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?

Horkheimer and Adorno

I found Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's account "The Culture Industry" to be one of the more interesting and graspable reads we have dissected this far.  One of the quotes that stuck most with me as I can easily relate it to another class I am currently taking can be found on page 50.

"the defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful"

I believe this statement is clear in basically asserting that those who are successful, do not care nearly about success and achieving it as those who are not successful.  I agree with this statement in a sense.  Although I believe that those who have attained success do on occasion think of their success and how they achieved it, those who have not yet achieved the success they are looking for still have that drive, that passion, that need and concern to be successful.  Since they are the seekers, they are more concerned to see if they can achieve the myth of success.

This relates to another course that I am currently taking, American Dream and Popular Culture.  We speak in depth of the great myth of the american dream and whether or not it is feasible to many.  We have discusses how the upper/super class is least concerned with the dream and if the myth exists to anybody in the United States, because it does not pertain to them, they are successful.  In return, those coming to America or struggling in America are often obsessed with this ideological myth of success and the American Dream because they want to believe that they too can achieve it.

People are always obsessed with what they do not have.  Whether a material possession or an ideological achievement, if you do not have it, then you will want it, or some version of it.  This lead us to question whether even those who, according to lower classes class, have already achieved success and their version of the dream truly believe they have achieved the dream.  They may not think about success as much as those who have not achieved any form of it, but it would not be feasible to believe they do not consider success in any sense.

Post class post Nov. 4th: the influencial style of Stewart and Colbert

First, I would like to say I really enjoyed the class discussion today. I thought this was one of the most productive discussions we have had yet. Consequently, I came up with a number of potential topics to discuss: pseudoidentities, commodification of sub and counter culture- however, the most pertinent point for me personally was the discussion about the following quote from p. 47 from Horkheimer and Adorno:

“The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power.”

As I stated in class, I think an interpretation of this is when there is an originality in a certain way of doing things (style), the conceptual person has the power of association because other people will copy and thus follow the original. Effectually, the person with the original style holds the power over the followers, and the way other people do those same things, other relational things, or even think of life. I think the example given in class of the Devil Wears Prada was an obvious choice in that it both superficially and intellectually embodies the idea of style as power.

However, I also thought there are more examples that might not be as obvious, but may reach a wider audience of understanding. I thought about the influence of John Stewart’s “Daily Show” and consequently, Steven Colbert’s “Colbert Report”. Although there are other implications with the shows relating to the reading and class discussion (the popularization of subculture, etc.) I mean to emphasize the power the particular style of Stewart and Colbert hold over their viewers and the greater American peoples. Reportedly, more and more people are looking to these “pundits” for their dose of daily political and national news. The way people view and think about domestic affairs is almost articulated by the style of these men and their shows. Not only do people associate a sense of ridicule and laudability with politics more so now, but the shows also help to dictate the popularity of politicians, authors, and other producers of entertain. As Colbert states, his show gives people the “Colbert bump,” or when people go on his show, they instantly become more popular and favored by the mass public.

Many of the positive connotations of Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows have much to do with their comedic style and its sense of originality. Their shows are the basic venue of comedic “entertainment” news. They are considered to be more “real” than other news sources. Also, in addition to people emulating the ideals presented in the show, other shows, movies, and cultural products are attempting to copy the “comedic reality” style of the shows.

The entertainment business

A specific quote from the reading, Cultural Industry caught my attention. On page 51, Horkheimer and Adorno state, “The cultural industry remains the entertainment business.. it’s control of consumers is mediated by entertainment”. The idea of the entertainment business is interesting. Everything in American culture is influenced by entertainment. Entertainment appeals too many people in society and it sells obviously. The entertainment industry makes up our culture because it runs so much in society. From music, to sports, television, film, the entertainment industry is a part of all that. This industry makes up such a large portion of American media that everyone is exposed to on a daily basis and it influences people on many levels. Consumers are controlled by the entertainment business because it advertises and sells new products while capturing attention of many. The business is centered on sex and money, two aspects which spark human interest in every way possible. Therefore, it makes sense that people are fascinated/ intrigued by this industry. America is a country where entertainment is everything. Without the entertainment business, American culture wouldn’t be what it is today. Think all about all the sports fans out there or those who love the arts, music and film. Any aspect of entertainment grabs every individual in some way. In particular, the movie business grabs the attention of people in certain ways. For example, it creates unrealistic expectations for some people since some people strive be like the highly desirable actors that our media portrays in magazines, on television and everywhere. The entertainment industry creates a fantasy world that always strikes the interest of the public because there is such a huge emphasis of being rich and famous in American society. When in reality only a small portion of people are actually living extravagant lifestyles and are highly recognized in the media. Our society focuses on so much on this business and it continues to grow while re-inventing itself in order to titillate the masses.

