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.