I can tell you from experience that the majority of media certainly doesn't give me what I want, but that's not the point of the question. In mass, does the media give people what they ask for, or do the people develop a taste for what the media gives us?
The gut instinct of the optimist is to say that the media gives us what we want. What they produce changes with what we're willing to pay for and consume. An inverted Frankfurt school of thought, if you will (and I do). On the other hand, the gut instinct of the pessimist, of those so many in my generation who are jaded for reasons I still don't fully understand (really, the world hasn't been that bad to us, come now) is to say the media gives us what they want, what is safe and will make them money, and we eat it up.
This is where the Birmingham (see? I take notes!) model comes in; Neither the pessimist nor the optimist is completely right. The reality is a compromise, wherein the consumers don't always buy what's given to them. We wouldn't have bombs at the box office if this weren't the case. And the media does give us more of what we've taken to. I think it's funny, people complain when a band doesn't deliver more of the same (I know, I know, "but better"), but get upset when movie studios do the same thing... Hm...
Anyway, the point is, I feel that it's a balance of power between the consumers and the media. Neither is completely responsible for what the other does.

Popular Culture vs. Real Culture

The question stands, does something becoming popular make it invaluable or with out meaning. Definitely not, or so I say. I'm sure my grandparents and even my mother and father would disagree, based on the value they place in popular media. 

Here's my argument: nothing is worthless, nothing is without value: everyone needs a bad example. I often find myself looking at popular media, top 40 music and reality telivision to be specific, and thinking that it is meaningless and not worth my time or energy, but then i feel like one of those art school kids who doesn't value art that is not underground or "original," and I want to slap myself for that. Obviously, the top 40 and the reality producers are doing something right, because they are making a shit-ton of money, and most underground, original artists are poor and working minimum wage jobs just to pay their rent because their art won't support them. 

Also, the "popular," or majority, opinions regarding the things we use to entertain ourselves says a lot about the choices we make regarding other aspects of society. I'm not sure how to articulate this, but the popular choices in media are important to study for the same reasons we listed in class for studying Cultural Studies. 

I think the reason people assume popular culture is meaningless is because, typically, if it is relatable to the masses then the educational level required has to be lowered, thought I'm not sure how much education you have to have to like symphony music. I think the assumption that popular culture is better is just an elietest idea that separates the classes based on education and money. 

Authenticity is incredibly hard to come by these days. Everything I use as far as media is concerned is all controlled by the same few corporations. I can't find any new music I like, because the only new music I have access to is presented to me by entities that don't exist for the purpose of finding new and great music for consumers, but rather exist for the purpose of appeasing the corporate machine that has created the "images." By images I mean bands/artists of today. Granted, there are some really talented artists out there that get a lot of exposure, but there are many more that get virtually no exposure. A lot of this has to do with the unexposed artists not being signed to labels that are associated with other major media corporations. How else could it be possible for boy bands to become so big? How else would the most uncreative, unoriginal music be accepted by mass audiences as the most popular music? MTV convinces young audiences that something is quality because it gets exposure on their network. MTV doesn't play music, it sells music. It's a strategy that MTV has been using since the early 90's when Pearl Jam and Nirvana blew up out of Seattle. The fad caught on, and soon the music videos of the two bands were playing non stop on the channel. Cobain hated the exploitation of his music, and Pearl Jam boycotted MTV and Ticketmaster as a way of saying "you can't control our art like that!" Soon after early 90's alternative rock faded from the scene, it was time for the Macarena to become the most popular (and worst) song of the decade.

Blog 4

I do not believe that because something becomes popular it looses its meaning or value. If it did loose its meaning than it wouldn't be so popular. I do not think that the artist is ever in control of the context in which people view or receive art. We all have different opinions on how we take things and the meanings of whether something should be popular or not. The "authenticity" of an artwork has a lot to do with people wanting to be the creators of a trend. They want to be the ones recognized for being the ones to start a trend. Just like i always dressed differently than everyone at my high school because i wanted to be "popular" and be the one remembered as being different and having my own style. I dressed a little punk and skater because everyone at my high school dressed in nothing but abercrombie and hollister. Now that I've graduated i look back and see almost everyone changing there style and dressing more like i did. Seems like now that everyone is dressing like i had made its popularity go up. I don't know how to word this very well but even though that style is getting more popular it really doesn't seem to interest me very much anymore. Now that i see everyone else doing it, to me it made that trend not so popular? i think that in order to tell if something is authentic you have to see if there is anything else like it out right now. Like with TV... the first reality TV show that i can think of was the Real World. Now it seems like you cant escape seeing reality TV. It is on every channel and in every form. Millionaire matchmaker, bridezilla, flavor of love, and even ghost hunters. And i do not know if it repeats the problematic high culture or pop culture because i am not quite sure what the distinction is? Its a little hard to grasp for me. But i am sure that by the end of class tomorrow i will be able to answer this question.

It's cool to be a hater

Popularity and authenticity have two different definitions. Therefore, they should not be used as synonyms. Music is the most obviously and prevalent culture where this comes into play. There's a general agreement that once something becomes popular it's not "cool" anymore. Funny thing is, most of the people who would say that, wouldn't refer to their music taste as cool. Cool and popular are, in fact, the real synonyms. People feel like they always have to defend themselves when a band they like becomes popular. "They sold out, their old stuff was soooo much better" and, "I listened to them before anyone knew them." Shut up. If you appreciate music then own up to it. There is no reason to be embarrassed of liking a band that becomes successful. If you're a fan of their music, wouldn't you want that for them? Obviously more "factors" come into play. People like to bitch about how much a band's music has changed and blah blah blah. DUH. Not one band has ever and will never produce an album exactly like previous ones. People change every single day, so how could their music not reflect that? Sometimes bands give into the pressure of our society and the pop culture and that reflects on their music. And often the "underground" bands put out a shitty album, even without the glorious fame. But it's not enough to say you don't like a band because they do well. With that logic, it should be the exact opposite. I can talk about other people and how lame they are for all this, but I'm guilty as well. BUT, I think I've made a 360 on that issue. I think these ideas come from your culture. The Indie music/elitist culture used to be my world. It's ridiculous how much criticism is on bands that are successful, apparently we think they should all be starving artists.
If something has value or meaning, its popularity is not a factor. The more popular it becomes, it will mean that to a greater amount of people. Not the opposite. You're not any better than a band that is successful.

why would you jump off the band wagon?

Quality with mass appeal is often said to be an impossible notion. Trying to make something to appeal to as many people as possible will often times take away any unique authenticity in the process of trying to make it popular. However, i do not think it is impossible for something truly interesting and of good quality to become admired by a mass number of people. Nonetheless, a truly original and quality idea can be changed and turned into something that people begin to "hop on the popular bandwagon" appealing to even more people. However, this does not make the turned into original cliche. I was just turned into something cliche over time.

Value is Scarcity/Down with Family Guy

Value is dictated by scarcity. Why is gold valuable? It's scarce. If it grew on trees, it wouldn't have been used as the standard currency of humanity for as long as it has been. Following this, if something is popular, it is not scarce. Everyone will have access to it, if they didn't, how would it become popular?

I'll play my own devil's advocate and cite music. Say there's this sweet indie band that's your favorite and no one knows about them or their totally unique vision that speaks to your soul - you're gonna hold them close to your heart and it will be special. What if they got huge all of a sudden? What if they got popular? Would you still like them? This is where the sell-out/way cool factor comes into play. If a band can maintain its integrity as it becomes popular, more power to them, but if they "sell out", the value drops despite their apparent success. What about Mozart then? A lot of people know him, listen to him, are aware of him. Does that mean his music is less valuable than said indie rock band who has fewer fans? Most certainly not. There are always exceptions. On a whole, I'd have to argue that things specifically designed to be consumed by mass quantities of people will have less value purely for the reason of universality. To make something entertaining/appealing to many, specifics and the individual will have to be sacrificed.

What about iPod's then? What if the person in question finds the product/music/show deeply personal to her, despite the popularity of it? What about those beautiful human emotions that are universal?

I don't know. There's a counter argument for everything.

