmc200, I decided to rent it and learn all I could about Fox. I really could not believe how ridiculous the system was. Journalists were told what stories to present. And if they did anything outside of Fox-like reporting, they were fired. Journalists who want jobs have to say what the media giants want them to say. And the media giants want certain stories to be told that benefit them. Stories that keep the audience watching. Every night there is some new update on the Casey Anthony case. Every day new information comes about and somehow they use this information to fill tons of time. Talking about this case distracts from real problems. (I’m not saying this isn’t a real problem, but every day talking about her text messages, her google searches, and her parents just saying they want to find Caylee is just a filler distraction.)

Kelsey Pike. Bourdieu.

Bourdeu and Tv

Television is one of the most powerful forces of media that we have. As Bourdeu says, “television produces effects which, though with not precident, are completely original.”What I take his statement to mean is that television is one of the only mediums that we have that produces material that is like nothing else we ever see. The best example that he uses is the news. He uses the example of French news and says that it is the only medium to bring people together than news papers. News programs, mainly local ones, come on at exactly the same time each day. The characters, the anchors, are always the same, but the
stories are always different. Collectively, individuals are able to come together, yet remain in their own homes, and watch the same program. It has all real stories and real situations that we as viewers are first exposed to by them. Bourdeu calls this “homoginization.” Whereas newspapers are read at different times, and often show many different points of views for readers. Television news is something that always remains constant, thus making it one of our most effective forms of media.

Bourdeu and Tv

Television is one of the most powerful forces of media that we have. As Bourdeu says, “television produces effects which, though with not precident, are completely original.”What I take his statement to mean is that television is one of the only mediums that we have that produces material that is like nothing else we ever see. The best example that he uses is the news. He uses the example of French news and says that it is the only medium to bring people together than news papers. News programs, mainly local ones, come on at exactly the same time each day. The characters, the anchors, are always the same, but the
stories are always different. Collectively, individuals are able to come together, yet remain in their own homes, and watch the same program. It has all real stories and real situations that we as viewers are first exposed to by them. Bourdeu calls this “homoginization.” Whereas newspapers are read at different times, and often show many different points of views for readers. Television news is something that always remains constant, thus making it one of our most effective forms of media.

Marx: Ruling Ideas

**Note: I know this reading is from a while ago, I am just trying to catch up on blogs that I have previously missed.

"...the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."

This quote is a major theme in our ideologies that we live by. People who have the means to produce products make the hegemonic ideas of our society. These products are not only material products, they are also the ideas of the ruling class. For example, if a big corporation puts out a beauty product that supposedly takes back time by removing wrinkles, the lower classes believe that wrinkles must be bad and that they should go out and buy the product. This implements the ideas of the ruling class to those who are not in the ruling class.

Those who are in the ruling class wants those who are not to believe that these ideas are true. In most cases it works, but slowly and surly I believe many are becoming aware of the truths behind these ideas. These hegemonic thoughts are put into play so that those in the ruling class can stay there and make a profit off of the lower classes. They disguise their thoughts through the media and celebrities. They use people to sell their products who either look 'just like us' or choose people who are too perfect which keeps those who are 'normal' always striving for something better.

Constantly Being Disciplined

'...but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism."

This quote sums up the main idea of Foucault's article. As we walk through our daily lives it is sometimes hard to believe that we are constantly being watched. Even as I walk around campus, I don't see any cameras, but I know they are there. Not only do we have cameras on this campus, but there are also campus security and RA's walking through the dormitories to make sure no one needs to be disciplined.

In class, we talked about a new social code that will be implemented sometime next year. It will tell students to watch out for one another and to let someone in authority know if someone is acting in a 'bad' way. The quote above explains how even though we are not always watched, we still act as though we are. Kelsey gave a great example of the mirrors that are in Walgreens. We can't see to the other side, but because they are there, we would think twice before doing something like stealing.

In the show Gossip Girl, the main characters are always under surveillance because everyone has the power to capture the moment with their cell phone cameras. These days, everyone has the power. No longer is it a couple of people at the top, it includes everyone with the technology at their finger tips.

Bell Hooks

I founds Bell Hooks article titled "Eating the other: Desire and Resistance" to be quite compelling.  The direction and summary of the article can be found in one section on page 367.

"Commodity culture in the United States exploits conventional thinking about race, gender, and sexual desire by "working" both the idea that racial difference marks one as Other and the assumption that sexual agency expressed within the context of racialized sexual encounter is a conversion experience that alters one's place and participation in contemporary cultural politics.  The seductive promise of this encounter is that it will counter the terrorizing force of the status quo that makes identity fixed, static, a condition of containment and death."

Boldly, Hooks suggests that a sexual encounter with the "Other," can be seen as a right of passage, or as a powerful expression of males in society.  I chose to view this article more broadly as it later states "difference can seduce precisely because the mainstream imposition of sameness is a provocation that terrorizes" (367).

This difference that people seek, or as Hooks calls the Other, is quite seducing, but I believe it can relate to many different topics.  As we are discussing postmodern theorists and ideals, we know that each of these great thinkers were trying to create something new.  The architects we discussed were trying to create something entirely different.  This search and success of finding what is different is seducing in society, especially amongst postmodern thinking.

Even considering the fashion industry, designer constantly look to find what is new, and that is seducing to them.  On the other hand, many people strive to set themselves apart on the fashion scene, whether they disagree with commodification or simply seek uniqueness.  They strive and crave what is different. "The seductive promise of this encounter is that it will counter the terrorizing force of the status quo" (365).  Todays culture does not want similarity, we crave the seductive difference. 

Tuesday's class

"Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance, under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth..."

I agree with this quote, our society is not of spectacle, but we are under surveillance. Technology has given people the ability to find out where people are, what they may be doing, and some technology can pin point the exact place people may be. I know it particular cell phones if you have another person's number somehow it has the ability to show you where they are. On facebook as we all know, people offer information on themselves and tell their friends where they are or what they are doing and even how they feel. On XBOX360, you can find out what games your friends are playing, when the last time they were on, or even what movie they are watching. Everywhere we see this notion of surveilance. It has become more evident in our government today. I believe this example was given in class, but take 'The Patriot Act'. Government made it possible to use "surveillance" if they thought it was necessary. "Surveillance" has become more prominent in society. The more technology we have it seems we have more surveillance in our society.

