Herman and Chomsky Killing It

I love Herman and Chomsky's Theory (my paper is on them). Their propaganda model explains clearly the influences behind mass media and how the filtering process works. I like how the article still applies to the media industry today, even though the text was written a while a ago.

In my project I am currently analyzing Brazilian media through the lenses of the propaganda model. It is astounding how similar Brazilian and American media can be alike. The same filtering processes (ownership, advertising, sources, flak, and anticommunism) work in Brazilian media. Anticommunism, in fact, has been a constant discourse utilized by the conservative Brazilian media since the days of the military dictatorship. The anticommunist ideologies were so strong at the time that a "housewife movement against communism" movement was launched in Brazil. Many believed communists actually ate children (quite hilarious). 

These filtering forces are still present today. In the June 2013 Brazilian protests Brazil, a lot of the mass media discourse had to do with the propaganda model ideals. Protesters were highly criticized because of the destruction of private property. The security of private property is one of the capitalist values that is as held the highest is our society. The destruction of these godly “material goods/property” by the population was seen as outrageous. “How dare they mess with our property?!”

Working-class claims were laughed at by the liberal media system in the beginning of the riots. The decrease of the bus fare price was the clam at the core of the movements. However, even after the fare was lowered (at the end of the protests) the profit of corporations remained intact. Media advertised that the corporations couldn't continue to operate with lowered fare prices, therefore, investment funds would be cut. The profit of the ruling class was never put in danger or into question. The propaganda model helped those in power to retain their privilege despite the general dissatisfaction of the population with the way the transportation corporations were doing business.

This type of incident makes me realize how deep the propaganda model is intertwined is in our society. It can influence the views of many, and it can certainly influence the outcome of social class movements. 

Foucault + the ethical dilemma of the "handicap" space

I really enjoy reading Foucault. It may be because his writing is the foundation for much of feminist theory and he was active in multiple groups fighting racism, defending human rights, and advocating penal reform; or perhaps because he uses ridiculously overly dramatic prose that blurs the line between theorist and playwright. Most likely a combination of both. Especially regarding Discipline and Punish, cracking open Foucault is almost like reading Orwell or Burgess. After all, the first 20 pages or so are dedicated almost completely to the visceral description of death by execution and unnecessarily graphic imagery of forms of punishment spanning centuries. The first five pages alone contain nothing more than a detailed description of an 18th century botched execution in which the accused is torn limb from limb by horses and burned partially alive. Essentially, Foucault is a bit of a drama king when it comes to articulating theory. It's great.

Michel Foucault: Theorist, philosopher, historian, drama king

If it wasn't already evident, I'm writing my praxis paper on Foucault, and have read beyond The Panopticon; however, the point I'd like to make in this post is located within the chapter and centered on the idea of scrutiny and policing the body. We spoke earlier this semester in my critical disabilities studies course about the constant scrutiny people with disabilities find themselves under. It's not only applicable to visible disabilities, but invisible disabilities as well (those which are not outwardly visible or can be hidden). While those with visible disabilities often find themselves stared at and openly scrutinized, people with invisible disabilities face different challenges involving scrutiny.

Think of the skepticism you feel when you see someone parking in a spot reserved for people with disabilities, then stepping out of the car looking young and healthy. I recall encountering this situation with my father; he complained that the man was taking advantage of the system. In reality we can't know whether that person has a disability or not, but people feel comfortable making judgement calls on the basis of appearance, thus policing the body. Similarly, a friend of mine with an invisible disability told me about a time she'd been using a mobile cart in the supermarket, and someone stopped her to demand that she explain why she was using a cart reserved for people with disabilities. This surveillance to assure she was acting according to normal expectations centered on the body was probably subconscious on the part of the person who accosted her, but this is just an example of power operating without force or visibility.

 Source

Source

Our society likes clear demarcations between normal and abnormal people; we think in binaries because they're easy to categorize and understand. Foucault believes this is another means of control: "Generally speaking, all the authorities exercising individual control function according to a double mode; that of binary division and branding (mad/sane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal); and that of coercive assignment of differential distribution (who he is; where he must be; how he is to be characterized; how he is to be recognized; how a constant surveillance is to be exercised over him in an individual way, etc.)" (Foucault, Discipline and Punish 200).