But! If everyone enjoys something, there must be something of value there right? RIGHT!??! Why is it, then, that whenever I turn on Family Guy I am moderately amused, but on a whole appalled that the show is as popular as it is (Seth MacFarlane is a genius I hear them cry!). Maybe I'm too much of a Scrooge, and maybe I should just take it for face value as good entertainment. But seriously, what happened to our society? The book made a good point about the kid with his WalkMan, the kid living "...a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy," of a life. Did all the great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, generals, inventors, people, artists, farmers, sailors so heroically accomplish all their epic endeavors just so that we could live bullshit lives of hollow materialism, blindly, patriotically adhering ourselves to others ideals, carnal desires and fucking Super Bowls? But, alas. To each his own. The grizzled machine will march on to the dim horizon of his yet uncertain dawn.

Will his inhabitants snap out of their Rx induced haze and hit the kill switch?

Or will cliffs to a dead coral abyss greet him?

Blog 3 (popular is valuable)

At the same time that people claim something has lost its relevance by becoming popular, they are also consuming said something, which in turn helps to make it popular. By joining the majority and taking part in something that has become popular, we give it "value" and "meaning" in the form of the influence it now possesses in society. In turn, this gives power to the corporations that spent the money that helped the thing become popular. 

And by the time a movie, song, TV show or YouTube video reaches the viewer it's totally compromised from what the artist intended and has picked up scores of other meanings on its raise to the top. However, the cycle of popularity allows only so much room at the top of the wheel and many artists feel a necessity to tailor their art to the fit a current trend in popular culture. This most definitely assures an overwhelming share of pop drivel. Of course, whether something's drivel or not is all relative to a person's cultural interpellation. 

I for one think that, popular or not, something has value if it makes it's viewer think, be it negative or positive, about its meaning. And the fact, which the TT textbook points out, that we have to exclude something in order to form categories in our cultural descriptions makes the hierarchy of popular and not popular an inescapable reality.    

Blog 3 (popular is valuable)

At the same time that people claim something has lost it's relevance by becoming popular, they are also consuming said something, which in turn helps to make it popular. By joining the majority and taking part in something that has become popular, we give it "value" and "meaning" in the form of the influence it now possesses in society. In turn, this gives power to the corporations that spent the money that helped the thing become popular. 

And by the time a movie, song, TV show or YouTube video reaches the viewer it's totally compromised from what the artist intended and has picked up scores of other meanings on its raise to the top. However, the cycle of popularity allows only so much room at the top of the wheel and many artists feel a necessity to tailor their art to the fit a current trend in popular culture. This most definitely assures an overwhelming share of pop drivel. Of course, whether something's drivel or not is all relative to a person's cultural interpellation. 

I for one think that, popular or not, something has value if it makes it's viewer think, be it negative or positive, about its meaning. And the fact, which the TT textbook points out, that we have to exclude something in order to form categories in our cultural descriptions makes the hierarchy of popular and not popular an inescapable reality.    

THE GAME DON'T CHANGE, JUST THE PLAYERS

To be honest anything that's considered "popular" can never lose its meaning or value. Because what's considered "popular" today, evolves into something that will have the same meanings and values tomorrow. For example the use of "jive talking" which was a common way of discourse in the sixties and seventies amongst the african-american community, until the early eighties and ninties when "jive talking" evolved into "slang talking".But now in 2008 it has evolved yet again into what we now consider to be "ebonics".But Eventhough the three diffrent languages, wheather it's slang, jive, or ebonics the words differ but the meaning and value of the word stays the same. For example the word "money"has three different sayings, but has the same meaning. In "jive talk"it's (bread), "slang talk" (doe), "ebonics" (cheese) etc. That's just example of how something that is considered "popular" spanning back to three different era's in african-american culture but yet never losing it's true meaning or value of the popular language.

This is why hipsters are pessimists.

I think there is definitely something suspect about the "way cool/sold out" dialectic, as I am haunted by it constantly, and perpetually trying to overcome it.
When something becomes popular, it in no way loses meaning or value, except perhaps to the people who believe rare/underground art loses value once popular. I suppose it loses value to them, as it is no longer valuable to suggest said art to a peer-and that person becomes less of an authority with withheld knowledge, and more of a subject to something more all-encompassing. But losing meaning? That just seems unfair to the artist. Even if the meaning to someone is "that annoying song that used to be cool till it got a commercial", it still has significant meaning. Regardless, I personally feel that art does not lose meaning or value when popularized.
I think that perhaps this perception of art losing meaning could be attributed to our oversaturated art-world. We, as a generation, are quickly disenchanted with works that become popularized-we always need the unheard or the untapped, something new, something better. Perhaps the label "the wikipedia generation" can explain this. Even though we probably smoke more pot and play more video games than any generation to precede us, each and every one of us has a plethora of trivial and non-trivial knowledge jammed up in our brains. From frat boys to hipsters and back again. I foresee game shows becoming more difficult in the next decade...Anyway, we have always known what it's like to be an authority on a selection of subjects. We're the first computer savvy generation, and that has always been something to dangle over the heads of everyone else. When a piece of knowledge breaks the confines of our minds, or our social groups, and becomes popular or well known, it is no longer of use. It is no longer as valuable to us. Do I think this is a good thing? Absolutely not. We need to overcome this, as the media can easily find and use our little underground secrets against us at their leisure. Plus, we're missing out on great art, when we write it off as commercial or corporate (unless it's a corporate response work, then protest all you want).
And I like "Wraith Pinned to the Mist", dammit, I don't care if it's in an outback commercial.

Popularity

Just because something becomes popular doesn't mean it looses its value. If that were true, nobody would listen to punk music, nobody would read Hunter S. Thompson's work, and nobody would like watching Pink Floyd's The Wall. Things that seem to "loose value" after becoming popular probably had little to no value to begin with, and really only had a single purpose. I'm going to use the Backstreet Boys as an example. The only purpose they had was to be popular. They had no value as art because they were practically born into pop culture. Hence, when that scene died out, people had already stopped caring about them long beforehand. Now let's use Radiohead as another example. I think it's pretty safe to say that they are a highly artistic group that had to earn their right to become popular. And after they did, their value didn't drop, because they were something authentic and original. Now, while it's completely unnecessary, I'm going to jump to Coldplay. Coldplay is clearly a cheap imitation of Radiohead (one of the band members basically admitted that). Since they lacked the originality of Radiohead, they had less value as artists, and hence, they haven't been able to hold the music industry's attention anywhere near as well.

Subjectivity and the countryman

I think that the countryman is the subject of the Law. He is a countryman so that usually means that he probably lives on a farm and does the usual activities farmers do like harvesting, plowing, etc. Since he lives on a farm he probably has never gone against the Law; he has his own set of rules that he tends to follow. The Law is far from his home but the presence of it is in his mind all the time since the Law probably gave him his land. When the Law is in his life, he follows the rules because its the Law; the almighty and powerful Law. He listens to the laws and never disobeys them. He lets the Law shape his life, thats why he is who he is. To a degree, he is the subject of the law because he obeys the Law yet really is not a part of it. He is a unique individual yet is in the shadow of the Law so that he is guaranteed into the right status quo.

John Tom

Case Study Presentation Sign Up

The following is a list of when everyone signed up for case study/presentations. Are you on this list? Do you know when your presentation is? Some of you signed up in spaces where there was no space and will need to choose a new topic. If your name isn't on here, plan to sign up on Tuesday.

26 February:
Culture: Andrew Lynch
Popular Culture: Matthew Griffin

4 March: Media Culture
Brad Lavery
David Moreno

18 March:
Ideology: Lena Mattson
History: Frank Liszka
History: Emily May

1 April: Space & Time
Angelica Bernetich
Alex Berrara

8 April: Posts Pt. 1
Postmodernism: Tyler Etters
Postmodernism: Laura Strait


15 April: Posts Pt. 2
Poststructuralism:
Postcolonialism: Aaron Abaribe
Postcolonialism: Rafiu Dania

22 April: Differences (A)
Gender: Jackson Otto
Gender: Lisa Danielson
Queer: Karina Lee
Queer:

29 April: Differences (B)
Race: Pablo Ramos
Race: Shannon Williams
Class: Jonny Drexler
Class:

6 May: Agency
Morgan Graham
(One spot available here)

Blog Post 4

Popular, ah the thing in middle school/high school that everyone seemed to want, and in this case what some people think ruins the object of which becomes popular in today's world. However I believe that the whole things are no longer cool when they become popular, or lose their meaning is untrue. The reason to my beliefs is the mere fact that whatever it may be; actor. band. movie etc, its meaning to you is the most important. Lets take for example my favorite band Panic at the Disco, whom I liked and saw before they were popular. Now when I liked them in the beginning they were just a bunch of kids from Las Vegas who had a cool new sound, which I enjoy. Now they are multi million album selling super stars. The main difference does not lye in my liking them anymore or less, because that has never changed, however their fan base has grown as well as their popularity. There will always be the people who are like "o i liked them before they were big, but I don't like them now," which frankly gets annoying. If you truly like an artist, actor, movie it should not matter how popular becomes because its value to you is what is most important. So people need to get over the fact that things begin to suck or lose their meaning when they become popular because frankly thats not true. As for dealing with authenticity the main point is obvious, I will know whether or not my band made a song, but people can surely attempt to recreate their sound and style. Just as any film maker can attempt to recreate someone else in homage or what have you. But I believe that just because something is popular does not make it any less or high on the class scale, because when it comes down to it, its how it affects your life and how you enjoy it regardless of how many people do/do not know about it 