A Propaganda Model

Our media as we all know as cmc majors is controlled by wealth and our government. Our society is filled with those who believe everything that comes from our media and in turn become even more clueless on what is going on. To be honest prior to becoming a cmc major, I had to include myself among the clueless. For example, the war in iraq. In cmc200 we read about a study where a majority of Americans believed it was the "war on terrorism," then it was "the war on iraq," due to the fact they had weapons of mass destruction. Now we are there for the iraqi freedom. We continuously believe what the media has to say, because that is our only source of outside news. 

"A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public."

We also have corporate giants controlling our media and their messages. The wealth of these two sources (government and corporate giants) are what keeps these programs running. 

It is surprising to see how in other countries, such as Great Britain in the early nineteenth century have attempted to create such a radical press the reached to the working-class audience, which emphasized the potential power of working people to effect social change through the force of "combination" and organized action. It was unfortunate to see that the radical news had been abandoned. 

It is great that we do have independent media that does bring up issues the normal news stations would not, but unfortunately they are not as popular. It is not a bright future when it comes to the media. I don't believe the media would be active without the control, and the money it brings. 

A Propaganda Model

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's piece titled "A Propaganda Model" reminded me of many of the readings we have had for cmc200 on the biases in the media.  Herman and Chomsky present the notion that there are biases in the media, and blame issues, or what they call "filters" such as funding, sourcing, advertising, ownership, Flak, and the ideology of anti-communism for these biases.

Looking at ownership specifically, I was reminded of a previous reading on biases in the news.  It seems to be common knowledge amongst those educated that many news channels possess biases.  It was all too noticeable during this past election concerning major networks such as Fox News and CNN who clearly had their favored candidate, and seemed to openly let the public know their views.  The most memorable mention of the article was focused on Fox News, which is controversially biased toward the conservative and politically Republican crowd.  They inform the reader of Fox News' private ownership of over 100 networks or stations.  One single man owns those networks, thus one single man has the final call as to what information his network distributes.  This same article was comparing the different war coverage between news channels in attempt to alert the reader that we are being shown what the stations want us to believe, rather that what is true and our reality.  As an example of the bias presented on Fox News in particular, it has been brought to their attention that the owner of Fox News wrote a lengthy pro George Bush speech and insisted every single person on each of his networks to read his "declaration" when the were presented on air right after we entered the war in Iraq.  While it seems like he is simple exercise of freedom of speech, the news and media has a certain obligation to report the reality to its viewers.  Yes, it may be reality, or news, but it is not the whole story.

I believe that all networks should present each side of the story, and the information necessary for the trusting viewers to make an educated decision or conclusion on the issues facing the world today.  If the network interviews a republican, then they should interview a democrat to present their ideals.  I am not suggesting closing mouths and minds on opinions, but be sure to allow others to add theirs as well.  It is the duty of the media to rid of biases, and to present sides equally.  Otherwise our country and even world as a whole will never be able to unite.

Dr. McLaren's visit

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. McLaren’s extremely educating, enticing, and illuminating visit to our class. I really learned so much about Foucault and I think it was nice and interesting to have a guest speaker. Its nice to get different perspectives on theorists and ideas. A specific idea we discussed sparked my intrigue as well got me thinking more in deeply about Foucault. The hit television series called Gossip Girl came up in terms of surveillance and power. The class was talking about the internet and Dr. MacLaren chipped in and agreed with our thoughts how the internet is a huge power means that controls us as well as acts a communication outlet which has means to watch us and govern us. Anything that’s put on the internet can be pulled up by the government. One can broadcast his or her life on the internet and then in the future, companies can pull up the information you presented about yourself. Gossip girl has an internet blog which acts as a means of surveillance and power in the show much like our theorist Foucault discusses in his piece, The Panopticon. The show revolves around the sexualized, highly drug induced lifestyles of Manhattan’s elite. And, as a result of their scandalous and wild lives there is a blog that captures all the activities and social networking of all the teenagers. It depicts who is dating who and gossips about everybody’s lives. Whether you are have family problems or someone’s boyfriend cheated on so and so then its all noted on Gossip Girl. Gossip Girl remains anonymous however, she is at the center of everyone’s lives watching and writing on what they do. The teenagers on the show have their entire social lives at watch by Gossip Girl. They are constantly under scrutiny of this anonymous Gossip Girl who is not afraid to release any juicy information about the teenagers. Sicne I am an critical of media I noticed this from the beginning. And, others who I discuss the show really didn’t pick up on the deeper meaning as I did.

post class post nov. 18: foucalt

I thought the class discussion today was immensely interesting and productive. I really enjoyed the panoptic issues and the dealings with power relations here at Rollins. When I brought up the Academic and Social honor codes, I meant to do so in the context that both are based upon the current social norms of our society. As D.C. stated, some of the violations and rules are things that we should “just know.” The words and written definitions of the Academic code are stated in such loose terms so as the norms change in the future and the norms for each individual class and situation also are in constant flux, the code still applies.

For example, “unauthorized collaboration” is a slippery term. Some teachers take this to mean any sort of interaction between students, as sometimes applied as such during testing situations, but it could also bar discussions not with classmates, but with, instead, outside students that may have already taken the class and possess the common knowledge the students “need” to come up with themselves. In any terms, the definition of plagiarism vs. sharing vs. collaboration is sometimes interpretable and the good and bad notions associated with each are entirely dependent upon the norms of society. For example, our society states “copying” is bad and wrong, yet not in all cases is it against the “law” and sometimes, as for example medical patents run out and generic drugs become available, “copying” can be a good thing as well.

The plagiarizing of ideas also becomes a sticky situation. Where is the line drawn between a copy and a built-on idea? When does an addition to a basic idea become allowed to be a completely new idea? In our international media class, it was stated that there were only 40 truly different stories in the news; everything else is a copy in different wordings. Are those copied news stories plagiarized because they are essentially the same as another? Did I just commit a foul myself as I did not correctly attribute the particular statement to its rightful “owner”? Also, in a technicality, how can an idea or a grouping of words be “owned” by one person only?