Foucault's vision of the panoptic system of power is one that extends beyond disciplinary systems and into the way we live and think. It acknowledges that systems of power can be maintained through the creation of a norm to be adhered to. With all of media reinforcing our ideals of normalcy and beauty (these ideals often entrenched in sexism, racism, classism, and of course consumerism), the norm becomes part of our lives to the point that we enforce it upon ourselves and others. Foucault recognizes this as "all the mechanisms of power which, even today, are disposed around the abnormal individual, to brand him and to alter him..." (Discipline and Punish 201). The Panopticon is so efficient because people aren't actively conscious of the fact they're being scrutinized, and the power this breeds is so pervasive that it takes effect in all aspects of society. We become agents of our own oppression. So next time you label someone who appears able-bodied a jerk for taking the "handicapped" parking spot, know that you, too, may be being an jerk. Able/disabled isn't black and white, and assumptions can be damaging. Foucault knows wassup.

Also, here's an interesting article about parking spaces for people with disabilities I found while looking for those god-awful comics.

Kitschy parody

So yesterday in class we talked a little bit about parody... This quote kind of stuck with me the most:
"Parody finds itself without vocation."

I was a little confused because I slightly disagree with this. However, it is true that today, especially in the contemporary culture of late capitalism, parody can find itself without a vocation/purpose/job...
In my opinion, this is true when parody is used only to "make fun" of an artist or a music video. When parody becomes a kind of kitsch, it looses its vocation and it made with the purpose of getting viewers and in the end, making money. An example of this can be a parody of Justin Bieber's recent music video of the song "What Do You Mean?" The parody is a little funny only because it is made with the purpose of making fun of Bieber (which I always enjoy). However, the jokes are a little ridiculous, the lyrics don't really make much sense and they don't really reflect what the artist's lyrics actually say... I feel like it lost its essence by trying to bee a little too funny and it became a pain to my eyes at one point.
An example of a good parody piece with a real purpose is the one making fun of Taylor Swift's music video "Bad Blood". Not only the lyrics are hilarious, but the video in general is also really funny and very related to the original video and song. Furthermore, it exposes some aspects of the video that we could say are "wrong" or a bad influence for viewers like promoting the use of guns.

Here's the link for the Justin Bieber parody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-rJGwnwU4

Here's the link for the Taylor Swift parody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEkJOb3V5U8&spfreload=10

I guess what I'm trying to say is that like any other music video or song, a parody must have some kind of essence, meaning, purpose behind it. It can either expose something from the video, or point out something the artist is promoting... If the parody is corny, and kitschy, and only made with the purpose of attracting viewers and potentially making money, then it lost its vocation and it can even be a loss of your time...

Pairs, Je T'aime - Healing Thoughts Beyond Western Culture

I have been trying to find a way to discuss the recent Paris tragedies in reference to this class, but I’m finding it difficult to put into words how I feel. However, the quote “the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and horror,” from Jameson has helped me try to process these events. In a literal sense, in many ways Paris is seen as the epicenter of culture – particularly of art and art history. But in a more figurative sense, if one can equate culture to media, the coverage of the Parisian attacks has exemplified the meaning behind Jameson’s above quote. The media coverage of the Paris terrorist attacks has illuminated certain aspects of Western culture – particularly that of social media and online behavior. From a more critical standpoint, within the 24 hours that the Western world was changing their profile pictures to the French flag, Beirut had also suffered a terrorist attack, in which minimal coverage via social media was offered. I am one of the thousands of people that have changed their profile picture – I am not somehow suggesting that this movement is not supportive. However, I have also seen some posts criticizing the Western prejudice of ignoring third world countries struggles, until a more civilized and Western country is affected. One could argue that Paris is more “relatable” to the Western culture – I will admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge surrounding ISIS and the terrorist attack in Beirut – therefore within social media, people are more exposed to a tragedy that is within their realm of understanding. Personally, I have spent some time in Paris, and in other parts of France, and I have never experienced the peace and spiritual awakening than I did while travelling in France. I cannot put into words how much affection I have for France as a country. When I found out about the tragedy that struck in Paris, I was immediately heartbroken. Upon further investigation, the largest of the attacks in the city was only a five-minute walk from where I stayed within the city, which only intensified my feeling of inclusion with the French citizens and the horror of the events taken place. Within this post, I don’t mean to diminish the suffering of the French people – I merely want to use my position as a CMC student to encourage the wider scope of terror and suffering that is occurring throughout the world now, and look past the veneer of the cultural surface and immediate Western events – as more than Paris is suffering right now.

Passivity in Postmodern Culture

   I feel that I am not alone when I say that I struggled this week with unpacking Jameson. Although I felt that I could read is prose well, he was incredibly fast in his transitions from topics, and to use Hania's word, "dramatic" in his explanations of these topics. With that being said, I was able to pick out one idea of his that resonated with me, this being that he feels postmodern culture has reached a level of passivity, whether this be in our consumption of goods or in how we live our everyday lives. We chose to accept how our society is rather than questioning how it functions. When talking about the photo of Britney Spears in class, rather than questioning the reality of that image and the methods with which the image is created, women across America feel pressured to assume this type of physical look because of how prevalent it is in media today. We are taught to believe that this is the "ideal" body type simply because this image is always surrounding us. Then, rather than realizing the inaccuracy of these images and questioning them, we continue to consume the image and try to change ourselves to be the image through the consumption of this media and the products associated with it. For example, it can be assumed that most people associate corsets with having a negative impact on the health of the human body, but now, it has become a trend within the fitness world.
   The level at which we consume, and the recklessness with which we consume is both astonishing and disturbing. Not only does it represent a brain washing of the American and Western culture, but it skillfully avoids and disguises the negativities associates with this consumption to the point where we do not even notice it; it truly has become a part of our culture and there are many people within this society that take pride in this. It is true that the ability to have an abundance of personal items is a sign or luxury and success, but the need for these items has created an undermining for where the products come from and how they influence the rest of the world. Sweat shops, for example, are a well known consequence of retail consumption. Here, you could argue that the negativities associated with consumption are known, but the need for consumption is so engrained that people have reached an extreme level of passivity in that they choose to ignore these. As Jameson states, "the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror," (410); a fact that truly cannot be denied.

Digesting Jameson

I can't deny that Jameson was a difficult reading. His style of writing really confused me. It seems to me that he has a fluid writing technique, where many ideas came together at once. However, I do believe a lot of his thoughts are interesting. Our class discussion really helped me break down some of his concepts (although I am still struggling with the latest part of the reading). 

I may have been too tough on Jack before… I am now really interested in Jameson’s concept of late capitalism. Our contemporary culture represents a unique moment in history and it differs greatly from other moments from humanity's past. I like how he proposes postmodernism as the culture of late capitalism. I have to admit that in the beginning of this class I had major issues in understanding the differences between modernism and postmodernism. If I can assume that postmodernism is the culture of late capitalism, the word itself becomes easier to understand. It may be a generalizing term, but it is helping me contextualize my own ideas.

I also like his use of the term millennarianism. If we have a rupture with old cultures and we are creating something new in the postmodern world, it is only logical that a new set of rules (and a new vocabulary) will emerge with the new culture. 

Another interesting idea we discussed was related to the complacency witnessed in our current culture. With so many issues being exposed by the media, it is hard to stay active and motivated. Sometimes I view that as an strategy to keep individuals apathetic… We are so overexposed to dire images that staying positive (or even being enraged and moved) becomes nearly impossible. 

One of the new terms we see in the 21st century is cyberactivism. Although the internet does allow for ideas to flow better and for people to organize movements more effectively, it also transfers these essential "fights" to the virtual real. Many of them simply stay there and do not actually affect the real world. Is cyberactivism a response to apathy or a symptom of it? The postmodern (late capitalist) world is full of questions and inconsistencies. 