Matt Griffin  

Blog Post 4

please ignore posting problem see above post

Mainstream and Indie

When a band becomes popular do they become less credable are they seen as jerk-offs because they signed to a major label and are now on the radio in 42 states? THe analogy to jazz, I think it showed that time creates popular cultutre more than anything, so the meaning changes over decades and what may have been seen as the ,"poor man's devil music", is now seen as high class just listening to the symphony was in the 1920's. Just because something used to be "way cool" and now has "sold out" doesn't make it not art, it doesn't drop in value just because they appear on MTV to do an Album spot. Kurt Cobain's music in the early 1990's was everywhere, it was even a central character in a book written in england by Nick Hornby, then it was cool to be grunge untill everyone became grunge then there wasn't enough flannel to go around so the sub-culture died, but that doesnt mean that it lost its value if anything I would say more people listen to nirvana now than did in the early 1990's. The real question is what really is the span of time from when something between when something becomes unpopular when it was once popular, to when it gets picked up and used in a more high culture society. When does Nirvana go from the worlds sad music, to the hipsters sad music? The exclusivity is really what high culture is trying to hold over the head of popular culture, that anything they do is not exclusive enough and therefore is not worthy of their time and is assumed to be garbage.

Cultural Value of selling out

When something becomes popular I think it does diminish in value in some ways. The art form of it is still there, but people try to capitalize on this art. Once it becomes popular, everyone seems to come forward trying to gain money or some power out of the art form. The art form in the beginning is at its pure artistic essence, but once it becomes popular, it tends to sell out in some ways. I think the meaning of it is still there, but the value diminishes as people over saturate the art at which is being presented. They use the art as a cash prize to gain money in the long run, instead of presenting it as something special.  The artist is not really in control of how people or culture accept or understand the art form that is at hand. The artist can present the art form in as many ways as possible, but it is up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.  I believe you do have to push the art that you have created to the people. The only drawback of this is the popularity factor that comes with the situation. Artists want their art to be displayed for everyone, but I don't think artist want to sell out in any way. A lot of artist might not even think that their art is selling out or being over saturated to the people. In the end I believe that you have to get your art out to the people because ones artistic ways can affect people and culture alike.  Creativity should be shared with others because it can influence a lot of individuals in their own right. In my opinion one can tell authentic art from inauthentic art. When art becomes popular people try to imitate the creativity that made the art, and then it looks fake in some ways. This can create problems in high culture and pop culture. Some people probably don't know If the art is fake or not. The artist wants their creativity to impact culture, but they don't want their art to get affected in any negative way by culture.

culture & society

i think something does in fact happen when something becomes more popular.  there's a shift in how that thing, that band, the actress, that movie, is thought of.  something that comes to mind is, when you discover a band, and no one else knows who they are.  it's like your little secret.  you know that this band is great, but at the same time, you kind of don't want other people to know.  however, once everyone knows about this band and they become popular, and everyone loves them, it seems as though they aren't as cool anymore.  you're left looking for the next big secret.  the question is, why isn't that band as cool anymore?  i think it's because before everyone knew about them, it was your little secret.  it was special to you, and you almost even feel a little bit devious keeping this secret from everyone else.      

on the other hand, if there's a business out there that has become really popular and many people are endorsing it, you may want to be a part of that business.  take for example, a cell phone company.  if the mainstream market is gravitating towards happy cell phone company, you might sign a contract with happy cell phone company, too.  

so what makes the cell phone company different from the band.  well, because as a consumer, i'd like to know that my cell phone provider is a good company so that i can rely on and trust in good service.  with the band, i already know they're good no matter what popular culture implies.  so i think it depends on what type of culture you are talking about.  

the artist can try to be in control of how their art is perceived.  for example.  a musical artist can try to write their songs so they have "mainstream appeal."  this however, does not nessessarily mean that their work will in fact be received well by a mainstream audience.  so an artist can try  to control how their art is received, but there is no guarentee it will be received the way the artist intended.  

in the case of kurt cobain, i do not believe it was his (or the band's) intent to become one of the most popular bands in america.  i think cobain wanted to just be an unknown.  i think he was more comfortable that way.  it seemed as though cobain was miserable being famous, but it's hard to say whether or not he would be "better off" if he had remained an unknown.  i think it is entirely possible.   

the best way in which to tell if something is authentic or not, is to educate yourself.  research the piece, information, etc.  sometimes you can disipher very easily if something is an inauthentic copy.  other times, the copy may come so close that it may be very difficult to say if it is authentic or inauthentic.  for example, most people now know that american idol is another version of the original show that first aired in england, "pop idol."  does that make "american idol" less valid than it's predessesor "american idol?"  no.  it just means that the now popular television show "american idol" is an inauthentic copy of the original.   

 

Source of Culture

The role of mass media in democracy is a medium to communicate to masses what is going on in their country concerning the government, economy, public events and entertainment and etcetera. All the information that citizens of the country would need access to, such as issues concerning their country, their state and their neighborhood. Mass media be not only a form of communication but also a form of entertainment. That isn’t to say that entertainment couldn’t be formal, personally I just wouldn’t want to watch anything but the news all the time. However, some people believe that entertainment should be regulated because not every show or film or radio program is suitable for all ages. It’s true, a four year old shouldn’t be watching Family Guy but it is the job of the parents to shut it off. I think this is true for all forms of media. It is the job of the responsible viewer to shut off a program that is not appropriate for younger viewers. The government should not step in and try to do the viewing for the viewer. I do believe in the ratings system because a rating on a television show, video game or movie will tell the consumer that the product is not appropriate for younger children and it is up to the consumer or viewer or listener to be responsible. When the government or major corporations try to step in and control media more than that, they are overstepping their bounds. Personally, I feel offended because a larger power can’t seem to trust people enough to let them make their own decisions and decisions are a huge part of culture. Something doesn’t just become popular people make it popular by enjoying it (or not enjoying it) and spreading the word to their friends. Thus, when something becomes popular in culture it’s because as a culture we decided that it was good and enjoyable. Then the larger corporations and government cater to that, not the other way around.

Into the Realm of the Popular

I do think there is some validity to the notion of art loosing meaning as it becomes part of popular culture. However, in re-examining the sentence I just wrote, I ask myself, “How are we defining meaning?” I definitely do not think that an art piece becoming popular makes it sounds, look, or seem worse as an entity within itself, but something about the idea of mass-consumption takes away from the authenticity of the piece. I am thinking in particular about a Canadian folk-rock-techno band called Tegan and Sara. The band consists of two lead singers/guitarists, lesbian twins around the age of 26, whom the band takes it name from. My sister and I (also gay twins, but not nearly as talented) developed an interest in the group pretty early on in their development as artists. Over time, the band has become more and more “poplar” and was recently featured on MTV for an entire week. The concerts have, in turn, become more and more crowded and the sisters' faces have been popping up more and more frequently in other media forms. While I still love their image, music, and quirky humor, something in the way that I relate to them and my interest in them has changed since their arrival on the pop culture scene. It's almost like I wanted to keep them my little secret. I don't want 12-14 year old girls dancing and screaming beside me at their concerts. My motivations are pretty purely selfish, but are still valid. As Tegan and Sara are accepted and enjoyed by the crowds, I become part of that crowd; my sister and I are no longer unique in our adoration for the band. BUT, their music is still f-ing phenomenal and I still greatly enjoy their concerts. So, the shift into the realm of popular media is two-fold, with a column for pros, and a column for cons.

Who has the People Magazine????