Media and Surveillance

After today's class lead by Dr. McLaren, Michel Faucault's Panopticon started making more sense. In his description of the prison, and this idea of the "panoptic mechanism", Faulcault describes the role of power being a "model of function[ality]" and as "political technology". We see this in our society as social norms are changing, and therefore the power shifts between those who hold up that "social norm". Dr. McLaren took this further by saying Faucault saw people as "docile bodies", wanting to conform or fit into that norm. Meaning, as long as one thinks he or she is being watched, one will therefore monitor himself/herself. This type of surveillance is even more prevalent today with the new technologies. Only a little bit more than a decade ago, those who had the knowledge of the new technologies who the creators of media, news, etc. Today, however, technologies have become more accessible, making civil society able to create whatever they please. For instance, in class youtube was mentioned. This site functions as a place for just about anybody to create or post any type of video for the internet world to see. Another great example took place after the Tsunami that hit off of India a few years ago. By use of their picture phones, citizen journalists were the ones who were informing the world first hand what was going on after this catastrophic natural disaster that made it impossible to anyone trying to get there. 

It is technologies like this that have expanded the 'system of surveillance', allowing not just the government to keep tabs on you (or even not to, but to create a notion to think that you are being supervised), but also, just about anybody, your peers, family, even strangers now have more access to information about you. 

Derrida's 'Differance'

In class last Thursday, we discussed Derrida’s article, ‘Differance’. Like many other people, I was pretty stumped when I tried to read it on my own. Professor Casey explained how there is a ‘gap which our mind fills in’ due to previous signals we have received. Once a person has seen something, there will always be a trace of it. By having experiences, we create our own reality with our own personal perceptions of what the real is.

The most interesting part of his lecture was when he was discussing a word’s context. Can there be a word that does not have any existing context surrounding it? Is it led or lead? Is it bass or bass (fish)? But if there was no context, then how could we make sense of anything with language?

I am still confused on the concept of Alterity. I know it’s definition means to put yourself as the other when communicating but does this mean putting myself as the other so that I can understand the person better?

Foucalt and the Panoptican

In the reading by Foucault that dealt with the “Panoptican”, Foucault said that the point of the Panoptican is “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” The idea surrounding this place is to make the prisoners believe they are being watched at all times. This lets them know that they do not have power and that there are others who have all of the control over them.
The government does this to all of America. Everywhere we go there is most likely surveillance. Cameras are located in many locations in order to prevent shoplifting as well as to protect those in the surrounding areas (such as in banks, museums, government buildings etc.) from possible armed robberies and more things along these lines. However, the surveillance put out by the government is not always there for protection. Take Walmart for example, Every product that is bought at Walmart has a tag on it that informs the government who bought it, where they live, how old they are etc. This could be considered as an infringement on privacy. No one wants to have tabs kept on them when they just want to buy something at the store (Walmart). The Panoptican was created in order to keep constant surveillance on those who did wrong, but there is an entire nation that is living in a form of the Panoptican who did not do anything to cause those in power to be constantly viewing how they live their lives.

The Silence of the Palace

In the movie “The Silence of the Palace”, there was a heavy emphasis on the effects that silence has on women in North Africa. This silence effected the ways in which women were treated, specifically in this palace that the main woman in this movie grew up in as the daughter of a servant there. These women were sexually abused and forced to get abortions. They were told to be silent except when spoken too. They were treated terribly and their silence represented the acceptance of the way they lived their lives and/or the fact that they believed they could live no better way.
The idea of silence and its importance reminded me of Macharey and what he said about silence being significant. He said that what is not said is sometimes more important than what is said. Those who do not speak sometimes have more control than those who do. With silence there is less room for mistakes. People cannot use words you have said against you. The motto in the palace was if you are silent you are safe and taken care of. However, I would not say that these women were safe by any means. Even though they were doing their part and serving the men of the house while keeping quiet, they were still used for sexual entertainment and forced to go through painful procedures in order to kill children that were growing inside of them, which they did not have the choice to keep if they wanted too. Women died because of these procedures and/or lived their life with pain and regret. But because of their silence, these things kept happening to them. This makes me believe that silence in this case was not a good idea, but still very significant.

Surveillance

“Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance” plays a role in contemporary, American culture. Foucault’s really made a point with his statement. This makes me think of our government and how much is hidden from the American public. Our government keeps on eye on everyone and everything in this society. It is a frightening reality. For instance, the area 51 in Nevada is a top secret place where no public is allowed to enter. They have signs a mile away from the work place stating “if anyone who enters here will be shot” and top secret research facility. There has been much controversy surrounding area 51 due to its secrecy. Many believe our government has top secret air crafts that they test out. And, some believe that it’s just a place where the government can discuss top secret activities and a place that utilizes ways to keep an eye on the public. Overall our government has surveillance over all of us. It reminds me of Big Brother and the idea of always being watched. There is so much unknown to the American public thus reinforcing the idea that our society is one of surveillance. In the film festival a movie called Secrecy was played which discussed how much secrecy is in the government and how much they keep a close watch on American public. The movie discussed how a lot of the secrecy has to do with security and keeping Americans safe. But whatever the reason, our society is one of surveillance. It all has to do with power. The government has all the power and communicates with power. Power plays a role in what the government does and how they govern our country. That’s a scary thought to think how much the government watches us and controls us as well.

focault

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subject” (99). I think Brian offers an interesting insight to religion and its configuration of hierarchal relationships, which implements an always watching higher being. God, always watching, keeps individuals true. There is always the thought of being gazed upon. So, the traditional rules are always adhered to for fear of being condemned.

Walgreens tries to do this same thing. In Walgreen’s stores, the upper walls are trimmed with mirrors. He or she shopping in Walgreens starts to think he or she is being watched simply because he or she sees themselves. When, in actuality, I’m sure the security at Walgreens is much more lax than that. The individual is subjected to visibility and assumes responsibility for the constraints of power. He or she recognizes they can be seen and act accordingly.

