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.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
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.
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.
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?
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
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
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
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.
Monday, November 23, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)