I don’t believe that when something becomes “popular,” it has diminished “meaning” or “value.” In fact I believe that in today’s world popular culture defines what our culture is. Maybe it’s not some kind of painting or magnificent piece of literature. But lets face it, times are changing and our culture changes with that. Back when Mozart was round they didn’t have television or the radio. Technology was a thing of the future. Today we are filled with technology. This technology gives us the attitude, “if it makes my life easier and more satisfying, I want it!” Our art is expressed differently than it was back in the 1800’s and whether or not we like it, popular culture is going to be with us for a long, long time.

In the end it is the people that decide what is “popular”. I believe that the artist has a very little amount of control over what we use or receive from their art work. As we have learned throughout this class people have different cultures. So if I were to watch an episode of The Simpson’s compared to someone who were to watch that same exact episode in China; well our views would be completely different. That’s the genius behind popular culture. It varies within different cultures. American popular culture is completely different from North Korean popular culture. Another great thing is that popular culture crosses over into other societies. The Europeans are becoming more and more influenced by American popular culture.

Whether it is high culture or popular culture, we decide which falls into what category. Some people might look at it as the high culture controls the pop culture, because the high culture individuals are the ones making the pop culture or involved in it somehow. And whether to say Kurt Cobain would have been happier and better off if he were to have stayed in Seattle with no one ever knowing him. Well one thing is for sure is that he would probably still be alive today, but I don’t think he would have been happier.

Check out this link from a very popular show in Japan. The object of this scene is to repeat the line on the screen in a short amount of time without messing up. If you succeed you go on to the next round. If you don’t…well check it out. What if Jeopardy were like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0kCSYBWZs

Blog Post 3

This article says a lot of different things about the subject of self, and ambiguity regarding this topic. I took from it a variety of different things, I find it interesting the man waited almost his whole life to try and see what was past the door of the law, and to begin to ask questions. The fact that no one else has ever come to the door, or asked as well is quite interesting because it puts into perspective this was just the mans door, and no one else come, much like questions in society. This does hint that most of modern day people do not question the law enough but just abide by it. We have grown up knowing that you respect the law, and authority but sometimes things have to be questioned because some things would never change if this did not occur. I believe the country man is determined by the law because even though he never gets to go inside, its the law that kept him there hoping he could eventually enter. So physically the law did not make him, but physiologically it did because he was curious enough to wait outside this door for his whole life. The author states that self is an important necessity but you must be able to realize the difference or your life could be blinded. The idea of self is imperative but shouldn't be obsessed over or ignored because it is essential to how we live our lives. 

Before The Law

I thought this little short story was interesting. the countryman tried many years to gain access through the gate, when all along the entry and the laws were made for him. I think the countryman was responding to the dictation of the laws. He tried many times to gain access but couldn't until the end. He seemed to follow all the rules and did not do anything detrimental to stop his attempt. I guess it all has to do with time. It might not happen that very second but it will happen with time. Finally he was granted his wish when he was sick. In a way it is sort of religious in my opinion. I might be wrong but that is what I perceived from the reading. I guess it cost the countryman his life to keep the laws safe at the end. I think the laws pushed and determined the man even more. It gave him a sort of motivation to enter the gate. The countryman was interested about the gate, so he took almost all of his life trying to enter. The self factor in this whole equation has to do with how a person feels. He was very much determined to enter and he keep trying, never giving up. When a person wants something they should never give up and in a way this story illustrates that.

Kafka

Frank Liszka

Interesting little story. Ok so we have a man trying to gain access to the Law, and a series of gatekeepers keeping him away from it. Then the man dies, and the gatekeeper reveals the laws were just for him. I kinda saw all this as a religious metaphor. Culturally, Catholics (and I'm certain most Christian religions) are not allowed to interpret the Bible (law) themselves, and in the story maybe this can be represented by the gatekeepers obstructing the man's path. What set this whole thought off was that the whole situation with the man reminded me of purgatory. He just sat there, couldn't do anything, no longer had any possessions (although he DID give all those away), etc. Maybe that's what all this talk about place in culture and the "self" and "subject" was all about. When you have faith, it is totally about the individual and has a very personal meaning to it. But when you join a religious sect, you completely loose your individuality, replacing identity with a sort of title (Christian, Muslim, etc.). You become subject to all the laws and doctrines of said religion and become ruled by them. You are never allowed to change or interpret these laws, no matter how much you give the gatekeepers (almost seemed like tithing in the story). I don't know, just thought I'd put an interesting spin on the story that seems pretty valid.

I Wish Kafka Were Here...

Did Kafka ever say this was about individuality, about Subject or Self? Because, had I been reading this without previous knowledge and context of the Self/Subject matter, I would have assumed the reading was pertaining to taking chances and the consequences that comes with not questioning authority. The Countryman didn't question the Law and took it as fact that what lay inside was terrifying and scary, and that the law was an invitation only party. He sat on the outside his whole life, waiting for that invitation, eventually to have the door shut because he did not go through it. 

Argument for Subject; "Is the "Countryman" representative of the cultural "subject," always responding to the dictates of the Law?" - Well, he didn't go against the law, he didn't question the law, he did not try to defy the law even when the door keeper told him he could go ahead. So I think that makes the countryman a subject. (Another question is, why does the man have to be a country man? Is this country in the sense that the man is rural or that he is patriotic, and "of his country"? Just thought it was interesting that he had that specific title. Why is he not simply a man?) 

Argument for Self; "...the quintessential "self," thinking of himself as unique and untouched by the law?"- Well, he did separate himself from the Law, keeping watch over the door keeper, but never trying to be like to door keeper. However I think that the Countryman was not being a very good self in this situation, because he never did anything but obey the Law, and his whole motive in the first place was to become part of the law. 

So, if I as the reader get to choose the meaning of Kafka's words here (no matter how self important that makes me feel, and disregarding the fact that I still think only Kafka can tell us the meaning of the story (or if he just thought it was a nice story and wasn't trying to make a point at all)) I would say that the story is about what happens when a Countryman/Subject becomes so focused on submitting to the Law, so that the Law will like him and admit him, that he lost his chance and didn't realize that he had the opportunity to go in when ever he wanted. Basically, don't let the law, or the Door Keeper/The Man, keep you out. 

Untouched and Unique Self

I see the countryman as a representative of society and the general public, specifically in Western civilization. His existence is defined by both himself and the law or society. First, he sees himself as a "unique" individual, completely seperate and unaffected by the law. While evidence suggests otherwise, he refrains from defending himself and his place or rank.

Although the countryman avoids entering the doorway, I still see him influenced by the law when he obeys the doorman and refrains from entering. By indulging his desire to disobey the doorman he sacrifices his life. At the expense of time, he entertains the idea of obedience and remains an observer. In this way, he plays the role of a cultural "subject," directly responding to the doorman who symbolizes the law.

With the man's deliberate choice to avoid the doorway, he is allowing his ignorance to unfold through his role and the law's role in this pull and tug. The "unique" and "untouched" self both play their part and are directly related. It suggests that perhaps you cannot have one without the other. In this way, Kafka is suggesting that the self is a necessary category and to assume it is not could be a dangerous delusion.

Layers and Layers

Our fellow, rather dejected, countryman stands before the gates of the Law. Upon being commanded to halt, he at once ceases to be an individual and becomes a subject. This occurs because he willfully complies. One must wonder what would've happened had the countryman disobeyed the gatekeeper. Would the second and third gatekeepers have let him through too? The gatekeeper said he couldn't pass, but in actuality, our hero could have moved on whenever he wished, thereby retaining his individuality and further pursuing his goals.

Also, I find it quite interesting that the countryman is seeking out the Law, while the Law is the very thing that is preventing him from getting to it! Is Kafka telling us to not seek out the Law? Because, if this man truly was seeking out the Law, he most certainly succeeded. Docile and obedient, he allowed his culture to rob him of everything he possessed. He was determined to obey the Law, even if it meant not 'obtaining' the Law.

The real key to this story is in the last cryptic line that the doorkeeper speaks. We learn that the gate of the Law existed only for this one Law up in his mind and allowed it to supercede his sense of self.

Blog 3 (doorkeeper shmorkeeper)

It seems the countryman is both a representative of a cultural "subject" and our "self". The established consequences of the law are ever present to all it's subjects, agreed to by the majority and it's details are available to any countryman willing to do the work of searching them out. Maybe the countryman in the story was unwilling to enter the door when the guard stood aside because of the imagined consequences that he's warned about, not ever seeing for himself what would happen. 

