Post Class Blog 12/3

   Today in class we discussed the idea of the Panopticon. The Panopticon is an architectural design in which there is a guard chamber surrounded by the prison cells. It is unknown whether there is actually a guard in the tower, but the paranoia around there being a guard in the chamber is enough to make the prisoners fall in line. I have learned about the idea in the past and the first thing that came to mind for me is the idea of Santa Claus. Children from an early age understand there to be a Santa Claus or a jolly old man who gives presents to good little boys and girls. The reason I thought of Santa is because when I was little my mom and dad would remind me throughout the year that Santa is always watching and marking down whether I was a good little girl or not. As a child, I believed that Santa always had eyes on me even if I couldn’t necessarily understand or see how. I was told he was watching and believed it. This is similar to the Panopticon because Santa is like the guard who may or may not be there. By being told you are being watched and that your Christmas presents are on the line for if you are good or not instils a paranoia in one’s self. This paranoia then encourages children to “fall in line” or to act a certain way because they will then be rewarded with presents. Children then act as if they are being watched all the time even if they are not because they are so paranoid that they are being watched. I thought this was an interesting example of the panopticon at work in young children’s lives. I had never really thought about Santa being compared to a prison guard before but it is true that children like the prisoners always believe they are being watched and act a certain way whether they see the guard or Santa in real life.

Post Class Blog 12/2

 “Only other bureaucracies can satisfy the input needs of a news bureaucracy”

A bureaucracy is a government system which is controlled by state officials rather than elected representatives. This quote is saying that our news is not controlled by the general population, but rather controlled by a bureaucracy. It is filtered to be what the government wants us to see. This idea is played out in many blockbuster films today. A great example of this notion that comes to mind is the government that is portrayed in the Hunger Games trilogy series. There are twelve districts in the society with one capital. The capital and the president control the districts. It is key to mention that the president and capital officials were not elected by the people. One thing in particular they controlled was the news outlet. The people only saw what the government wanted them to see. The people thought that there was no world outside of the districts because that is what the government showed them. They also thought that none of the other districts were suffering because the news outlet only showed people happy and content with their lives. The president controlled the people because he controlled what they believed. He made them think that the way he was ruling their society was the best possible way. This is what Herman and Chomsky were getting at when they made this point about the news being bureaucracy and controlled by bureaucracies. While we do not live in the Hunger Games community, we do have news that is filtered. When the government wants us to turn our attention away from a topic, it races to discredit a source and make it seem fake when in actuality it is not fake. We need to recognize this is happening in our world, so we can pay attention to the news that does not get as much attention because that news could be real. I am not saying to believe everything we hear, but am saying we should be more cautious of what we believe to be true because the main sources of our media are controlled by the government and what they want us to see.

12/1 Pre Class Blog- Bourdieu and News

 “Our news anchors, our talk show hosts, and our sports announcers have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social prob” (Bourdieu)

This quote was the most impactful to me as I read through Bourdieu’s deconstruction of our media landscape. Though Bordieu wrote in a time before social media, many of his conclusions are still applicable to our modern media landscape. In this quote specifically, Bourdieu discusses how the masses only care about/ talk about the issues made aware to them by the media. I would take it one step further than what Bourdieu writes and say the news organizations itself. Depending on the program, news anchors, sports announcers, and talk show hosts don’t have control over what they talk about; the writers and producers do. I do agree that late-night Talk show hosts like Jimmy Fallon, Trevor Noah, and Lily Singh have more control over the material that they talk about. However, a normal news anchor does not have as much control over what they talk about.

Bourdieu’s idea connects back to Marx and Engels, who writes “Each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled…to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society… it has to give its ideas the form of universality (Marx and Engels). The news anchors, talk shows hosts, and sports announcers want us to be worried about what they are worried about. For example, American news stations will focus highly on American politics. Left-wing sources like CNN will focus on the problems/ corruptions in the Republican party and right-wing sources like Fox News will focus on corruption in the Democratic party. However, few news sources have covered the persecution and imprisonment of Uyghur Muslims and Christians in China. This issue is just as important (arguably more important) than some of the petty political squabbles occurring in the United States. But, we don’t talk about it BECAUSE our news anchors, talk show hosts, and sports announcers do not.