The Culture Industry

Horkheimer and Adorno discuss how popular culture has created an easy way to attain pleasure through the purchasing of massed produced items. Further, these items have been standardized by what the industry has created to be the "norm" or the latest and greatest. As we learned in CMC 100, our advertisements today intentionally create the sense of "false needs" that is generated by their profits, which generates capitalism. But then it is capitalism that manipulates us worse? In a way, the culture industry manipulates what we spend our money on for pleasure in entertainment. The cultural industry makes us accept the latest trends in fashion, music, or whatever that may be. As we see in Marx's ideologies, there is a class system that breaks down for those who can afford the higher end of things, continuing to the middle and lower class. However, the culture industry views everyone as one marketplace where individual's true taste is ignored because as a whole a massed produced item generates more money. What I find interesting is that no matter what one's economic status is, there will still be that sense of not being fully satisfied. For most, material wealth means that their 'being' has served it's purpose. By the creation of the 'false need' this means then that their being is never satisfied, because as we discussed there will always be a new and better object out there. 

false truths/loner

So, I think I gathered that Adorno and Horkheimer believe the culture industry cultivates false needs. These needs which are reinforces are those paralleling hegemonic ideologies. Therefore, the “sameness” of culture bombards us with hegemonic ways of thinking. The idea that “the more easily it [film] creates the illusion that the world outside is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in the cinema” is interesting (45). With films their intent is to mirror life, the aim is recognition, and for the viewer to see himself/herself in the fantastical film world. In Zizek’s article, he talked a lot about how the images on September 11th mirrored those we see in catastrophe movies. We had seen the images of September 11th on screens before the attack. Culture and reality collided. And with Adorno and Horkheimer, they also examine the friction between reality and illusion. Is this a life of illusion?
Within the culture industry, A & H state the ruler will say “you are free not to think as I do; your life, your property- all that you shall keep. But from this day on you will be a stranger among us” (49). This systematic Othering of those not shaping to the hegemonic ideology of society means “anyone who does not conform is condemned to an economic impotence which is prolonged in the intellectual powerlessness of the eccentric loner” (49). Those whose ideas are outside the hegemonic realm are chastised and their ideas frowned upon. Absolutely no merit could stem from this loner’s ideas. Lyotard expressed a similar idea stating, “artists who question the rules ‘are destined to have little credibility…they have no guarantee of an audience” (41). Those who throw conventions out the window have no guarantee of receptivity in the public. And most likely, those stemming beyond hegemonic standards, will receive no audience. Like A & H mentioned the best selling book made into a movie holds the most credibility. Everyone is afraid of this elusive loner-ness they may be labeled with. Rarely do people explore beyond hegemonic confines. And these confines/culture industry is what A & H revolt against for the production of sameness and false truths.

Kelsey. Adorno/horkheimer

hebdige and subcultures

I found Hebdiges anaylsis of subcultures to be very interesting because he incorporates many theorists ideologies first, then goes on to describe how they fit into his definition of what subcultures are. He says that, “the emergence of such groups has signaled in a spectacular fashion the breakdown of consensus in the post-war period,” (151). As generations of pop culture have shown us, subcultures come out of nowhere and are first rejected or accepted. People begin to identify with them, until they eventually turn into a normal commodity and have lost most of their initial shock. Hebdige uses the best example that I can think of to describe this term- the punk culture. He says that subcultures form as a result of someone challenging hegemony. In the punk culture people began to challenge authority and go against the order. He refers to this as “violations of authorized codes” and “power to provoke and disturb” (153). As the punk culture gained popularity, more people began to believe their ideas and identified with them, thus making the culture more and more acceptable. The media begins to latch onto these trends, and thus they become more familiar. In the punk culture, this was when the 80’s when it was “trendy” to be punk and listen to punk music. As they gain so much more acceptable they turn into a commodity, and eventually become “frozen.” Companies capture onto the popularity of these groups and produce products for them, thus making them a commodity. Once there are so many commodities for them and the ideas are less “shocking” they begin to loose their power and become normal. In today’s world we do not see the punk subculture as “shocking” as it once was. The market has been flooded with so many products that we are used to seeing punk clothing and hearing music that was once unconventional to us. I believe that subcultures serve a valuable part to our society. It is through them that we get new ideas and new product. I do find it a bit sad that like in the case of the punk culture, something that was so new and challenged authority, turns into a commodity and becomes very common place instead of “new.”

Consciousness and Social Being

In class on Thursday we spent some discussing the following quote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” There were several thoughts on what this quote meant. Some thought that it was our consciousness that determined our social being because our brain is before we begin to socialize and is developed a certain way that causes us to act and think in certain ways. Others of us thought that it was our social being which determined our consciousness. As soon as we are born we are constantly surrounded by other people whose actions are being absorbed into our brains. Although we do no understand what is going on, our conscience takes into account what is happening around us. As we grow up we are learning from those who we are with and they help to form our views and thoughts on things around us based on what they believe. In this way it makes sense that our consciousness is determined by our social being because without being a social being we would have nothing to base our consciousness on. It is kind of like saying that you are who you hang out with. We are told as we grow up that we should surround ourselves with positive people in order to be more positive ourselves which will help us to lead successful lives. By surrounding ourselves with these types of people our consciousness adapts to their actions and their ideas and causes us to believe in what we are seeing and doing when we are around these people.

Binary Oppositions in the American Ruling Class

I think it was interesting the discussion of Binary oppositions of the American ruling class. The adjectives describing the binary oppositions from class included; Fast, new upward, active. On opposite end there was slow, old and downward. Our society focuses a lot on the fast and new. Slow, and old are negative in society. Why would we want something that's old when something that's new and better is readily available? My point in class was how humans are never satisfied and our culture reinforces this because new technologies are constantly being made all the time. I used the Blackberry/ Iphone example in class. The Blackberry came out and everyone went crazy over it. It became a highly regarded item for business and in terms of social status. It has all the great features. People thought it was amazing they could access the internet with a touch of a button whenever and where ever they wanted. But, the Blackberry wasn't enough. The Iphone came into existence and then everyone wanted an Iphone. Not only did it have the internet but also a navigation system. The Blackberry only has maps. The demand for Iphones is and has been extremely high. When I was working in San Francisco this summer I remember seeing hundreds of people outside the Apple store waiting hours in line just to buy the new Iphone. New and better is something our contemporary society really focuses on. Our culture is always re-inventing itself and especially with new technologies. It always seems that once something comes out, someone reinvents something newer and better in order to compete. Our society is constantly evolving for better, newer and faster. This is reinforced with all the new products which are out there and are coming out. With all the new options it makes it difficult to not be enticed to keep buying.

The Ruling Class

The quote "each new class puts itself in the place of the ruling class before it" reminded me of a line in the movie Lord of War, "Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: a federation of worse oppressors than the last bunch of oppressors."

In these final few days before the big election, I wonder, will America choose to continue it's path to becoming the very thing it was founded to escape? America was founded with the purpose of leaving the moral monarchy of Great Britain, and yet today, America is allowing itself to become the largest moral monarchy in the world. What has the patriot act done besides make the President an elected king? Why is America voting to bring religious doctrine to law? I am not a communist nor a revolutionary, but I can see Karl Marx was clearly forecasting our future, whether we choose to ignore it or not.

I'm willing to admit that the change in ruling class to it's classic form of oppression has already occurred. The ballot, which should be as unbiased as a dictionary, uses wording such as "protecting marriage" rather than "outlawing civil union".

The big change, I feel, between traditional ruling class oppression and ours today is that before, the average man had no say in his oppression. Today, it is average "Joe The Plumber" telling us he wants to be oppressed. He wants his rights revoked and his freedom trampled. That's why it's so easy to believe in conspiracies these days - anything to lift the guilt of us being responsible for our own oppression.

The ISA's tell Joe to elect the RSAs. They tell him the RSAs are to protect him, not keep him in line, so that the ISAs can become more powerful, so that the RSAs can become more powerful.

This coming election is terrifyingly important. Will America take a step in the direction it was founded on, or will it continue on the track all things are destined to become - its parents.