The countryman gives his possessions, goals of existence deemed valuable in his culture, in order to appease the guard and assure his presumed future admittance to the law. This establishes yet another reason to live, something to hope for, dream about, even imagining the punishment and disgrace of disobeying the the status quo and our conscience and yet still feeling like he's retaining his freewill and uniqueness. 

I think Kafka is suggesting that we cannot escape how we are shaped by culture and deep down don't want to for fear of losing our purpose.     

Little story

The countryman in this story represents the general cultural self. He embodies all of the desires and strife of our society, and in return is given nothing. He is not allowed to reach the law. He is not able to feel justice. He also, is the one obeying the doorman. He does not try to enter, but instead accepts what he is told- even when the law is there for the taking.

One can assume that the countryman has a self, if we define self as the attributes and personal identifications one inherits from the society in which we were placed in. He is a “man of the country” this implies at one time, the man being a part of some society, a country of sorts. The man cannot be unique from the influence of the law, as in sitting there for the rest (please recall he was not a babe at the point of attempt to enter the gates of law) of his entire life-he IS being influenced. Is this pessimistic? Or is it just fact that we should except our subject-ness, and in that try to find our own meaning in the world? As the previous chapter explained, we are subject to anything we react to in our world.
I couldn’t help but associate the first paragraph of this story with the DMV, anyone else get that? We know Kafka isn’t talking about a DMV or a social security office, but I think that perhaps, ties can be made. We go about our daily lives, developing personalities and creating relationships that probably unknowingly define our “selves” even more. Individuals are unique, to be sure-but I don’t think that negates their subject hood. We go into the DMV, sit in an uncomfortable chair that any tom dick or harry could have been sitting in before us. We do not socialize, we do not strike up conversation with the person next to us, we do not try to project our individuality (by that I mean, in conversation humans are simply making associations and differentiations to themselves and their beliefs or knowledge-which some people would argue is actually what your “self” is). The treasures that the countryman brings with him could be perceived to be pieces of his selfhood, for our analogy we could say our birth certificate, our SS card-the little “treasures“ that technically and legally make us different from the person in the uncomfortable chair next to us. Only in losing those (I use losing deliberately, because even in rejecting societal indicators, we are being subject to the society from which we want to escape) to the doorkeeper, can we hope to truly lose the “self” that has been imposed on us from birth. However, good luck doing that-we still know who Thoreau was, even though he was on walden pond.
He is trying to reach the intangible. A system is not something you can physically enter, so I’m assuming these gates are not either. In subjecting himself to this omnipotent system, he is shedding the aspects of him that define him as a self in society. Is Kafka-the-bleak, as I like to call him, implying that only in death are we free to ourselves? I still can’t figure out the gate, and it’s pissing me off. By Law, does he mean meaning? Or is to enter the gate to understand the laws of the world? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that’s it.
I apologize if this is scatterbrained.

Go To Jail! Do Not Pass Go! Do Not Collect Your Culture!

Well basically this guy can’t get a break. He is stuck by some doorkeeper that won’t let the poor old guy in "beyond" the law. Now and days people would end up suing the hell out of this doorkeeper. Then again some of us would end up punching the lights out of him. But let’s back up to the first scenario of suing the doorkeeper. This all plays into societies little culture game. When you think about it, the self doesn’t get much recognition. It is always the subject that has the upper power. The one great example of this is our lovely Social Security Number, because without it we are no one. We need the special number for loans, credit cards, jobs, etc. Basically we need this number in order to make a living. This number however turns us into a subject.

I believe this "countryman" is the so called unique self who is untouched by the law. This man actually prays for the admittance of the law. He even sits down for the rest of his life waiting to be accepted "beyond" the law. One wonders why he just stood there and took this harsh, ignorant treatment from the doorkeeper. Most of us know not to just sit there and wait. We have witnessed others success from reacting whether than just waiting. And throughout this chapter we have learned that even learning from someone else’s action takes away from our selfness.

In the end, the law has control over our lives. It states what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable. However let’s face it life without the influences of others would probably be boring. It is these influences that affect us for the rest of our lives. From seeing others graduate college and become successful makes us want to do the same. Not to mention seeing our parents drive when we were little makes us want to drive as well. I believe the unique and untouched individual is a nobody. Someone the world doesn’t know exists.

Gatekeepers and Countrymen

I have to tell you, I think this one is a bit beyond me. I can't find a good answer to the question without discussing it, undoubtedly at great length. Determining whether the countryman represents the self or the subject, or an equal measure of both, isn't easy at all.
There was one line that caught my attention; "During the many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the law." In becoming so fixated on this one obstacle, in letting his self become a subject so completely and fully, the countryman assures he'll never make it to the law.
The story seems to suggest that, in the natural way of things, we are never fully the subject or the self; Indeed, we have to allow ourselves to become one or the other in a given situation, and only when we lose ourselves so completely to one side do we no longer manage to function as individuals, be they unique or not.
I could also be completely off. This one's going to require some more mulling over.
Before I go, though, I have an odd question; did anyone else picture the gatekeeper as Robbie Coltrane, the guy who plays Hagrid in the Harry Potter movies? No? Fair enough.

To All Other Students.

I missed out on class last week because I was sick.  Is there anyone who can meet up with me and let me make a copy of their reading packet for this week?   I don't want to be out in the dark at the next class discussion.  I would appreciate it so much!  You can contact me by email:  lisadanielsonmusic@yahoo.com.  you can also IM me on yahoo at lisadanielsonmusic.  Thank you so much!

The Subject and The Self

This story has a lot to say about the subject and the self.  

the countryman is the subject, because he is defined not by intrinsic or internal qualities but by external factors.

The countryman loses his self as he goes inward and finds that his world is getting darker, yet there is a shining stream of light from the gateway of the law.  This I believe, is to signify him finding himself, or seeing that there is still a piece of his "self" still there within him.

The countryman is representative of the cultural subject because he consistently responds to the law and to the doorkeeper.  He consistently responds to the the doorkeeper, by not entering without the doorkeeper's permission.  The countryman is definately not "untouched" by law because if he were, he would enter the gate without paying any regard to the doorkeeper.  

What does it cost him?  - To keep safe from the influence of the law, it is basically costing the countryman his life and his livelihood.  By that I mean, he spent his whole life waiting to enter the gate of the law without even taking his focus off of the doorkeeper.  More importantly it seemed to cost him his "self."  When his world was getting darker, he was losing his "self."  As if to say that his world was caving in.  

The countryman is determined by the law in the sense that because the countryman listened to the doorkeeper and did not gain access to the law without the doorkeeper's permission.  The law is therefore the authority, and determines the countryman's fate in this particular story.  

I think there is never really an "untouched" self or a truly unique "self" because people are always influenced by something outside of themselves.  The self is at the same time the passive subject.  Even if the person feels they are in control, they are already (even without her awareness), responding to things that are already there.  Things that are already part of a culture.  

I think that Kafka is suggesting that the "self" is a necessary category.  By giving the audience a powerful metaphor like the countryman being not sure if he was losing his sight in a literal sense, or if it was something bigger such as losing his "self."   

The Man Who Sat

This little story says book loads about the subject and self. It is a story about a man in a search for himself, who subjects himself to the law so she can be turned into a subject and thus create a self. However, it is not easy to just get a self. In order to define a self, social norms, culture and other people are needed, all which seem to be on the other side of the gate, but the countryman never crosses the gate in fear of the sentry. Thus, is he afraid of a sense of self or is he afraid of the law, or in a broader sense the community on the other side?
A part of him desires to go to the law but another park knows if he does he will become a subject to it. That is why I believe that he doesn’t cross the threshold, because a part of him doesn’t want to become a subject in the views of the Law and those on the other side. However, since he never crosses the other side and forgets about his previous life he dies without establishing anything for himself. He never establishes a real self because he never went to the other side. There is only one thing that he ever was in life, a subject to the sentry. He sitting outside the gate made him a subject to the sentry and as a result that became his self. I think that after a while he forgot about all else because that’s all he was and he never tried to be anything else wise. Thus, when he died he never did cross to the other side of that gate that was made just for him but he did have a sense of self and all it was is someone who sits and waits to be allowed to grant a full self.

Reading Citation

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Double Day: New York, 1959. p. 1-16

Blog Post 2

Working question page 32/33

I believe what the author is trying to get at is the fact that when writing anything, in this case a poem or any piece of work for that matter, it is difficult to get a certain meaning across to the reader. This is true because everyone has different a back round, or experience growing up. The author could be trying to say something really important to him, yet because the reader is and will never be the author, that idea or concept may never be discovered. The author is trying to get a point across, which is why every stanza he changes the words/phrases, but it is towards the end he realizes that he change all he wants, and that meaning may never be found. 

This is essential, because the last two lines of the poem to me are quite beautiful in comparison to the rest of the rest of the poem. Which shows that even though you can try and try to find that perfect meaning people may never read it exactly like the author would want them too. But, it can actually be written in a way that people can interpret it anyway they like in which case the author is still accomplishing something, possibly even  greater than if only one meaning was taken from it in the first place. This is what the author is trying to say in my opinion and I agree with him. Writers/authors write for people to interpret it not necessarily take one and only one meaning from the piece of work. 

Matt Griffin

Discourse

Frank Liszka

I think discourse is definitely a powerful tool. In fact, it's probably one of the biggest achievements of humanity. If we were incapable of communicating with each other, almost everything else we've accomplished would have been impossible. But like any powerful tool, discourse can be abused. But I feel that a majority of the abuse doesn't stem from those talking, but from those listening. Anyone can speak, there's no doubt about that. And we can't stop people from speaking. But we can choose whether or not to ignore said people. Hence, I believe that while the speaker is rather important in discourse, it's still the listener who possesses the majority of the power. So when does this power become dangerous? My opinion is it becomes bad when people choose to STOP listening to other opinions on any given subject. Example. Global Warming. You always hear Al Gore and numerous politicians screaming that we NEED to take action now. The majority of listeners believe them. Now there are many credible sources that say Global Warming may not be true, but a number of listeners simply decide "that can't be true" without even giving the other arguement a chance. The point is that both sides of an arguement rarely get equal coverage in any form of discourse. And as listeners, we should avoid only seeing one side of that arguement. The more information one absorbs from discourse, the better they become at making decisions. That's my 2 cents anyway.

People have power too

Discourse is a tool that everyone uses, and it serves both positive and negative purposes as does almost everything else in the human world. Discourse can be used for both good and evil as we've been able to see in recent history. Discourse can be used as a tool of fear, and virtually force people to accept the actions concocted by those in positions of higher authority. People in the federal government come to mind immediately. The best example of this is clearly the Iraq War and the "reasons" why it started. Discourse also allows people to speak out against the war, which was very unpopular in the beginning. People who opposed the war were met by great criticism by those who believed the war was essential to America continuing its way of life. The power of discourse has slowly earned its way to being a positive force regarding the war as most people now in this country voice their displessure for the situation. I like to look at the positive here, and feel that discourse has been essential in making this country what it is. Few have spoken out against many, and have suffered hard-fought battles and wars because of it; however, in the long run I believe discourse has proven to empower all people. The government accused people who opposed the war of fear mongering and being "unpatriotic", but the voices grew, and the view that the government recently considered dangerous has become one of common sense as we see no end in sight to the war and a bill we can no longer afford to pay. Yes, authorities have abused the power of discourse, and it has been dangerous at times throughout history. Overall, I put a positive spin on the power of the individual to use discourse.

Author vs. Authority

As an almost self proclaimed writer myself, these two sections created much conflict with in me. Before I switched my major, and I told people I was majoring in Fiction Writing, I got several questions that I could not answer. "So you're a writer?" "You want to be an author?" and my favorite, "So it's not a real major?" 

To the first, "do I consider myself a writer?", I had no logical response. Yes, I was going to school to be a writer, but just like a doctor is not a doctor until he or she graduates from med school, I did not think I had the experience to call myself a writer, and therefore put myself in a category with writers I admired. I felt like i hadn't earned that title yet. 

So when the definition of Author came up in the text, I felt gratified in the TT's opinion that there was a distinction between author and writer. Maybe I could call myself a writer after all, even though I have not graduated, and the title i was earning was actually author, not writer. But then they bring up the argument of publication. This is where things got shady again. I have written "full-movements" (a piece I, as the writer of the piece, consider complete) and not published them, and likewise, many people have written pieces that will never be published. Are we still writers, if maybe not authors, just because we have not published these ideas we have put to paper? According to TT's definition of writer, I think so. After all, Emily Dickenson published under 20 of her poems in her lifetime (I think I have that statistic correct, though I could stand to be corrected without hurt feelings) and she is now, by most standards, an Author, an authority on poetry. I think trying to put a name to such things, like being a writer, is more of a self identification problem that any person with a pen and paper needs to decide for him or herself. 

I sort of answered that second question too, do I want to be an author? but I could elaborate I suppose. If by TT's standards, author-ship (if that's a word) and authority go hand in hand, then, yes, I want very much to be an author. I hope to have the authority to write about a topic based on the time and money I've put into school and to have my opinions respected, to be considered as accurate. Isn't that why we go to school in the first place? To get people to listen to us and not scoff at our opinions? So, in my educated/professional opinion, I believe the title of Author is somewhat more prestigious than that of "Writer," and is not a matter of self identification to any one person with a published or un-published piece of work.

The last question ("So it's not a real major, as in, its fictional?") was a joke.

So, with that little bit of background, I take on Question 1 of the Author/ity chapter of TT.

Can the parody be both a joke and a serious, academic piece of work. Yes. 

The author is a physicist, an educated individual in the area he is writing about. Knowing that, we give him the benefit of the doubt that in his parody his information is correct, even though it is, in his opinion, trivial. So it is academic. Now, to those devoted readers of this journal, his topic is both respected, and informed. It can still be creditable, because, as far as we know, the author had the authority to write on this topic. Example: as an exercise in my former fiction writing days, we as students, were told to parody pieces of known work, so to learn style and structure from those authors. The movie 10 things I Hate About You was a parody of a Shakespearian play. We consider Shakespeare an authority in literature and in performance, and Heath Ledger is considered an authority in acting (He was recognized at the SAG awards to be among the great actors and actresses that have past.) Therefore, 10 Things I hate About You is both a "parody and a serious piece of scholarly inquiry," to use TT words exactly.  

Thanks Fox News.

The most haunting and omnipotent display of abusive authoritarian discourse comes from the media of America. David Icke has outlined the tactic of our great country quite well and labeled it "Problem Reaction Solution." This works as such: the government brings a problem to our attention, the government shows us how we are to react, the government then presents a solution. In all three cases each point is drilled into everyone's mind via the media until other alternatives seem silly. Why does the country go along with this? Because most citizens believe that the government has authority, that it has authorship, that it has the ability to discourse more meaningful information to us and that since it's our government, that "They would never wrong us," and that, "It's OK, they're professionals, they do this for a living, we should listen to them."

By far the most appalling tactic I have witnessed the government employ is that of overdubbing sorrow-laden, emotional, bleeding-heart orchestral music over their stories. Thanks Fox News. I'm a perfectly competent human being, I know that the death of 33 school children in a freak drunk snowmobiling accident is horrendous, I don't need you to incorporate a soundtrack to it then proceed to a commercial break where, in my weakened emotional state, I will be more likely to believe the Monsanto advertisement.

Emotionally charged power-words (unpatriotic, terrorism, tragic, etc.) are below the belt shots when attached to discourse, especially when it comes from "credible" sources. If CNN tells me that somebody did something unpatriotic, well gosh then I had better not do that something or I might be on CNN and they'll call me unpatriotic! Funny thing about emotionally charged discourse and how dangerous it is, is that it's difficult to avoid. Take this blog entry for example. But is my entry considered discourse? Hmmmm.... Everything (as far as we know at least) is written by humans, therefore it is very difficult to put zero spin on a story.

It's difficult to find objective discourse in this day in age. Globalization is coming, it's practically here. Most of the worlds players are in on it and most of our discourse comes from these factions. We give these powers authority, authorship, and the right to propagate discourse.

is discourse powerful or dangerous?

Discourse is a way to communicate with other people like a debate or an argument. I think discourse is both powerful and dangerous, but for the most part i feel it is powerful.  It allows us to communicate with others using our opinions to examine and hopefully fully understand different aspects of life.  Discourse can also be dangerous because the level of intensity that can occur can cause "dangerous" things to happen. But we must remind ourselves that everyone has their own opinions that they have formed from the materials they read, what they have watched, other people they have talked to, they beliefs they have, the way they were raised, and many more.  These opinions should be respected, as a person you may not agree but all you can do is discourse in a powerful way that could make them change their mind.  If everyone had the same opinion life would be alot easier, sometimes i find my friends and i debating over different interesting topics that make the night interesting.  It allows people to talk and express how they strongly feel on any topic. It strengthens who we are as people and even though someone may not feel the same way as they other person it gives them an opportunity to hear their side and why they think that way, which can either make them think stronger and have more reasons why they dont believe that way or makes them reconsider their thoughts.