But then we go to Disney. The whole park is meant to look like there is no security, except for the “Disney security” officers in their very rugged, yet adorable costumes. Hardly the look of law enforcement. Anyways, individuals don’t see themselves in the lines of visibility. He or she goes about their day as if they aren’t being monitored by higher beings. They see themselves as part of the crowd.

Besides at Disney, where your life for that day is shrouded in fantasy where monitoring seemingly can’t touch you, people have come to understand they are always being watched. I remember seeing this news report where they monitored how many times a person was picked up on surveillance throughout a day. Since then, (the number was shockingly high), I’ve been over-aware of my surroundings. Sometimes I try to find the cameras. I always want to know who is watching me and always stop short of behaving “out of line” when I see one. How can this allusive power have any control over my being?

Kelsey. Focault.

Panopticon

The Panopticon is an idea that seems almost scary. In this idea everyone is watched by those with power. They call this surveillance. Faucault’s final remarks say, “Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance,” (101). In today’s world we see this, especially in media. We are constantly aware of the notion of people able to track us and keep up with what we are doing, wherever we are. Those with the power are the ones doing the tracking. We have GPS devices in cars, we have ways of tracking what people spend money on, we can track where you have been on the internet, we have ways of tracking cell phone calls, we even have the ability to track where people are based on their cell phone location. When Faucault says our society is not a spectacle he means it is not one where anyone can do anything. We are not just going places, but we are actually being watched and kept track of. With technology changes so much today it is very scary how we have the ability to keep track of where people are and what they say. I heard there was a new phenomenon where you can get the text messages that you send to your cell phone bill. The idea of privacy is ultimately gone. It will be interesting to see how the media and technology keep incorporating this idea of the panopticon.

Foucault

I found Michel Foucaults reading to be particularly interesting. It seems he completely disregards authority and government and uses his interests in postmodernism to project an entire different way of looking at ideologies of society. For example, His piece called “The History of Sexuality” gives readers a look into the way the nineteenth century has created this sexual ideology that society has adapted into our culture. He addresses the fact that our whole society’s sexual nature has been repressed in a way that sexuality is now portrayed negatively or discreetly. “The essential features of this sexuality are not the expression of a representation that is more or less distorted by ideology, or of a misunderstanding caused by taboos; they correspond to the functional requirements of a discourse that must produce its truth” (104). Foucault touches on the idea that there is this bigger force, known as an ideology, that has been established that controls a persons behavior (in this sense, sexually).
The second thing Foucault touches on is this construction of Panopticon. This building makes it possible for an overseer to see everything that happens in the smaller vessels. This building reiterates the notion that “visibility is a trap” (97). Foucault goes on to discuss how power is upheld when there is a sense that everything is visible “All that is needed then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy” (97). This idea reinforces class and power through visibility and the lack of freedom of the condemned. Foucault points out that our society is one of surveillance. He states that we are constantly training other useful forces to replace those who enforce power. For example the overseer, “Any individual taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in absence of the director, his family, his friends, his visitors, even his servants (Bentham, 45) (99).

Foucault and relgion

BG’s blog post caught my attention and I felt a connection with this person’s post. The quote that initially grabbed my attention as well as provoked my interest in this point was

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.” (99). Foucault’s statements can be connected with the idea of religion as BG mentions. The topic of religion is one that is highly controversial and extremely difficult to define. However, I felt strongly about a few ideas that BG had commented on in the blog. For example, it was clear that religion and its principal is all about order. And it does this by “creating the identity of its followers”. This rings true in the topic of religion because most religions re based on this idea. Religion is all about unity of its followers and the identity is thus created through order. Order must be present for the followers to have any structure and identify with the religion of his or her choice. The idea of God being present at all times in an individual’s life is interesting and correlates with Foucault’s quote. Visibility is identified in all religion in terms of Gods, or hierarchy. Whoever is the higher being in charge in whatever religion is the visible force within the structure of the religion. Followers of a certain religion can understand how a bigger force is the visible force and dictates all that the followers believe. The concept of being visible governs people’s actions and ideas. How they think and act towards other being is governed by religion since he or she knows that the higher power is at watch always. I think these points raise valid questions and make one really take a step back and analyze his or her life. Religion is a true force that governs people who take part in his or her religion of choice.

Jacques Derrida (Post Lecture)

I had never had the pleasure of having heard a lecture by Professor Casey. Unfortunately, last time he visited I missed class due to not feeling well, but luckily I was feeling great and ready to learn this time. I would like to bring up a few of the concepts he explained about Jacques Derrida.
He stated that Jacques Derrida's underlying principle is logocentrism, which we defined as logo meaning word and centrism as central. The word is at the beginning of it all. In the beginning of the lecture we were asked to look at the word Hell, then a symbol of the shell gas station, the the word S ELL, and then again Hell. These examples proved that in a short span of time, one signifier changes after relation to other signifiers. Then we looked at Derrida's notion of 'the trace', which I took note as synaptic ideas in our brain (once we see it, we can never go back). The example given was the etch-a-scketh, where if you leave a particular scketch on it, then try to erase it, it leaves a trace of that particular picture you can never get rid of. A great quote about the trace by Derrida was "you cannot escape this concept," he is saying you cannot get outside of ideology, the trace is always working on you.
We also learned about his concepts of Erasure, and Difference/Differance and Alterity.
Prior to the lecture I was unsure of what Derrida's ideas and concepts were, after the class I feel confident in my knowledge of his concepts and I can even relate him to other theorists.

Lecture Response

I read the piece on difference prior to Dr. Casey's lecture, and to my surprise, grasped a bit of the concept on my own.  However, Dr. Casey solidified the ideals and concepts into my mind.  I enjoyed greatly his display and play on words.  Hell meant something almost universally to use at the beginning of the lecture, and then entirely changed meaning when presented at the conclusion.  When presented in context, single words can change meaning entirely.  This solidifies the notion that words are solely words, and that symbols are empty without signification.  We create meaning to symbols and without universal understanding, we would not be able to communicate.