The Media Machine and the Internet

   After reading Herman and Chomsky's theory on propaganda, I cannot help but feel even more frustrated with the media systems of today. I was exposed to the corruption within mass media as a freshman in CMC 100, and since then I have practiced being more critical of how the media portrays news. Even so, I am extremely bothered by the obvious systems that now make up the mass media world. The sheer control and monetary power that multinational businesses and advertisers have over print media, and the extreme influence that our governing body has over television and news media is sickening. By having such regulated ways of acquiring information about our country and the world, we are really only learning and understanding as much as these corporate and political influences want us to.
   I can't help but question though, how media outlets like Buzzfeed and HuffPost, who function strictly on the internet, fit into this equation. Of all media platforms, the internet is by far the one most resistant to censorship, and today, also seem like the ones who have the most influence. They have their own websites, but also have a huge presence on social media sites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Not only do they post current national and world news, but they also appeal to users by releasing cheeky and unconventional articles surrounding everyday life experiences that "normal" people may have, like the fact that "Clip-on Man Buns Are Here And They Absolutely Must Be Stopped" (BuzzFeed). At this point, it seems that your average consumer is somewhat wary of the news outlets and mass media, so by portraying themselves as "less than serious" compared to staunch and reputable publications like The New York Times and CNN, they are setting themselves apart and drawing a larger following. They also have an uncanny ability to produce articles in at an extremely fast rate compared to television media outlets or print media outlets. With the introduction of this new media outlet, the traditional outlets have tried to catch up and produce their own internet based media bodies though mass production of media and by reporting on "real life" situations. For example, as I scroll through my Facebook feed now, I see NBC has recently posted an article titled "Sick at School? Read Our Survival Guide For College Students." The influence of these new internet media outlets not only have given the big time media outlets a run for their money, but also has influenced them to start reporting on topics that are not considered "news".
   Although these media outlets essentially still feed off each other like traditional media outlets do, and still function off of the money brought in by advertising companies, could it be said that this infiltration of the internet could provide a way for media outlets to truly return to reporting on "real" news and not the censored reporting that they do in print and on television?

Satire: Hit or Miss

“Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness” (Horkeimer and Adorno).

I really enjoyed the class discussion that circulated around this quote, especially in regards to the growing trend of satire in contemporary entertainment.  One thing that Hania brought up in class was the concept of successful satire vs unsuccessful satire and how the public interprets the messages. Branching off of her comments, I brought up the public response to Louie CKs TV shows, Lucky Louie and Louie. Both shows embody Louie CK’s satirical comedy style in very different ways that can be attributed to the success of the shows. In an article entitled Why "Louie" is a Better Show for Louis C.K. than "Lucky Louie," Yahoo contributor Phil Dotree compares the success of each show through analyzing their individual comedic approach. In Lucky Louie, “Louie had a family, and they dealt with normal issues, albeit in a dark, funny way (and occasionally with male nudity). But Lucky Louie never really rose above its simplicity, and while it was sometimes brilliant, it often meandered into the unfunny muck that comics-turned-actors have to try desperately to avoid,” says Dotree. I believe the lack of success for Lucky Louie can very much be attributed to the way the show presented situations and straightforward crass, candid nature of the humor; it is laid on fairly thick. Years after the shows cancelation, Louie CK began his work with Louie, which has since become a wild success on FX. In regards to Louis’ success, Dotree mentioned, “…the best modern sitcoms focus on the flaws of their characters. Louie is set up to follow in that tradition, as everyone that Louie meets is an absolutely terrible human being… C.K. usually plays the straight man, but he occasionally steps out of bounds.” 

Full article: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/why-louie-better-show-louis-c-k-lucky.html?nf=1

I believe that the difference in success of Lucky Louie and Louie despite sharing some of the same comedic themes and material is a perfect example of satire done well versus poorly executed satire.

Episode 1 of Lucky Louie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCt4AaLRKqc

Clip from Louie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBqXTrWmcRU

Visibility is a Trap (And So is the Internet)

Foucault's concept of the Panopticon has always creeped me out; the first time I encountered his work was in my CMC100 class. Reading it again definitely brought back the familiar feelings of discomfort and unrest—seeing an image of this architectural idea reaffirmed my belief that though the purpose of the Panopticon is efficient, it lacks any ethicality (in my opinion, anyway) in its function.

"He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication" (Foucault 98). In any circumstances that I could imagine the Panopticon being employed would be in dystopian societies—George Orwell's 1984 comes to mind. With a watchful eye monitoring their behaviors, the residences (inhabitants? prisoners?) are more than likely to exist in complete obedience. However, the ethical dilemma lies in the fact that they live in the belief that someone is always watching their every move. In the context of an education institution, there would be "no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time" (Foucault 98). Each child works in a sort of perpetual fear that if, God forbid, that one of them turns to cross-check their answers with a peer, they are seen as and accused of cheating.

Of course, Foucault mentions that the Panopticon is not meant to be seen as a "dream building" (99). Searching 'panopticon' on Google Images brings up (a) the architectural Panopticon itself; and (b) how the Panopticon compares to technology users in modern day society. The idea that using any electronic device with access to the Internet is panoptic is eye-opening; the more time I spent thinking about it, the more I began to see the resemblance. It seems rather ironic that while the web is a (the) bank of information and is accessible to anyone with Internet access, we are not the "one [who] sees everything without every being seen" (think in terms of getting resources from the Internet and never having to leave the comfort of your reclusive lifestyle), but rather the "one [who] is totally seen" (Foucault 98). It isn't a surprise that by putting our information and data online, there is bound to be someone in the interface looking at it (and potentially taking it). My virtual activity has always been precarious, but perhaps Foucault's Panopticon is going to make me think twice about the digital age. Now I understand why some people cover their webcams with a sticky note—it's not just paranoia.

The Aristocracy of Culture

My favorite reading for this week was "The Aristocracy of Culture" by Pierre Bourdieu. While I was reading this, I couldn't help but thinking how much truth there is to what he is saying:

"...cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education: surveys establish that all cultural practices, and preferences in literature, painting, or music, are closely linked to educational level, and secondarily to social origin" (250)

"A world of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code into which it is encoded" (250)

This reminds me of a trip I took to Paris when I was 16. We went to amazing museums, churches, we saw incredible sculptures and traveled around very important historical places. At this point in my life, I was young and very culturally uneducated. I knew nothing about these art pieces and therefore, didn't get to enjoy them as I would today. I still had a great time and learned a lot about european culture, but I didn't get to fully grasp and digest everything it had to offer because I wasn't fully educated on it. I was more concerned about how pretty I looked in the profile picture I was going to upload next, rather than on how astonishing and extremely valuable the eiffel tower is -_-.

When I think back about this trip, I would have liked to do it now or even after graduating. I would know much more, and I would know specifically what I am more interested on. This is why I believe what the author says is very true! My cultural preferences have definitely changed with the progressive learning since I got to Rollins. It is crazy how education can literally change YOU: you're identity, who you are, how you define yourself. 

It is funny to me how people relate "being cultured" to traveling. Furthermore, people automatically believe I "am cultured" because I have lived in two different South American countries, have traveled around Europe and currently live in America. However, I feel like even though yes, I got to experience different cultures, I never really belonged in any of them. The fact that I have been jumping from culture to culture has definitely given me a much broader perspective and understanding on how powerful this factor is; but it has also pulled me away from experiencing a culture to the fullest and actually feeling a part of it. In my opinion, what makes me a "cultured" person is the high education I have been receiving in college. 

Nevertheless, I can't accept that college or "high education" is what determines one's level of culture-ness. There is no way that a native Ecuadorian campesino who has taken care of his crops and animals his whole life, who knows the countries resources better than anyone, who knows how the soil/weather works, who was born and raised in the real Ecuador, living like an original Ecuadorian is "less cultured" than me. This person probably has a level of cultural knowledge that I will never ever reach! No matter how many botany or agriculture classes I take...

My point is: culture cannot be defined by the degree of one's education! If this was the case, only those wealthy enough to afford it would be 'cultured'. It is much more than that...

Market Pressures and Democracy

I really enjoyed the readings for tomorrow. “A Propaganda Model” by Herman and Chomsky and “On Television” by Bourdieu reminded of many texts I read for my CMC 200 project. I think studying the influences behind media is something essential when we want to investigate whose ideologies are being exposed. 

Bourdieu’s text (especially) reminded me of McChesney’s theory on democracy and journalism. For McChesney, journalism has (or should have) a watchdog function. It should keep tabs on those who are in power. Therefore, a journalistic environment where newspaper cannot effectively do their job without capitalist and market pressures hinder democracy. The author argues that, currently in the US, our legislation towards media and the free market system (which helps big media corporations) are harmful for democracy. 

I like that Bourdieu calls attention to the advertisers/media conglomerates' arguments concerning the rating system (part of the problem in creating democratic media). He states, “The audience rating system can and should be contested in the name of democracy.” I would go farther to say that the entire system should be contested at this point. 

In his theory, McChesney also calls attention to the conservative discourse of “let the audience pick what they want.” However, the truth is that, with the mass media’s scope and influence, they can train the audience to want their crappy material. As we often see in media studies, companies and advertisers create consumers since an early age (and they also create passive viewers).

Another fact that could dispute the conservative discourse comes from the Herman and Chomsy reading. The articles shows data that points to an alarming scenario. Even though the Herald had an incredible readership, it was taken out of circulation because of market pressures. Hence, the readers wanted  that material. However, the free market system failed in providing them with what they wanted (something that the free market boasts about being “able” to do).

McChesney has several interesting practical proposals to change this scenario. I think it is interesting that Bourdieu calls his change ideas “utopia.” I do believe that as critics we should stay positive. We should not only criticize, but also look for change. In McChesney’s case, he advocated for pluralistic media to be regarded as a basic human right and as a necessity for democracy. He believes a model such as the British one (BBC), where tax money goes to several media, could provide space for journalists and other media producers to create material without being caged to market pressures. He believes that would engender more diversity in content. 

I am not sure if that model would be successful in the US, but I do believe it is worth to explore other alternatives to our current system.

If anyone is interested in McChesney, I highly recommend this book as a starter.

The Ideology of Higher Education

 Since the beginning of my CMC journey here at Rollins, the concept of ideologies has always been one that both fascinates and frustrates me. Once I had been exposed to these ideologies, and the way that ideologies manifest within my own life, it seems there is also no way of escaping them, no matter how aware I am of them. Whether this be what I find fashionable the fall, or whether this be how I view my own body, ideologies have completely formulated me as a person in this society. Now that I have been exposed to this though, I at least take comfort in recognizing that the way I live my life is constructed, rather than naively living under the impression that I am actually making my own decisions. The ideologies that continue to frustrate me and confuse me the most though, would be those that determine what a "proper" education should be, whether this simply be a grade school education or relate to a higher level of education.
   Before coming to college, I had no idea what to look for in a school or education. I am the first person in my family to attend any institution for higher education, so I felt that the best way to go about it would be to do it by the books; get the best grades in high school so I can attend the best, most expensive private school I can find, as far away from home as possible, in an attempt to receive the best education possible in the hopes to eventually obtain the most satisfying and prosperous career track possible, as I was taught by not only my parents, but also by my high school and by my community. I say this with an admiration for Rollins, truly. I know we spent a large chunk of time this week critiquing the subcultures of this institution, but it would be wrong of me to critique this place without first expressing how immensely it has impacted and changed, not only my life, but myself as a person. That's the purpose of higher education, right? Or so we're told. Children, from the time the enter middle school, are taught that pursuing a college education is the best way to truly achieve the "American Dream" but, living in a country where a large percentage of its citizens collectively own trillions upon trillions of dollars in student loans, is it really right to set these aspirations in the minds of young children? I am one of these citizens; a person that has bought into the idea that the more you spend on a college education the more it will bring you in the future, simply because that is what society has taught me to believe. Society has taught me that education has a price tag, and that certain kinds of educations from certain kinds of institutions are valued moreso than others, but in reality, that is not necessarily true. There is certainly merit in receiving a degree of higher education, but I believe that because education is now such a critical piece to the "American Dream" stepping ladder, we forget to question whether this determined collegiate path is actually one that will benefit us in the future. I have many friends now, who have also begun to question this and try to step outside of this ideology by attending state schools and community colleges for their education in the hopes of not joining those of us swallowed by student debt. Even then, they are still attending college because the common ideology set forth within this country is that college = job, when for decades before us, people where making it and breaking it regardless of whether they were educated past high school or not.
   As I begin to enter this next chapter of my life and look towards undergraduate graduation, I can't help but think about the impending loan payments that are also going to define this next chapter of my life, and a little part of me can't help but wonder whether the decisions that "I" made in terms of my education, are really going to pay off in the long run or not. Consumerism and the ideologies associated with it, has spread its influences into the higher education system, and has now made it impossible to refuse this ideology if one wants to survive into the future financially. But as I think now, I look to the position my boyfriend has saddled himself in. Having graduated high school and received an education from the Army Reserves, he currently sits comfortably and happily in a management position for Apple, in which he makes more an hour than most college graduates will receive in their entire lifetime. Of all the things that my college education has definitely given me, financial stability is not one of them. So, as much as Rollins has done for me these past three years, I also, as a CMC student, sit here and question whether this will truly be worth it in the end.

Hot Topic: Making Childhoods Cringe-Worthy

I am a huge sucker for fan merchandise, and I can't deny it. Somewhere in my room stands two figurines of Scully and Cosima; in my closet hangs a cut-up The Pixies shirt; Ron Swanson and Halsey stickers are stuck on each side of my laptop. After having been to Hot Topic for the first time a couple of months ago, I couldn't help but feel like I had discovered heaven. It was a store dedicated to selling band t-shirts and merchandise from multiple TV shows I watch—it certainly made the angsty, 14-year-old me very excited.

On the day before Halloween, my friend and I ventured to the Hot Topic at Altamonte Mall for a quick visit. At the very entrance of the shop was a large table catered specifically towards Harry Potter fans, with significantly more merchandise for Gryffindor and Slytherin than the other two houses (what were their names again?). Seeing this shrine-like display reminded me strongly of an article I had read last year in CMC 200 about the commodification of fetishism. I realized that shopping here was the equivalent of satiating the obsessive fan of various different fandoms—Hot Topic commodified subcultural signs, effectively making profit by simply printing images from the Internet onto different types of clothing items.

Jonny mentioned in class that Hot Topic was the perfect place for people-watching, because it was the place for "alternative" people to shop. A ThoughtCatalog user (who wrote an article about being 30 and still shopping at Hot Topic) deemed their fashion as "countercultural drag," a look that went against the normal, the "basic." Considering the fact that Hot Topic converts subcultural signs into the mainstream, calling Hot Topic fashion "countercultural" feels ironic. The mass production of Gryffindor sweaters and 90's choker necklaces completely erases the "counter" from "countercultural," because retrospectively, Hot Topic is a culture itself. Being immersed in the Hot Topic culture was like reliving my early high school days—I wore my self-proclaimed title as the "Alternative Kid" with misplaced pride. Needless to say, the 14-year-old me was much more mainstream than I had taught myself to believe. If I could go back in time and tell my younger self to stop wearing those fingerless gloves and avoid from razored haircuts, I most definitely would.

Jameson rant

I found the reading of Fredric Jameson to be extremely interesting, but pretty difficult to fully grasp…and I’m still not sure that I completely understand all of it 100%! At times, Benjamin’s piece “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” kept popping up in my head (with regards to authenticity and reproduction) and I just can’t get over how we are basically now living in a culture with no more avant gardism. That to me is crazy. We now live in a society where no one can come up with something avant garde. In a sense, it doesn’t exist anymore because it simply does not affect us like it used to. Of course yes it does exist still, it just doesn’t have the impact on us like it used to have on society.

Jameson also talks a great amount about architecture and describes it as a kind of “aesthetic populism.” He states, “It is in the realm of architecture, however, that modifications in aesthetic production are most drastically visible…” What he is saying here is that postmodernism is extremely noticeable in architecture. This obviously made me think immediately about Jenck’s theologies and how architecture displays a number of postmodern attributes. I had never really thought in depth about how much architecture can truly tell us—now I know why we critically look at it so often J 

Another quote in the reading that I really struggled with but found very interesting once I unpacked it was when Jameson mentions “…let it suffice now to observe that here too depth is replaced by surface, or by multiple surfaces…” and I think what he is saying here is that as a society we are driven by want instead of need. Therefore craving the newest and fastest product, which of course relates to the cult of the new.