The Mental Production of the Food Industry

Marx and Engels speak about how the ideals of the ruling class become the ruling ideas, because the group that controls the material forces of a society also controls the intellectual forces of that culture. They state that “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production” (Marx & Engels 39). I was recently having a conversation with my friends about the food industry and how the rich CEOs of the industry are connected to high-up members of our government, and because of this, the most unhealthy and most processed food that is sold in our country is the cheapest, while freshly made, organically grown food is much more expensive. There are harmful chemicals going into our food, and people who have lower income cannot afford to avoid these substances because they do not have enough money to spend on organic, healthy food. The convenience and cheapness of fast food, paired with the expensiveness of food that is actually healthy and a povery-level minimum wage, forces low-income families to compromise their health and put harmful chemicals and un-nutritious food into their bodies. The wealthy CEOs of the food industry, who are connected to the government, are able to alter our food however they please, raking in millions while the poor have to eat the cheapest food available because there are few regulations in place regarding food. The food industry, being so intertwined with the U.S. government, has prevented much in the way of food regulation, and because of this, the less wealthy suffer. However, they present their interest as that of the common good, benefitting all members of society, with advertisements showing their “contributions” to society, such as McDonald’s Ronald McDonald House charity. McDonald’s, a corporation that has billionaire CEOs, is a huge contributor to obesity in the United States, yet it paints itself as doing good for society. This is not atypical of fast food corporations, which are doing much more harm than good. The promotion of the processed, un-nutritious fast food that is produced throughout the United States is an example of how the wealthy and influential rule our ideologies through their material influence.

    Also, if anyone hasn't seen Food, Inc. yet, you definitely should! It is extremely eye-opening regarding the food industry and the corporations behind it. It's pretty graphic though, so just a warning, but it truly opened my eyes to how we as consumers are taken advantage of and led not to question the food industry and the chemicals put in our food. The film discusses the genetic modification and poor nutrition of animals that are raised for slaughter and consumption, and how this is bad not only for these animals' quality of life, but also for us humans who are consuming them. It also talks about how involved in the government many food corporations are, which affects legislation made regarding food. This film inspired me to go vegetarian because of its powerful message and fact-based arguments (although that only lasted about six months, haha).

This photo shows the evolution of the genetic modification and poor nutrition of chickens that are being raised for slaughter; chickens in 1950 used to be much healthier, and were fed grass and other food that chickens are supposed to eat. They also had a much longer lifespan and were killed to be eaten later in their life. Today, however, chickens have been bred to be fatter so that they yield more meat; they are extremely unhealthy because of this, and because they are fed only corn, which is not all that they should be eating. This is messed up, people!!!! Marx and Engels were (unfortunately) right!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

The Disneyfication of my Childhood

According to my parents, for a full year of my early childhood, I would watch The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh every single day. I grew up surrounded by Disney; my childhood was extremely Disney-ified, as I owned dozens of Disney VHS tapes and countless Disney stuffed animals and toys; the first movie I ever saw in theaters was A Bug's Life. This seems not to have been outside of the norm. In fact, it is often considered strange for a person in my generation not to have seen a classic Disney movie such as The Little Mermaid or The Lion King. Dorfman and Mattelart talk about Disney as “the inviolable common cultural heritage of contemporary man” and “the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other” (Dorfman & Mattelart 110). In the Western world, everyone knows and loves the classic Disney characters; they have become so entrenched in our culture that we don’t even realize it. Every child has his or her favorite Disney movie and character, and every kid dreams of someday making the pilgrimage to the Great American Holy Land, Disney World. Disneyfication is prevalent in our society, as Disney is the largest media conglomerate in the world, and is both horizontally and vertically integrated into our culture, with theme parks, Disney stores selling an array of Disney products, and Disney’s control over programming such as ABC, ABC Family, ESPN, Disney Channel, and other television channels, as well as its purchase of Marvel Comics and Star Wars.
    It is impossible for me to fathom a world in which Disney does not exist, and honestly, I don’t think that I would want to live in that world. Although I am aware of Disney’s imposition of its values and ideals upon impressionable children, Disney did help shape my childhood. Maybe it’s because I grew up surrounded by Disney and cannot step outside of its ideology, but my childhood memories mostly involve some aspect of Disney. While I know Disney commodifies childhood nostalgia by selling tickets to its theme parks and merchandise with our most beloved characters on them, I still succumb to it, and I admit that I will probably never outgrow the “happiest place on Earth.”