As suggested in class, it does seem like a miracle that when we can communicate successfully so often, as definitions and signification can change so easily.

I find a connection and relation to intertextuality as significations often change as result to the context of which the words or symbols are put into.  The context matters, intertextuality is inevitable.

Foucault Fo Sho

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.” (99)

I found this passage from Foucault particularly interesting. He goes on to talk about how many different types of social institutions use the Panopticon principle of power to create/maintain social order and discipline. When reading these excerpts, I could not help but think about religion.

Religion keeps order by creating the identity of its followers. The dogma assigns a particular relationship between the practitioner, and the ultimate power: God. The concept of God is the same as the idea of the guard in the central tower, and relies on the same principles to create order. With God, all people are constantly visible; God is omniscient and omnipresent, he knows where you are and what you are doing at all times.

The concept of God one-ups the Panopticon mechanism, because God’s vigilance is not unverifiable. In a prison, it is important that the inmates do not know when they are being watched. The presence of surveillance must be unverifiable. God does one better: God is always watching. There is no guess work with God, you don’t wonder—you ARE being watched.

Practitioners of a religion are the ones always in the field of visibility. Because we know that we are being watched by the ultimate authority at all times, we internalize the “will of God” (as outlined by the dogma of our religion), and we thus become the principle of our own subjection. We do all that we can to avoid offending God. The desire to remain part of the dominant binary opposition (of those going to heaven, as opposed to those going to hell) also provides us with incentive to follow the rules. The fear of being outcast by the other members of our religious community further fuels our fear and encourages us to remain disciplined and behave “properly.”

Pre-class Foucault

In the excerpt from Michel Foucault’s 1977 Discipline and Punish, two examples of mass control- a form of plague quarantining from the middle ages and the Panopticon envisioned by Bentham- were described. It is interesting to note how the depiction of the plague quarantine included much more of an emphasis upon the physical consequence of death, where as in the Panopticon, the mental aspect of constant surveillance was the largest threat. There must be some physical threat envisioned, if not employed, with the concept of the Panopticon because constant surveillance, although disturbing, does not necessarily in itself prevent unwanted and illegal actions.

First, the concept of modern surveillance of technologies does not mean and has not meant that the use of these technologies only lead to legal acts. Any computer can easily be traced, and all the savings and travels (online, etc) of that computer can be tracked and recorded. The threat of surveillance alone is certainly there. However, what is missing for media pirates, predators, scam artists, and the like is the pairing of the surveillance threat with an eminent physical threat. Therefore, the illegal actions take place even with the potential for observation because there is no system for actual punishment- there is no fear associated with this type of surveillance.

On the flip side, even if there was constant surveillance and the fear of physical punishment, illegal activities would most certainly still continue in the holes and gaps reality will impose upon the system. Even theologically, the system is flawed by inherent potential for “good” and “evil” within anyone according to their situation and the rationale purpose of a prison (at least in the US) as a rehabilitation center. Our own system of jailing proves over and over again how fear only quells a desire for so long, before the desire overtakes the fear. For example, we have one of the highest re-incarceration rates in the world- why: because our main rationale for people inclined to commit crimes is not to teach and change their life in a positive way, but instead to give them the fear of being jailed again. Obviously, the fear goes away after a time and the emotions superficially associated with the negative are dulled, and the intrinsic actions reoccur.

Class Response to Derrida

I really enjoyed Provost Caseys lecture on Derrida this part class. They way he described Derridas notion of trace was clear and effective. He described trace as an idea/concept/image that we have seen before in a certain way and that once we’ve been exposed to it that will be the way we perceive similar instances from that moment on. I thought this notion of trace is basically what our media focuses on. The media presents us with these images and messages and we are unconsciously supposed to receive meaning because of the notion of erasure. Advertising companies base their entire economic livelihood on whether or not they can construct an image, jingle or catchy saying that will remind the audience of their company whenever they see it or hear something like it.

Derrida

Just to continue to elaborate on Kelsey's response, one of my favorite songs last year, called 5 Years Time by Noah and the Whale was purchased by Saturn and used in a commercial for the Saturn Vue. If you watch Project Runway, or the Bravo network at all, you heard this commercial at least 17 times an hour. Sarcastically, whenever I played it on air, I'd refer to it as the Saturn Vue commercial rather than it's name. More people would recognize it that way anyways. The trace became more powerful than the song itself.

I am having difficulties with the idea that the word is God. There was life before speech. How about animals with no means of language? Have they reached a state of Ur? I disagree, animals still are no closer to discerning the ultimate truth without language than we are with it. They cannot communicate their biases, but they still have them. A monkey is intelligent enough to hold vendettas against other monkeys. It can see the world differently than the monkey standing next to it.

Does a virus understand the ultimate meaning? Does a plankton? A jellyfish? Or is it only humans who can try to conceive the "ultimate truth"?

Derrida after class.

When I walked into class this morning I had no idea what Derrida was about. I read the article, yet nothing made sense. Now after class it all seems a little more clear and graspable. The concept of trace is always at work in life. It’s inescapable. I think about Of Montreal when I think about this concept. I have listened to Of Montreal and the song “Wraith Pinned to the Mist and Other Games.” This song is then in the Outback commercial with different lyrics. For me, when I see the commercial my mind goes back to the original song. But for some people who have never heard the original, the remake becomes the point of reference. So if they ever hear the original, they won’t be able to get the annoying images of steaks and “let’s go outback tonight” out of their minds. The original song is then heard through the commercial filter. Then in the natural fashion of trace, this outback song becomes a part of my cultural understanding. So, even though I had prior knowledge of the original song, the remake shapes my view of it. Whenever I listen to the original, my mind flashes steaks and blooming onion.
Besides this example, it also happens with other commercials and the songs used. For instance, there is a commercial with Yeah Yeah Yeah’s singer Karen O. It’s Adidas I believe. Anyways, when I saw them recently, as I looked at her, my mind reverted back to the Adidas commercial. But while I watch the commercial I see Karen O pulling crazy onstage antics in bizarre outfits. What I’ve seen leaves an impression and impacts the other. Since music is usually what I pay attention to in commercials, they become sharply embedded in my consciousness. I start to define brands by the songs in their commercials.