Picture of the "re-education" camps in China

Jane Denson, 11/19

        Last week's discussion of nostalgia, as mentioned by Jameson, got me thinking about the notion that we have nostalgia for not only the past, but also the present. In other words, we are missing something from our present, which would explain how pop culture texts from today draw upon the past. This sense of longing for what we used to have and attempting to recreate it in a way that fits into the mold of the present manifests almost everywhere. From my experience, I have seen this primarily through music and television. To add on to what talked about in class, I have observed this phenomenon in pop music the most, specifically from artists like Meghan Trainor and Lady Gaga. Trainor is often credited with a retro-futuristic style and sound, usually utilizing brassy horns (that are reminiscent of old jazz music) and fusing that sound with modern pop rhythms to produce what we know as "All About That Bass," for example. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, just released an album earlier this year called Chromatica, which appears to be nostalgic of the '80s with its electro-pop dance tracks, most notably "Stupid Love" and "Rain On Me." However, Jameson's ideas surrounding this topic are not limited to artists' music, since they even seep into their aesthetics too. Look at Ariana Grande for instance. I've noticed that some of her music videos, fragrance ads, social media posts, etc. appear to emulate or reflect the aesthetics of the 1940s-60s or late 1990s, which is so fascinating because I know she has nostalgia for pop culture during those eras and comes from a Broadway background where they were heavily appreciated. After observing all of the nods and homages to the past in practically every form of media, it becomes clear that we, as humans, tend to experience nostalgia rather naturally. Jameson's perspective on this matter certainly indicates that we indeed encounter present nostalgia, since it is so common to feel like a piece of the current moment is missing, which is never directly addressed by anyone.

Post Class Blog 11/19/20

     Today in class during our discussion of Fredric Jameson, we talked about the term “nostalgia.” We started out by defining nostalgia as a wishful longing for the past. This is the dictionary definition of nostalgia and what most people think of when they think of nostalgia. Jameson has a different approach to nostalgia and creates the idea of “present nostalgia.” Present nostalgia means that a person feels as if something is missing in the present. They are nostalgic for the thing that is missing. When thinking of the common definition of nostalgia, the media can create nostalgia for past places even if they have not been experienced by someone personally. An example that I brought up during class was Little House on the Prairie. When I was younger, I watched the show and read all of the books. I wished to be able to experience living back then. I was nostalgic for a past time period that I had not personally experienced, but wished to. The media creates nostalgia for the past, but also for the present. The media can make people nostalgic for the present by showing people what is missing from their lives. This is especially true of social media influencers. They present their lives as being perfect because of the material things they promote online. They come across as saying that if people just wear this or have this thing then their lives will improve. They make people think that material things are missing from their present lives and make them nostalgic for these material objects said to improve their lives. I have definitely had experiences where I think my life will improve if I mirror the lifestyle of an influencer. I believe what most people do not understand is that social media influencers only show us what they want us to see. They are not perfect because of the material objects they promote. We need to recognize this and not continuously become nostalgic for their lifestyles. We need to learn to be present without always wishing for something more or believing something is missing. It is okay to be nostalgic every once in a while, but it should not be a daily occurrence or people will never enjoy life.

post class blog 11/12

 The discussion of the democracy of the radio in class was really interesting to me. Radio held an important role in my grandparents or even my parents life. But in my current social circle most people that I know have abandoned the radio for the sake of Apple CarPlay where they can play whatever music they desire in the moment. It makes me wonder if the younger generations who are losing the importance of the radio are also losing the impact of that democratized reverent for a more individualized view on music.