Who "Governs" Discourse?

Authoritative discourse immediately creates images of commentators on networks such as Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. The show anchors basically exist for the purpose of impressing their opinions upon viewers while creating conflict and tension; begging the question "Who governs discourse?" As far as I can tell, when guests are asked onto shows such as Bill O'Reilly, it's assumed that O'Reilly will sway the discussion, even going as far as to accuse his guest of being "unpatriotic" if they happen to disagree with some level of U.S. foreign policy or "emotional" if they seem to be affected by his derogatory comments. In this way he has the authority over the guests. What exactly makes him an expert in regards to politics? His prominence on a network seems to warrant some sense of authority. Ultimately, I'd like to think that Fox News has the authority; however, when it comes to media oftentimes attention, drama and ratings come first. Then again the viewers also hold authority when deciding whether or not to watch the program or change the channel.

In regards to O'Reilly and "political" commentary, the network or cable television itself chooses to organize and distribute this one sided form of discourse, and because of the fact that it is bias and lacking opposing arguments, the program and its ideals can be considered dangerous. I would have to ask if discourse exists at all in this situation?

By applying labels to the individuals expressing a desire to participate in some form of discourse, the individual applying the labels gains some sense of control. Whether or not that control actually exists varies depending on a neutral bystander.

discourse and what it is to me

Discourse is basically communicating with one another which I don't think can be that mad for most people. But some people don't want to hear other people talk because they talk with a political discourse. Some people don't want to talk about politics because they could either hate politics or because they have no idea what politics is and what it can do to better their lives. Anyone can speak politically or emotionally, but it depends if you want to believe them or not. No one is a better speaker than anyone else so they should not act like they are a better person just because they communicate louder and with more emphasis on words that no one understands. All in all, communication is a good thing but some people try to use it to there advantage to get what they want and I think that is not good.

discourse and opinions

The word discourse can be ascribed as dangerous because in my opinion it can also cause certain conflict. Some people might not understand how other people do things so they are ignorant to this fact. Discourse is sort of like rebelling in a way because your doing something different. When one does something out of the ordinary it can be equated to danger. Whoever has power seems to govern who can say what and when to say it. Everyone has their own opinions so no one is more powerful than the other person. Everyone has a right to speak on whatever the issue is, but certain people get offended and they assume the person is taking a dangerous stance. Labels such as emotional, or political are just words to fill the dangerous stance. One says these things because they don't have a clear understanding of the issue. It is a way out from addressing the issue.

Say what you mean, mean what you say!

Discourse can be both powerful and dangerous,Especially in the times in which we live today. Discourse in this age of time has various outlets of communication T.V. radio, newspaper, internet, magazines, cable(stations that focus solely on one particular subject: Nancy Gray, Anderson Cooper etc), in which makes it very easy to miscontrude or contrude something different. Discourse is also dangerous because there are so many different cultures consuming, writing and stating opinions and theorys on various subjects of information in society.Again discourse can be powerful for the same exact reasons then it can be dangerous. For example former President Bill Clinton( A highly regarded person in the Afro-American culture) was asked by a reporter "How do you feel about Barack Obama winning the state of south carolina? (a big delegate state for democrats). Bill Clinton responded, "Even Jesse Jackson when he ran for president won south carolina, but look what happen he didn't win the race."After that comment was made alot of afro-american people felt betrayed. Because berfore Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, Bill Clinton supported Barack Obama when it was just the talk around town that the young U.S Senator was considering running for president. But what people didn't relize is that Bill Clinton was basicaly supporting his wife, like any other red blooded american would. Now the recourse of that misunderstanding can cost her votes in the afro-american community in the long run. That's perfect example in my mind of the powers and dangers of miscontruded information.

Blog 2 (Discourse on discourse)

Where do we get our opinions from? Even the ones we think are our own are most likely opinions of others that we've heard or read or seen and are sub-conscientiously paraphrasing. So I think discourse is powerful in the sense that it keeps universal questions and answers alive and enables theories to keep maturing. We all in a sense add to all we take in by re-evaluating ideas through our own len and perspective. Often times giving back to the world (even our own little worlds) by joining in the discourse, adds a new twist to ongoing quarries. 

In terms of discourse being dangerous, I think people would see danger in discourse based on their own beliefs and agendas. The Bush administration would most likely consider the anti-war discourse dangerous for fear of losing control over their two dimensional projected image of the war. And most of us consider the discourse between hate groups over the eradication of minorities as dangerous. So it's relative to the individual, but an essential part of what makes up a democracy. 

And how does "expertise" govern who can speak on certain issues and you can't? I agree with what was said in chapter one of the Theory Toolbox in that without possessing facts to back up an opinion, it's a mere matter of he said, she said, which could go on forever without resolution. In this light, expertise and knowing what the fuck your talking about matters. However, knowing who an expert is quite difficult sometimes. We watch and read "expert" opinion everyday without questioning the validity of most of what we then adopt into our own body of ethos and belief. This is where independent research and frankly work comes into the equation as we have to then challenge the expertise of someone...or just take it with a whole shaker full of salt. 

Bridges to Meaning

What Metaphors of a Magnifico said to me is the author has a meaning that seems to be escaping him so he leaves it to us as readers to establish our own meaning and figure out exactly “of what was he thinking?” The author also writes that “the meaning escapes” but as the author the meaning escapes him. As the chapter on Reading indicates, we as readers are entitled to our own analysis and opinions, so even though the meaning may have escaped the writer, we as readers can draw our own meaning on the poem. For example, this poem could be a metaphor for war or a metaphor for discourse. The phrase “twenty men crossing a bridge into a village” sure sounds like an invasion to me, but the following passages which ask if “twenty men are crossing twenty bridges” and so on sounds more like this might be a poem about discourse. One man could have the knowledge and experience of other men and perhaps he is going to go to the town and speak about those experiences with those inside this town. That is one interpretation of this poem, and I, as the reader, am allowed to it, but it does not make it fact. It is just one interpretation. That is the right of all readers.
When we get down the anatomy of the poem, such as the ellipsis and the repetition, I feel it was the author’s way of placing meaning in the poem without actually writing it. When he writes “the meaning escapes” and then ends two lines with ellipsis then we are left with an unfinished through and the fragmentary image that is left in my mind is that this is a memory for the writer and he is trying to remember it long enough to write a poem about it. However, he is having difficulty. This supports the earlier theory that maybe this is a metaphor poem about war, because if it was a traumatic experience for the writer then his memory in all likelihood could be a bit distorted or missing, perhaps that was the meaning that the writer tried to leave with this poem, but once it leaves the writer’s hands it enters that of the readers and there are as many interpretations in the world as there are people. “Are twenty men crossing twenty bridges or one man crossing a single bridge?”

Page 20 Question 3

I feel that discourse is a powerful thing because without it we would have no means of effectivly communicating our thoughts to one another. It isnt just speaking in a certain language but any means of communication, whether it be through sing language or what we see on television. Discourse is said to be more of an argument or a debate. Therefore it can be dangerous because if we feel very strongly about something and have alot of emotion behind our facts we will not be able to effectively get our points across. People who believe themselves to be "expertise" feel that they are better at proving others wrong and pushing what they believe is right onto others. And if you are not an "expertise" than those who have more knowledge might not feel that we are adequate enough to share their ideas and their input. I feel that it is not right to not be able to let someone speak because they are not known as an "expertise." Everyone has an opinion about something and without discourse we would not be able to see different sides to beliefs we have.

Speak your mind

(pg. 20- Q. 3)
Discourse is the most powerful tool we have today, and have ever had. Everything in our society has stemmed from discourse and effective communication, or rather, the lack there of. The only thing that all human beings have in common is discourse, even those who are not able to speak are able to communicate their ideas.
Our society has been constructed as a hierarchy for as long as we have records of. These status markers also indicate power, which in then holds the authority of discourse. This power is also distributed through different cultures. In a high school classroom, if an African American student used the 'N' word, he would (at the most) get scolded. If a white student said the 'N' word they would receive punishment, like ISS (In-School Suspension), and it would more than likely result in verbal harassment from other students, including being called racist. In that situation, the power of discourse is distributed unfairly, but it is what our society deems appropriate.
After 9/11, any discourse that does not support our government is considered unpatriotic, an individuals can be terrorists for simply stating their opinions. That's why discourse is so important but so dangerous. We have the power within ourselves to say anything, but that's not the same power that society tells us that we have.