Horkheimer & Adorno Featuring Holiday Knockoffs

        The holiday season so far this year has reminded me of Horkheimer and Adorno, as they said that “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” (Horkheimer & Adorno 43). While we perceive that some brand name items are “better” than others, ultimately all similar products have the same function. We are just told that one pair of shoes is more valuable than the other because of the brand name behind it, but when we go to wear those shoes, they function the same as any other shoe. Horkheimer and Adorno also talk about the standardized forms; everything is so similar now that we can manufacture goods on such a large scale, and brand-name items are no different from their department store-brand counterparts. “Knockoff” items are an interesting concept, because they operate on the notion that a “fake” brand-name item is just as good as a real one; nothing really differentiates them because they both have the same brand-name label. Knockoff items are also interesting because many people who buy them believe that they are more intelligent than those who buy the “real thing,” which may be true, as they are spending less money on a product that has the same function. However, these people are still feeding into the hype of the brand-name, as they are buying something that has that label on it and contributing to the influence of the brand, and to the overall sameness and uniformity of the market.
        Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the lack of diversity in our products is a negative thing, and I agree. The similarity in the products that we consume in the culture industry is concerning, as everything seems to be a copy of something else. Horkheimer and Adorno talk about how these standardized froms were originally taken from the consumers’ needs, but they are now what is given to us by the culture industry; the culture industry tells us what products we want and need. This is why an expensive designer bag is more desirable than a knockoff of the same quality; we are told that it is better when it really isn’t. We are fooled into thinking that the brand-name purse is more glamorous than one that costs $39 and can be found at Target, but that looks exactly the same. The culture industry dictates what is desirable and what is not, which allows for some designers to gain influence, fame and money while others make a fraction of that amount because their products are not considered to be as desirable.

A Trip to Disney With the Masses

When I went to Disney this year, I could not get over the fact that, throughout the day, after nearly every ride I was dumped into a gift shop, and if I wasn’t, I was encouraged to buy a photo of myself and my friends on the ride. Disney is extremely skilled in making sure that families spend a ridiculous amount of money while in the park, adding to the small fortune that they spend by staying at Disney hotels, eating Disney food, and of course, spending time in the Disney parks. There are gift shops everywhere, and they are themed to the land in which they are located, so as to attract the little girl who just rode the Little Mermaid ride to ask her parents for a princess costume, or to get the little boy who just rode on Pirates of the Caribbean to ask for a toy sword. This is the genius of Disney; making parents tired and irritated by walking through the parks all day, and then showing their children new toys that they could have is a recipe for disaster. No parent is going to want to endure the annoyance and humiliation of their child having a nuclear meltdown in the middle of a gift shop, so they reluctantly buy the toy.
This connects to Horkheimer and Adorno’s assertion that “to be entertained means to be in agreement” (Horkheimer & Adorno 57). As guests of Disney World, we agree to be herded into lines, moved off of the streets during parades, and be taken through gift shops in order to exit a ride. What also struck me as ridiculous when I was at Disney World was that for the fireworks show, there are now “special viewing areas” where people pay to stand and watch the fireworks for a “better” view. I realized that Disney has considered every avenue of commodification; they figured out how to make people pay to watch a show that is complimentary with park admission. Yet we agree to this, and thousands of people pay for these “special viewing areas” in the hopes that their families will get a better experience than they otherwise would have. This option to buy makes us feel as if we are in control, when we are really only feeding into the agreement and the consumerism. Disney World, though intricately masked as an amusement park, is just one huge advertisement for Disney characters and Disney merchandise, and while I still love going there and I’ll still admit that I have favorite characters and movies, I am now able to visit Disney World with a more critical eye.

Walter Benjamin and Medieval Memes

Walter Benjamin’s writing has been what I have identified with most in this course so far; he states that it is not sacreligious to reproduce a work of art, and I believe that is true. Art is reproducible, and this is what makes it art. While the reproduction may detract from the aura of the original work, Benjamin believes that it adds to the authority of the reproductions. When a piece of art is reproduced, it becomes more accessible, and in our currently globalized culture, it is essential for a piece of art to be accessible via the Internet, as well as by other venues. This is true with memes; there is a new meme that uses the reactions of people in Renaissance and Medieval paintings and gives them modern captions. This meme brings to light many works of art that were originally produced hundreds of years ago, but that would not have reached such a large audience had they not been reproduced and distributed on the Internet. While the original images gain more circulation, they also begin to lose their meaning (Benjamin talks about this as the “aura” of the piece) as new meanings are created with each new reproduction. Rather than seeking out the piece by making a pilgrimage to see the original, Internet users happen upon it while browsing the Internet and consume it with the new meaning. This can lead to further reproductions with different meanings as the meme gains popularity. Had these paintings from the Renaissance and Medieval times not been reproduced and distributed via the Internet, they would not have gained the popularity and influence that they have now.
The Renaissance and Medieval painting reaction memes demonstrate Benjamin’s idea of the work of art being reproducible. Memes are fundamentally reproducible, and, as Benjamin describes with reproduction of art, they change the meaning of the original through establishing their own meaning. Like the below image, many use modern day song lyrics and slang overlaid on the old images, creating humor through juxtaposition.