Which then begs the question of where meaning comes from for the music if the community creates meaning and a community is no longer sharing the experience of radio play of songs? I'm not sure if I know the answer yet but it's an interesting line of thought.

Pre-class blog 11/19

“Another reason for the heavy weight given to official sources is that the mass media claim to be ‘objective’ dispensers of the news. Partly to maintain the image of objectivity, but also to protect themselves from criticisms of bias and the threat of libel suits, they need material that can be portrayed as presumptively accurate.”

Almost paradoxically, corporate news media claims to be objective while the general public claims it is too left leaning. If this were true, though, then a more overtly leftist candidate like Bernie Sanders would have done very well during this election cycle. Instead, popular media outlets preferred to talk about Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, doing little to no work to battle the idea of Sanders as a radical leftist candidate. In reality, Sanders beliefs are not far off from what would be considered centrist in a Western European nation. He is far from the image of a totalitarian communist leader that popular right media endlessly peddled during his campaign.

The Overton window in America so far right, that anything a bit left of center seems radical. This is all part of the propaganda machine in America that keeps the corporations that own the media in power. By quashing anything that questions whether unfettered capitalism is the best way of handling our world, people will unquestioningly continue to put money in these corporations’ pockets. For instance, when solutions to the climate crisis are proposed, we often hear of individualized solutions, such as driving less, buying reusable products, buying products that are certified to be environmentally friendly, and using less electricity. What is rarely brought up is less suburbs to reduce driving, funding public transportation, and the idea that buying less things is already an environmentally friendly act in itself. Consumption is presented as the solution to every problem, from environmental crises to racism to exploited workers in 3^rd world countries. To solve racism, we are told to vote with our wallets and shop from businesses that supposedly promote equality (whether the efforts are truly there is not to be discussed). To help exploited workers, we just need to buy from brands that pledge to help the very workers they exploit. We are taught that we can shop and consume our way out of a crisis, when endless consumption is the primary reason we are in them.

11/17 Post Class Blog- Jameson and "New" Products

 

“Frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods” (Jameson)

Today in class, we started to discuss the impacts of Jameson’s thoughts on our culture. Jameson discusses how we are always flooded with a collection of “new” goods in the market: new clothing styles, new cookware, new films. However, many of these “new” goods are recycled versions of what we already have, reinforcing a cyclical fashion.

His assertions connect back to Habermas and the concept of “cult of the new.” Habermas argues that we are drawn to new things, even if they are not truly new. The idea of the object being new is more compelling than an actually new.

As a consumer in the United States, I am constantly exposed to the “novel-seeming goods” in the marketplace. Activewear is a particular place that I shop in since I workout a ton. Brands like Gymshark and Lululemon will drop new collections, but many of the leggings they release are similar or even the same to what they have released before. There will be a slight tweak in the cut of the legging, the fabric, the seams or another small detail, and they will then re-brand the legging as something new. However, there is a lot of hype that goes around these releases, often leading to them selling out within the first day they are released. Though the leggings are not that different than what they already have, the novel value of these new leggings make consumers want to buy them. Gymshark will continue to release these new (but not really new) leggings because it works for them economically and they are able to market their new collections as selling out fast. Thus, the cycle of urgent continues to push Gymshark to make minor tweaks to their products, which then urges other companies to do the same.

One of Gymsharks' most popular leggings that has been re-released a couple different times

11/19 Pre Class Blog

 “A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who posses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded. The conscious or unconscious implementation of explicit or implicit schemes of perception and appreciation which constitutes pictorial or musical culture is the hidden condition for recognizing the style’s characteristics of a period, a school or an author, and, more generally, fro the familiarity with the internal logic of works that aesthetic enjoyment presupposes.” (Bourdieu, 250)

This quote, as well as the reading, is talking about the gatekeeping that goes on within our culture. If you are not surrounded by a specific cultural artifact, then you might not have the cultural competence to understand it. For example, the theater is something that is considered very high culture in the United States. That is because the tickets for theater is often very expensive and inconvenient for many people. Thus, not as many low to middle-class people go to see performances. However, in the UK, theatre is much more accessible and seen as more of common art. Theatre in the UK is also federally funded, thus theaters are able to lower their ticket prices in order to have more people come and see shows. So, when people who don’t have access to these cultural artifacts, they don’t know how to “encode” the culture in front of them. The price, in essence, is gatekeeping theater from a mass audience. In Cinema and Modernism last semester, we discussed the concept of “high culture” and “Low culture.” What we deem as either of these changes as the cultural paradigm shifts. Though I argue that theatre is considered High culture in both the UK and the US, the theater is seen as a “higher” culture due to its lack of accessibility. 

Pre Class Post 11/17/20 N.S.

Herman & Chomsky write an eye-opening piece that goes beyond anything we could imagine in the United States. The land of the free? Who really knows? We are existing in a time where all of our decisions on a daily basis are completely being controlled and manipulated by the mass media. As the authors put it, "the media serve the ends of a dominant elite" (Herman, Chomsky, 2012, p. 204). This is entirely true due to the fact that politics in almost every country is driven by wealth, and wealth is the single key to power. Yes, people can use their voices and knowledge to obtain much power, but to make decisions, people must acquire an incentive, and a monetary incentive is as good as it gets for all parties involved. Thinking globally, people interpret the news "objectively" and sometimes remain an unbiased opinion. The only contingency to this is that the media has too many, "filters" as Herman and Chomsky put it. For the average American, most people are seen as either the middle or working classes. These classes and caste system are not fully educated on these media outlets that are being fed through them each day by deception. As a constant theme in this class, we understand the false realities of the 'free world' as we. know it. Media is one of the most profitable investments one can make at the starting point of the technological boom that arose in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and beyond. The exponential growth of basic media and news can reach every corner of the globe. Again, the point about this caste system in the U.S. is a major flaw that was basically started by the founding fathers who put certain people in power for exponential generations to come by this unforeseen domino effect. It almost seems as if we have new founding fathers (the 1%). These are the individuals are, "the large media companies all do business with commercial and investment bankers, obtaining lines of credit and loans, and receiving advice and service in selling stock and bond issues and in dealing with acquisition opportunities and takeover threats. Banks and other institutional investors are also large owners of media stock" (Herman, Chomsky, 2012, p. 208). Thus far I have really only discussed ties between banks and the media. I have not even scratched the surface of how governments interfere, intercept, and manipulate. This is another filter that is directly linked to the monetary filters. Policymakers need support and advocates and the media is how they manipulate the general population's minds on trying to understand what is in the majority's best interest or to rephrase what is in the best interest of the status of the government's reelection. Reelection is what gives the banks and other driving forces the incentive to make more due to the policies that are presented. The media should have an agenda that is right and fair for all classes and people that are embedded within the nation. There are enough manipulators and figure heads of corruption and deceit. How do we put an end to these systemic patterns? 

"This trend toward greater integration of the media into the market system has been accelerated by the loosening of rules limiting media concentration, cross-ownership, and control by non-media companies" (Hermand, Chomsky, 2012, p. 208). 

Evie, Herman & Chomsky

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explore the issues that arise from mass media in their piece “A Propaganda Hotel.” Mass media is controlled by systematic propaganda. On top of that, there is a “monopolistic control” over media which includes official censorship that serves the dominant elite. While the media may portray themselves as advocates for free speech and general interest of the community, they are in reality agents for propaganda. 

One point I found disturbing from this piece is that “These twenty-four companies are large, profit-seeking corporations, owned and controlled by quite wealthy people.” In this quote, Herman and Chomsky are talking about the media giants that make up the top tier of media companies in the United States. What is so interesting about this comment is that the wealthy owners depict what the media covers and that content is purely motivated by profitability. The more money one has, the more influence one has over what is being released to the general public. Since media is so prevalent in our day-to-day lives, this statement is highly concerning. 

In addition, “Large corporate advertisers on television will rarely sponsor programs that engage in serious criticism of corporate activities, such as the problem of environmental degradation, the workings of the military-industrial complex, or corporate support of benefits from Third World tyrannies.” Since money is so influential in the success of media corporations, advertisements are essential to the well being of a company. The fact that advertisers are more willing to sponsor light programs than serious or controversial ones is detrimental to our society. The media has a duty to our society to open our eyes to real world issues, however, we are instead fed material that has been filtered through wealthy, powerful people. Therefore, the dominant elite have the ability to control the information that we are being fed; media for the people has become an illusion as money governs what knowledge we have access to.

Jane Denson, 11/12

        Last class' discussion of the culture industry helped me better understand Horkheimer and Adorno's theories and place them in the context of everyday life in the eyes of the consumer. As someone who likes to question the validity or motives of the media, especially in regards to the entertainment industry, I am constantly wondering about what effects the sameness found within our culture has on the masses. From my experience, technology has stood out as such a prominent example of these theorists' ideas in motion. If you think about it, every type of technological invention, mainly cellphones and computers, is the same as the rival brand. What's interesting here is the word brand. While yes, every product is practically the same with slight variations, which goes across every competitor, it must be recognized that the branding each company manifests is crucial when attempting to achieve success. I've always noticed this with Apple and their variously new gadgets, as well as regurgitated devices (that come in all sizes). Clearly, their branding is powerful and tied to market share, in addition to image. Perhaps that's also why they offer multiple colors for their phones and cases. People want to see the Apple logo in divergent shades of each color. Horkheimer and Adorno's analyses provide so much insight into phenomenons like this one that bleed into every facet of consumerism in our capitalistic society. Going further, you could easily note that apps follow this same social paradigm and all copy one another with their designs/features. To illustrate this, simply look at how Instagram and FaceBook emulated Snapchat's "story" feature. This is one of numerous instances where the sense of "repackaging" is abundantly clear to consumers, yet they still buy into it. However, studies have shown the addictive nature of these apps and the impact they continue to have on one's psyche, which would adequately explain how easy it is for companies to fool us into engaging more with their repetitive goods that don't hold much substance. In retrospect, the culture industry is fascinating, yet arguably harmful to consumers, since the sameness it contains appears to infect our daily lives.

Post Class Blog 11/12

  “The schematic nature of this procedure is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” (Horkheimer & Adorno 55)

Through this quote, Horkheimer and Adorno argue that products that have the same purpose, but have slight differentiations are ultimately the same. They are saying that two products of different brands that have the same end result are interchangeable. The only difference between the two products is the cultural significance that society allocates to specific brands. With this point of view, there is actually no freedom of choice in choosing products because they are all ultimately the same. In class, we spoke about the example of cell phones. We named the various brands and differentiated them, but ultimately they are all the same. All cell phones have the same purpose of being a tool for communication. At their core, they are used for speaking to other people either over the phone or virtually using a messaging app. The difference between cell phones is the cultural significance that society gives to them. In today’s society, having an apple iphone is considered superior because society has deemed apple to be top of line. This occurs honestly in every product that is on the market. Another example is a Gucci purse and a Target purse. Both purses have the exact same purpose of being a bag to put stuff in. The Gucci bag is way more expensive and idolized because of cultural significance. People who have a lot of money or are famous tend to purchase expensive brands such as Gucci and are constantly photographed or seen out wearing the brand. These people have such high status in the eyes of the less rich classes and thus use their status to give cultural significance to a brand. The people idolizing these celebrities feel more secure about themselves when they are able to carry the more expensive brand over a more reasonably priced brand. I believe that we need to stop giving cultural significance to every product because all it is doing is further separating the social classes and making people who can not afford a certain brand feel less than. We should accept all products, name brand or not, because they all have the same purpose.