In the realm of the almost "known"

"Metaphors of a Magnifico" speaks volumes about the process of reading. It could be construed to represent the neurological processes that a reader undergoes whilst taking in information bit by bit. Beginning with the metonymical and concrete, to the abstract and metaphorical (a realm of consciousness in which the "meaning" as he calls it, "escapes", and is then replaced with associations, images, connotations etc.), at which point the signifiers lose attention to the signified, and the author drifts into the realm of metaphor, as humans are associative by nature.

I think that the numerous ellipses could possibly represent the author reading on, the completion of ideas that we are not fortunate enough to obtain. However, the repetition of the phrases which we are allowed access to are what the author's mind continues to return to and analyze. Does that make any sense? When I read this poem, I feel like I am experiencing the author reading it in it's original context, however unreal that may be.

The images with which we are left at the end of the poem, are quite evidently what is to be remembered. Why Wallace Stevens is drawn to these phrases will be forever unknown to us, but in merely attempting to make his associations and grasp his connotations brings on abstract relations to the words in our own minds. In other words, we are just as informed on the "meaning" of the context of this poem as Stevens is. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the author-ity lies in the mind of the perceiver, or at least one can theorize that being the case.

"I've got the POWER!"

Discourse can be a very powerful thing. Think about it. Throughout our lives we are told what is supposable right or wrong. And most of the time it is by someone who is “ranked” higher than us whether it is a parent, teacher, boss, lunch lady, etc. When it comes down to it, whether we hate the idea or even the person, most of the time we ponder about it and end up following what they say. In fact everybody who is reading this right now is a part of this class, which means they ended up going to college. Now and days the “well educated” tell us that going to college is a must! Those who don’t end up failing in life and then die. This idea of listening to someone higher in society or well educated could end up being an extremely dangerous incident.

Let’s take for instance, Hitler. At that time we was a very powerful person and his speeches were his key to becoming that powerful. He brain washed an entire nation to try and wipe out multiple groups of people and apparently some people don‘t recall this event. On the other hand we have someone like Gandhi, who are trying to help out society. In the end though, if you are a very powerful person you will have people backing you up in some way. Hell, some people still like Bush!

I believe this is an important time to use a quote I once heard in a movie, “Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention”(John Doe). This quote is one I realize as the days move on. Unless you have a higher position in society, people just don’t want to listen. You’re not going to listen to a complete stranger on the street tell you about the Civil War. You’re going to go to some sort of teacher. Even though the guy on the street could have majored in American History and tell you the same exact thing you’re teacher is going to tell you. When it comes down to it, you need that certain “name tag” that says this is what I do now listen to me . Then people will start listening. Until then enjoy the voice of the rich, educated, and powerful.

Assignment 2

Response to Question 3 from Chapter 1:
First, I'd like to say that the idea of the author is very new and interesting to me. This question of expertise really gets me thinking. What makes someone an expert on a topic? My initial reaction is to say education (a.k.a getting a degree in a certain field). But perhaps there is more to this concept of expertise, after all there are many areas in which one could be considered an "expert" without any training or education at all (eg. relationships). Further more, anyone can share what they have to say about anything; there are no prerequisites to writing a book or creating a website.
The last part of this question also sparks my interest. Especially the words "emotional" and "unpatriotic" being used to lessen the authority of discourse really gets me ticked off. I find many books that could be described by these two terms more interesting than works that would be described by opposing terms. Putting the label "emotional" on a work to discourage the public from taking it seriously is (seriously) bullshit. When hearing this, one would be lead to believe that emotions are frowned upon (let alone questioning and going against the norm of our country; "unpatriotic"). I'm not sure that statements made without emotions to back them are worth listening to. After all, we are human and emotions fuel most of what we do and how we interact on a day-to-day basis.

Behold! The Panzani Image!

why cultural studies?

i chose to take cultural studies because i think the study of all culture is interesting, whether it be the study of american culture or foreign cultures.  i have an appreciation for all of the elements that make culture what it is (traditions, food, music, clothing, dance, etc).  i am especially interested in people's behavior and how it differs or how it is similar according to their culture.  i also appreciate different theories and opinions, and enjoy questioning those theories and opinions.  i also had a good indication that this course would allow for interesting class discussions, and i knew i would enjoy being a part of that and learning from that.  

"It's About Cats"

I enjoyed both of these chapters immensely. When the authors talk about the presence of an author serving as a sort of guarantee for meaning, it goes along with what I've called "The Dylan Effect" for a few years; Simply knowing that a certain individual wrote it makes everyone feel like it must. But that's not why I'm writing this. No, I'm here to answer the question about the poem.

After reading it, I felt like "Metaphors of a Magnifico" was very slyly commenting on the tendency of people to look for meaning in everything. The frequent use of ellipses read as though the narrator of the poem was ruminating on the subjects contained therein. "Yet is certain as meaning...," reads as though the narrator is trying to convince himself that it must have meaning.

"Of what was I thinking?" is the moment when his thoughts get away from him, he loses what he thought was there for a meaning. I particularly like the last two lines, where he begins to repeat the imagery in his head for what will undoubtedly be a long period of time, certain there's meaning he's missing. It's that obsessive human need to find meaning in everything, which shoots off our need- oh, and I have it too. I got it bad- to justify our existence. While there is meaning in a lot of things, I think most texts are best summed up by Andrew Lloyd Webber's response to being questioned on the meaning of what was, at the time, his most recent musical.

Revised Due Dates

Course Schedule & Assignments

• All readings and blog questions are due on the day they are listed. (e.g. when you arrive in class on February 5th, you should have read TT p. 9-34 and Reading Packet 1 and completed the blog entry the previous Monday)
• TT = The Theory Toolbox
• Blog questions are taken directly from the TT using the pages and questions listed.

29 January, 2008

• Syllabus Introduction & Review
• Review TT to choose a few sections for presentations/case studies

5 February, 2008

• TT, Introduction, p. 1-8
• Reading Packet #1
• Opening blog Why did you choose this class, or, why did you choose Cultural Studies? What about “culture” interests you enough to study it? What do you think “culture” is?
• In Class Preparation: Bring in one item you believe reflects your culture; be prepared to discuss why and what you feel it explains about your culture.

12 February, 2008

• TT, Author/ity & Reading , p. 9-34
• Reading Packet #2
• Blog Question: p. 20, Question 3 OR p. 32-3

19 February, 2008

• TT, Subjectivity, p. 35-50
• Reading Packet #3
• Blog Question: p. 48-50

26 February, 2008

• TT, Culture, p. 51-70
• Reading Packet #4
• Blog Question: p. 69-70

4 March, 2008

• TT, Culture, p. 70-82
• Reading Packet #5
• Blog Questions: p. 79-30, Question 2 OR 3
• TAKE HOME MIDTERM ASSIGNED

11 March, 2008

• TAKE HOME MIDTERM DUE

18 March, 2008

• TT, Ideology, p. 83-94 and History, p. 95-108
• Reading Packet #6
• Blog Questions: p. 92, Question 1 p. 106-7 OR Question 2

25 March, 2008

• No Class Spring Break

1 April, 2008

• TT, Space/Time, p. 109-124
• Reading Packet #7
• Blog Questions: p. 123, Question 1

8 April, 2008

• TT, Posts, p. 125-140 (through Poststructuralism)
• Reading Packet #8
• Blog Question: p. 131

15 April, 2008

• 15 April, 2008 TT, Posts, p. 140-155
• Reading Packet #9
• Blog Question: p. 150

22 April, 2008

• TT, Differences, p. 157-175 (through Queer)
• Reading Packet #10
• Blog Question: p. 170

29 April, 2008

• TT, Differences, p. 175-191
• Reading Packet #11
• Blog Questions: p. 186, Question 1 OR 2

6 May, 2008

• TT, Agency, 193-206
• Reading Packet #12
• Blog Questions: p. 195 Question 1 OR 2
• FINAL EXAMS ASSIGNED

13 May, 2008

• FINAL EXAMS DUE
• Blog Question: Consider one cultural artifact, theory, practice or belief that we did not study that this class has caused you to reconsider. At what point did you begin to question your previous assumptions or understanding? Which parts of the readings and discussions gave rise to your reconsideration and how did it shape the new meaning you think you have come to understand?