Kelsey. November 13.

Derrida, 'Differance'

“the possible that is presently impossible”

When describing what ‘’to differ’ actually means in the first paragraph of the article, this quote is used. Although I can’t quite grasp what this quote means, I know it is taking on a word that is extremely hard to define in my eyes. After reading the blog by Scarlet Wishes, I was a lot less confused on what Derrida was trying to say.
I like the idea of relating this to Barthes’ idea of ‘the gap’. I think to be different means something is not there. If something were normal, it would be composed of everything we have been taught to think is normal. It goes a long with the notion that 5 minus 2 equals 3. Three is different than five because it is worth 2 less. But what makes something different? How do we know it is real?
When something that is different, it does not mean that it is a bad thing. Yes 5 might be more than 3, but when we look at the notion of filling in the gap, Barthes understood it as something good and informative. I still find myself confused on many of the sentences that are in the article, I’m hoping today’s lecture will clear it up for me.

Derrida

Jacques Derrida and his notion of the "difference" immediately took my mind to the relationship between signs, significations, signifiers, etc and their relationship with each other.

In questioning difference, I think that it is first important to understand what we have in hand in totality.  We must fully understand the sign, and then understand the signification and what it is representing.  Why do we think of a (for example) car in the way that we do.  We first come up with the material object, which is then attached with a meaning, purpose, and sentiment.  We must entirely understand the meanings before we attempt to determine the differences.

Whether we question objects like cars, houses, electronics, or tangible concepts like colors or numbers, or philosophical ideas such as Barthes or Banjamin's theories,  we must fully understand their meaning before taking Derrids's concepts and assertions of "difference" into account.

SW Derrida

To me, difference was taking two things and subtracting one from the other and then looking at the result. The difference between 5 and 7 is 2. But what this can’t and doesn’t hold true for ever situation. What is the difference between green and purple? Blue is between the two on the color wheel, yet the both contain blue, therefore wouldn’t the difference between green and purple be yellow and red? And what about the binary opposition of right/wrong? What is between this? Indifferent? Derrida says that it, “is not simply one between act and object, cause and effect, or primordial and derived,” (120).

I think Derrida relates to Macherey in the idea it is important to understand and look at what is not being said. Maybe more importantly it relates to Barthes and the idea of the gap. But perhaps it is not the gap we usually think of. In my previous example of the difference between 5 and 7 being 2… we focused on 2, not the fact that 5 is common between the two, and what that might tell us.

This whole concept of “a” vs. “e” is something I am faced with on a (nearly) day to day basis. I have a name the can be spelled either way. I don’t hear the difference in spellings (at least I don’t), yet people either ask, or I always correct them if it is written incorrectly. Perhaps this is what Derrida means when he said it is not, “far from signaling the death of the king” (122). I get the difference of names, yet I am still perplexed by the idea of difference and differance. Hmm, I am typing in Word and differ “a”nce was auto corrected twice. I guess Word doesn’t know what’s going on either (but does it ever really?).

--Scarlett Wishes

Jean Baudrillard

In an attempt to help myself understand more of Jean Baudrillard's Concepts and Idea's as well as the class. I thought that I would make my blog about him.
Baudrillard's major themes are hyperreality and simulation in The Precession of Simulacra. These words refer to the virtual or unreal nature of contemporary culture in the age of mass communication and mass consumption, which is what we are in today. We live in a world dominated by simulated experience and feelings and have lost the ability to comprehend reality as it exists. We only experience prepared realities, in class we looked at pictures of war scenes. Where you could barely tell the difference on what was real. In the first picture we were posed the question was it real, or was it a movie set? If I do recall correctly it was a movie set, which depicted a war scene, it was essentially a prepared reality. Our media has the ability to make us feel any way they please (they simulate our feelings).
Ex: The president initially used metaphors in order to make us believe the war in iraq wasn't on iraq. It was "The War on Terrorism" and of course our country would support that.
That is an example of how our feelings were simulated in feeling patriotism towards our country, therefore we were swayed to be for war.

possibilities

As I sat with my friends on Tuesday night, texting back and forth continuously with my parents, tapping my feet as each electoral vote was counted, I knew what was going to happen, I just wasn’t necessarily prepared for the reality of it. Counting votes, different formulas, scenarios and possibilities that could sway the election either way, but almost every time we came up with something, Obama was on top. Ohio….then California….then Virginia, and he had it. The fact that the rest of the country later turned blue was just an afterthought to knowing that one of the strongest movements that I have ever been a part of in my life was actually successful.. Turning red states to blue, conservatives to liberals, the impossible to possible. The next president of the United State of America is an African American. As we watched the number skyrocket over 280, my good friend looked at me and said “the world just changed a lot”. And he’s right. This wasn’t just a big move for the United States, but it was an occurrence that has and will affect the entire global community. Perceptions of the US changed drastically at that moment, and people all over the world found a new sense of hope. Not just rich white people, or poor African Americans, but for all people, all over the world. The ultimate glass ceiling has been broken, and if this election doesn’t inspire you to try anything and everything that you can, then I don’t now what will.

"Normalizing"

I agree with Kelsey's previous post.  We have entirely forgotten where countless items, ideas, sentiments, etc, came from, as eventually, everything has and will become normalized in society.  I will have to admit, I am one who helps normalize certain trends, as I believe most of us our.  I subscribed to the "skinny jeans" trend when they were normalized.  Prior to the style becoming normalized, I would see a few select peers wearing them and thinking of how offset the trend was, and would have never imagined myself subscribing to the look, but as it became popular, it seemed natural and almost second nature.  We often lose focus of originality when things are normalized into society, disregarding authentic value and sentiment.

This forces many who refuse to become a norm, to constantly push the envelope to create a new version of "different" to stay ahead of the masses.  You could most definitely say that these trend setters are postmodern thinkers.

While I cannot recall the name of the program, I have seen a few episodes of a show that reveals the meaning or origin of certain object or ideals.  For example, I saw an episode where the host traveled the world to find the origins of different manners of tattoos.  There are so many different forms of tattoos and meanings behind each form and type.  Without watching that program, I may have never known the origin of such a popular trend amongst Americans.

While normalizing is not always a negative ideal, it is important that we educate ourselves on what surrounds us, and on what we choose to stand for, before we subscribe to the trend.

jeans and tattoos

We see the tribal armband tattoo everywhere. Obviously some individuals in society have domesticated this cultural sign. Others sport the Chinese symbol tattoos or maybe ‘authentic’ ancient Japanese clothing. At a certain point this domestication prompted mockery. I can’t really see people with tribal tattoos or Chinese symbols without smiling. So, as we talked about in class, we deal with the Other by mockery or domestication, and in the form of the tribal armband tattoo, both (at least in my opinion).
Another idea we discussed was how countercultures act as floating signifiers but become fixed when they are commodified. When I hear this I immediately think of my life with jeans. I grew up with two brothers and two neighborhood boys, so I didn’t really care about fashion. My mom came home with these flare jeans (this was back when flare had its comeback), which I refused to wear, I only liked straight. Anyways, this whole new wave of flare jeans, kind of erased the bohemian aesthetic and hippie culture relating to them. Their commodification froze the flare jean message attached to peace and freedom. They were just a part of everyday culture. They lost their entire basis of ‘being’.
A year or so after this I started listening to The Strokes and Kings of Leon. Both bands wear extremely tight tapered jeans (KOL has song – tapered jean girl), so I instantly subscribed to this fashion. Of course it was terribly hard to find tapered jeans. However, after a few years when models/celebrities started also wearing these jeans, it caught on. The jean was commodified and everyone walks around in them today. I Othered myself in high school with these jeans and then suddenly they were everywhere. The original sentiment of ‘cool’ I felt from them (with attachment to the music scene) was diminished. Although they are now easy to find, they lose the initial appeal they had to me. They are no longer the beloved outsider hip jean, but the embraced commodified one. They became normalized, embraced, and redefined.


Kelsey. 11/4.

Class Response Post for 11/4

I completely agree with the points Hope brought up about the whole style and power issue, especially because it is so unconsciously relevant in this day and age. The concept of style has developed into a concept of hegemony. We establish and unconsciously position people on a certain level in a class hierarchy, which is determined through their clothing and accessories. The idea of the caste system comes into my mind when we think of style. Those people who are able to wear the expensive designers and can afford the luxurious bags are portrayed as higher up in the hierarchy in terms of class. This whole notion of plays off our societies ideology of “bigger, better, faster” by saying we must have more money and more expensive items and in this sense the most expensive style.
The idea of the designer bags and clothes relating to our status and power in society plays into the concept of the real. Companies are demonstrating the notion of intertexuality by producing items that are as close to the original product as possible. For example, Louis Vuitton bags are one of the most expensive bags to purchase, however, more and more companies are coming out with bags that replicate the Louis Vuitton monogram for much less money. Forever 21 is using this concept as well by replicating a number of designers original clothing and tweaking them the tiniest bit to make them a little different but they are essentially the same. The notion of authenticity is questioned in these types of markets because essentially the companies who are charging a ridiculous amount of money for certain style products are losing that power that places them higher on our social hierarchy.

Jameson

Fredric Jameson covered many important concepts that we have previously discussed in class. Jameson analyzes the postmodern in numerous ways and tries to grasp the postmodern concept. He begins by insinuating that there is a type of radical break in some form of thinking, that postmodernism starts when something ends. Jameson also discusses how postmodernism allows cultural dominance to become an integral part of the movement. This cultural dominance that is a byproduct of postmodernism, “allows for the presence and coexistence of a range of very different, yet subordinate features” (484). Jameson goes on to point out obscurity and sexually explicit material and compares how there was a movement in acceptance of this material seen publicly over the course of the generations. Fifty years ago, sexuality was not appropriate in public and yet now, we treat sexuality as a normalcy. Another postmodern effect that has graced our society is the forms of patronage being produced by art. Jameson stresses that not only is postmodern culture dominating the presence of sexuality seen in media, but also points out postmodernisms dominance over the economy. Jameson recognizes these changes as “the transformation of the very sphere of culture in contemporary society” (485). Without the emergent forms of culture, then we are stuck in a heterogeneity society. Our being thrives on these new forms of cultural dominant ideals because without them, we would be stuck doing the same old thing. For instance Jameson interpretation of this notion, “…transformation of this drab peasant object would into the most glorious materialization of pure color in oil paint is seen as a Utopian gesture” (487). Essentially, the postmodern culture takes boring objects and glamorizes them to a point, which in turn presents us with the notion of ideology. This concept connects Jameson’s description of hermeneutical, which is when we take a simple conceptual form and replace it with an ultimate truth. Jameson goes on to question this notion of truth in the rest of the reading by addressing intertexuality, commodification of objects, spectacles, transformation of the real into pseudo-events and revolution in power technology.

interdependency (sp?)

In light of the fact that I prematurely posted about H&A last week, I guess I have to come up with a new theme of theirs to be cynical about. In class we talked about how H&A discus the culture industry and its relation to the institution of capitalism, coupled with the role that it plays in our society today. And there was a point brought up that was very to the point, talking about how we will never be able to rid ourselves of the intellectual slavery that has come about as a result of consumerism. The culture of consumption, and all of it’s subcultures, are so ingrained in the structural system of our economy that they have almost become part of the foundation, to the point where if we lost any part of it we would have serious economic issues as a result (ironic time to be speaking of this). This past summer the FAA tried to ban all advertising in television shows. Not the commercials, but the product placement in shows. Unfortunately, this didn’t work (or hasn’t thus far). While I don’t know all of the details in this plan, I do know that if that were to happen, thousands and thousands of jobs would be lost, and a source of income for the government would go with it. It’s scary how interdependent we are on some of the things that hurt us the most, such as advertising. Consumerism and Uncle Sam go hand in hand, but I’m not telling you anything new here. So if the problem isn’t going to go away, then what can we do to thwart its damage? Education? Yeah like we’re so strong in that area as well. Regulation? Well that might not work when the people enforcing the rules are also depending on them to be broken. Anyone? Any Ideas? Maybe I should take some medication and relax a bit, topics like this make me a complete cynic. Intellectual survival is doomed and china will Rule the world one day. Have a good night.

SW "culture industry cultivates false needs"

The post by Kelsey made me think of an article I saw a while back regarding the "new necesities."

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105205/12-New-Necessities-That-Drain-Your-Cash


12 New 'Necessities' That Drain Your Cash


Dirty dozen
Many of today's new "necessities" actually are entitlements that leave people deeper in debt. Here are 12 "new necessities" you might find you can downsize or even live without. Average prices quoted are courtesy of Costhelper.com except where noted:
Daily Latte
The notion of giving up your daily latte and getting rich has become a cliché for a reason: A barista-made latte costs roughly 100 times what a homebrewed cup of Joe does.
Would you pay $1,000 for a pizza? Get real.
Brew your own and save $25 a week, or $1,300 a year.
Cable TV
Bruce Springsteen described cable TV succinctly in his song "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)." But even if you can't imagine living without C-SPAN, you can save by dropping premium cable while holding onto basic service.
Dropping premium channels should save you about $25 to $30 a month, or $300 to $360 a year.
If you're more ambitious, you can save a bundle by dropping premium and basic service. Basic service often runs about $30 to $35 a month, or $360 to $420 a year. So if you drop cable entirely, you'll save $55 to $65 a month, or $660 to $780 annually.
Manicure/Pedicure
Standard manicures average $10 to $15 at nail shops and $20 to $25 at spas and salons. Standard pedicures run $15 to $25 (nail shops) and $35 to $40 (spas and salons). Acrylic nails run $25 to $35 (nail shops) and $35 to $45 (spas and salons).
If you only skipped one of each per month, you would save $50 to $110 a month, or $600 to $1,200 a year. Just doing your own weekly manicure will save you $520 to $1,300 annually.
Botox
What, give up Botox? Don't frown. Those treatments -- typically scheduled every three months -- cost on average between $300 and $1,200 per visit.
Let nature take its course and save $1,200 to $4,800 a year.
Bottled Water
Some people consider bottled water a necessity, even though the perfect low-cost alternative is available from any faucet in their home.
"Bottled water drives me crazy," Hunt says. "There are so many studies that show that tap water is better for our kids because it has fluoride and it's not stripped of all the minerals."
Drink tap water and pocket the $25 to $40 monthly fee for bottled water delivery, based on online averages.
Second Car
Hands down, a second car is the highest-ticket "new necessity" in America today. It's so prevalent that Yeager is doing his book promotion tour by bike just to point up the sheer absurdity of our one-person, one-car paradigm.
Hunt, who routinely leased a new car every three years for 22 years until her finances crashed and burned, tried carpooling with her husband 10 years ago and never bought another car.
"I said, 'You know what? Oprah has a driver,'" she says. "That was such a wakeup call to me, because a car had become a necessity of life."
Not only does she not miss the car payment, maintenance, license, registration, insurance fees and outlay for gas ("We save at least $1,000 a month," she estimates), but there's that domino effect: She no longer zooms off to the mall to shop at the hint of a sale.
Cell Phone
Those TV ads that feature parents distraught over their family's cell phone bill may qualify as truth in advertising for once.
"This drives me crazy," Hunt says. "I'm sorry, a 4-year-old does not need a cell phone. I think even a family with teenagers could get by with one or two prepaid phones that they pass around."
You can save $40 to $60 per month on average, or $480 to $720 per year, for every cell phone you eliminate. A prepaid plan used sparingly will save you money over a contract plan.
Lawn Service
Here's the rationalization for a lawn service: My time is worth more than I'm paying them to cut my grass. Heck, it's actually a savings!
Well, yes -- if you were mowing your lawn during business hours instead of at night or on the weekend with the rest of us.
The average cost for weekly mowing, hedge trimming and leaf blowing is $65 to $90. It's hardly a savings to shell out $260 to $360 a month, is it? Mow your own and save the dough.
If you do enough lawn and garden work, you may even save the $35 to $40 you shell out each month for your fitness club membership.
Clothes
Where would retailers be if we only bought clothes we need?
"I'm not a fashion-conscious guy, but I've observed that clothes, even the cheapest clothes, last forever," Yeager says. "When was the last time you truly wore something out?"
While we're not suggesting you dress in rags -- or worse, go without clothes altogether -- satisfying your wardrobe jones with a measure of frugality can save a bundle.
"I think most Americans could easily go for one year without buying any new clothes," Yeager says.
Private School
Give up private school? Are you crazy?!
"A lot of parents almost feel that they are abusing their children if they don't send them to private school," Hunt says. "I don't agree with that."
Instead, Hunt believes parents can save a bundle -- and provide their children with a top-notch education -- by sticking with public schools.
"I'm a huge proponent of public school," she says. "I think some private schools are actually inferior because sometimes their instructors don't have to be credentialed."
Oh, did we mention that you're already paying for public school anyway? Go public and save anywhere from $8,000 to $35,000 per year, according to the Boarding School Review Web site.
Childhood Parties
If you don't have kids, you probably can't appreciate how out-of-control children's birthday parties have become.
"Every kid has to have a bouncy house for their birthday," says Hunt, who lives in Southern California. "It's not enough to have just a cake; you have to have a meal. And now you have to invite the parents."
Hunt adds that such celebrations no longer are restricted to "big" birthdays, but occur every year.
"And they celebrate graduations, from preschool, for kindergarten, for elementary, junior high," she says. "When they get to be teens, the whole group has to go somewhere. By the time you graduate high school, now you go to Aruba."
Young parents, you've been warned.
Pet grooming/Walking
The cost of grooming your dog averages $30 to $50 for small breeds, $50 to $70 for midsize breeds and $70 to $90 for large breeds. A pet walker on average runs $15 to $27 per walk.
To save money, invest in a $25 set of electric clippers and learn online about how to groom your pet. You'll pay for the razor with the first haircut.
And wouldn't a daily walk do you both some good?"

_________________________
Of course some of this is extreme, especially the botox, but is it wrong?