He's So Pretty for a White Guy

Out of all the theorists we studied through the semester, my favorite is Bell Hooks. Reading Eating the Other was altogether a weird feeling—I, an Other, am reading an essay about how the dominant Others the rest. The manner that Hooks presents the idea of the Other as an exotica, a form of escapism almost for the norm, is especially fascinating to me. On page 312, Hooks states that it is "the ever present reality of racist domination, of white supremacy, that renders problematic the desire of white people to have contact with the Other." This reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend just recently; we discussed the notion, or rather the problem, of Asian fetishism. I have heard plenty of people claim that they are exempt from racism because they "like Asians and only Asians," or because they are currently dating one. My friend mentioned having been hit on multiple times by Caucasian men, stating that she is "cute and pretty for an Asian." Hearing this made me think of how I describe certain things in life — my neighbor's dog is tame for a Rottweiler, she is modest despite her affluence, the scarf is cheap for a brand name product. Does this mean that the typical Asian is the opposite of cute and pretty?

Society is full of binaries and stereotypes, some of which have become so ingrained that it has become instinctual. The dynamics between my non-Asian, non-CMC friend is interesting to me. While I am more aware of my race in public settings (such as when we are at the mall) and how Asians are represented in media ("Sure, of course the Asian is the first one to die!"), she rarely ever pays attention to this. In a previous class, standpoint epistemology was brought up and discussed. When we are marginal, our critical outlook is much sharper — while I am more conscious about issues regarding my race, the same friend is similarly conscious about issues regarding her gender. In both cases, we are part of the minority. A character devoid of any minority status—a white, educated, abled white male who is a part of the upper-middle class—would seemingly have a weak critical outlook, if at all. Then again, you never really hear someone say "Wow, he's really attractive for someone who's white," do you?

Foucault and the Milgram Experiment

   After reading the excerpt from Foucault's Discipline and Punishment, I was really struck by the realities he presented on how compliant we are to the authority "figures" within society. Until now, I had never thought about why I behave a certain way or follow certain rules, but just do so because I was taught to. There are certain rules within society that we don't question, especially those enforced by the justice system. But, as Foucault points out, what are we truly afraid of? Or rather, who is it that has conditioned us to behave in the ways that we do, and to consider certain behaviors, misbehaving? The idea of a faceless warden watching over us all kind of gives me the creeps, but in reality that is truly how our society keeps itself in check. The authoritative powers of our society have conditioned us to be afraid of disobeying them, even though we really can't be sure who is our authority figure and why we should be afraid to disobey them. Obviously, there are federal and state governmental bodies that allow us to put a face to these authoritative bodies, but really, aren't they also governed by some sort of authority as well? We feel comfortable in having a person and system to blame our behaviors on, but really, who is telling us to act that ways we do?
   This work reminded me a lot of a study I learned about in my Psychology 101 class freshman year; the Milgram experiment. During this experiment, volunteers were labeled as "teachers" and "learners", and then placed in separate rooms. Then, an "authority figure" who was never identified as a scientist, but wore a lab coat, asked the "learner" questions. If the learner got a question wrong, the "teacher"was then asked to deliver different levels of electric shock to the "learned" depending on how many questions they answered wrong. Even though the "teachers" knew they may be inflicting pain on another person, they continues to administer the electric shocks because of the authority figure, even though the authority figure was not a real authority figure within the experiment, but was believed to be simply because of their appearance (luckily, these "teachers" were not actually shocked but instead were informed of the experiment and made convincing sounds so the "teacher" would assume they were actually being hurt). Because we are not able to put a true face to authority, we look for signs of authority that we have learned to associate with authority figures, but because someone represents these signs does not mean that they have authority. Here is the danger that lies within the authoritative systems of our society; we rely on authority to tell us how to act, but in reality, we really can't put a true definition to this authority or the methods behind it. "Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance," and through this unknown authoritative figure, we allow our actions to be governed without question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM