On Ideology

I think some presumptions about college classrooms is that they are boring.  When you walk into a classroom there is nothing there except empty desks and chairs, and possibly an instructor waiting for you to walk in.  You (the student) might walk in thinking, "this is going to be so lame and boring."  However, when you give the class a chance you might see that it is actually interesting and fun and more beneficial to you than you had ever imagined.  Since the archetecture of this campus is basically an urban landscape/the city, i think it the presumption there is that college life is going to be great!  One might think, "I'm going to school in the city and I'm going to get to party at all the cool bars in Chicago!"  When in actuality, you are spending most of your time on campus and the library writing papers, reading assignments and working on projects.  You don't have as much time as you'd thought to spend at shows at the Riv.  

It appears as though a commonsense decision made to arrange the classroom is the fact that it looks plain for a reason.  The instructors and college president wants the students to learn in college, not daydream and look at pretty artwork on the walls.  The instructor wants me and other students minds to be stimulated by what she/he is saying.  Wallpaper and signs would only distract me, personally.  I've also noticed that the lobbies of the campus buildings are quite plain as well.  They are usually inhabiting old buildings, therefore there is some old archetecture but also there is a simple sophistication to the entrances of the buildings.  There is not too much going on as far as decoration to give the campus buildings a classy feel or a feel of a place you would want your son/daughter to go to college. 

I think that these common areas and classrooms should be plain and simple.  Students are here to learn, so the students' focus needs to be on the subject at hand.  If there is artwork, or decorative wallpaper on the walls, or signs...this will only distract the students when they should only be focused on their work while they are here.  The plain simple feel also gives the campus buildings a sort of uniform feeling.  Of course every building is different, yet somehow you sort of know a Columbia College building when you see one.  The logos on the buildings help too.  This also gives the buildings a uniform feel.  

Space of Ideology

I think some of the presuspositions have been that college kids are only at school to learn and to take no experience from thier present situation, thats why lecture halls house 200 hundred students or more, there is no such thing as personal space or time for babying, because out in the "real world" you get neither of those. But ecause Ideology is the common knowledge of the masses who gets to decide common knowledge? It is a paradoxical situation that seems to be born mostly out of generalizations. However we take these things with out question and make them truth, making it hard to tease out the ideologies, because they have been used so many times in our lives that create them in to being natural. It seems disturbing that things that we call natural and common sense have no real grounding and we dont know why they are the way they are. No amount of questioning would turn it the other way, with somethings. So more than anything it seems like people are trying not to figure out how they are, but would rather let the chips fall and see where they settle in.

Page 92 Question 1

Well most of the classrooms i have been in have been very empty rooms. There is no decorations at all. There is no inviting feeling in the rooms, it actually makes me nervous and a little bit uncomfortable to be in the room. The "common sense" of the room is that we can not have fun. We are in college now, time to get serious. We cant have visual aids, like posters, pictures, or quotes up because it might distract us from our teacher lecturing. I personally think it would be better if we could have some visual stimulation and to have a warm environment. I wouldnt be so nervous and skeptical about going to class than. I think that the classes are also very long. About 2 hrs and 50 minutes. They cram so much information in one session that by the time i get back home ive forgotten everything i just learned and have to look over notes. They layout of this school is very confusing. We dont have a centralized campus and all of our buildings are very spaced out. Seems like Columbia is trying to keep us from socalizing and focusing us on our school work. When i first started, and still to this day i feel like it is hard to meet people because we dont have a place to go and socalize with fellow students.

Presentation of History or HIstory of the Present?

Question 2

We can accept as true, that history only has meaning here and now if we adapt what happened in the past to some relevancy in the present. So does that mean, that if a historical event has no prevalence here today, that it has no meaning? No, because the prevalence of a historical event is different from person to person. So now we can accept that all history, whether relevant to me or to you has relevance probably to someone, and there for is prevalent. 

So the present determines prevalence of history. That is kind of a sad thing, and hard concept, for me to fully wrap my head around. If I do not find relevance in the bible, it does not mean that the events within its pages have not found their way into my life. My mother's up bringing and life has been shaped by her mother's views about the church and religion. therefore, even though my mother and I do not identify necessarily with the teachings and beliefs of my grandmother, it effects our lives, especially on Easter Sunday. So then the prevalence of history in someone's life doesn't completely mean that that history is meaningless for them. 

Also, i think historical significance comes from a persons ability to identify with a history, and as was stated in TT, history is a broad overview, no matter how specific it gets, because it is not all encompassing, because it can't be. So if someone can not identify with a historical generalization, then i think it is his or her responsibility to form a new generalization around their personal history, if they can, and in that situation, history becomes present. 

Architecture

The campus of Columbia College collectively would have to be labeled as eclectic or thrifty. There's all these buildings that were all built at different times for different purposes, somehow functioning together as one whole unit. Ideologically this can be seen as resourceful (buying the buildings in the area and converting them to suit a common need) or as cheap/greedy (buying the buildings in the area and converting them to suit a common need, instead of building a new campus, renovating the buildings, etc.)
Only a few of the buildings seem to work for their intended purposes. The ACC building probably has the only sufficient elevator to student to class ratio out of all of them.
Common sense fights with ideologies. Common sense tells us that there should be more elevators in the 624 building, but this would counter the said 'thrifty' ideology that dominates Columbia.

There's always to sides to a story

First and Foremost, in our American society, we are taught year after year in history class that there's a (good)side and a (bad) side, end of story. Secondly we are brainwashed from kindergarden through twelve grade, to believe that America( throughout history) were always the (good guys). Historians deliberately left out key information in history books, so America can be veiwed as the( good guys). What about all the countries that fought wars against America? What about their side of the story? or How did they see things fit? These are all important questions that seemingly is left out. For example The Iraqi people are veiwed to American citizens as evil and malicious people. Why? Because America is at war with Iraq, and America are the (good guys). But why do Iraqi people hate us? Maybe because we invaded their country, bombed thier homes, killed innocent people, mocked their religion and gave them a new democracy. But when it's all said and done, none of this will be in the history books. Ironically, this will be the history that history leaves out.

Blog 6 (Ideology of Classroom/Campus)

When I think about the "natural" presuppositions in our Cultural Studies classroom, the first thing that comes to mind is the neutrality of the room. There are no pictures on the wall, no school logos, no unique equipment, no fancy chairs/tables, no aesthetic lighting. It seems there's nothing to influence the students before the teacher starts her lesson. However, the absence of overt influences in the room speak to ideologies that foster a "blank slate" environment for the teacher to fill with whatever subject is being taught at that moment. The room immediately tells me, based on what I've been taught in our culture, that I'm there to learn serious information in a professional, adult setting (we are no longer at desks like in high school, but sit around tables that are set up in a horse shoe shape). 

Another "common sense" aspect of the room set-up I unconsciously recognize is the placement of the professor's chair. A bigger and seemingly better chair, placed at the opening of the horse shoe in front of the dry-erase board, is automatically assumed to be the teacher's. No one thinks for a second to sit there as they file into the room. Also, the size the room in comparison to the number of students that fill it, adds to the silent ideology of the class by telling us that it is cramped with students because so many want to go to Columbia. I am one among many who wants to be blessed with the richness of education that the school as to offer and should be thankful there is a place for me in the class. 

In terms of presuppositions of Columbia's architecture I think that the fact that many of the buildings on campus are very old, rehabbed structures gives the students a sense of tradition, wisdom and longevity. We unconsciously assume that Columbia as been around for many, many years, teaching wise lessons that have withstood the test of time. And the fact that the campus is spread out in the urban jungle of Chicago, gives it a sense of hipness and excitement. A College whose simultaneously seems like the wise sage and the hip youth exploring the limits of intellect, while keeping up with the changing times.      

 

As we go through our everyday lives we take for granted the things we do and the place we go, and forget all the work that was put into these things.  After reading the question i started thinking about our campus and all the different building that Columbia uses. The buildings have this great architecture inside and out and are placed in perfect locations.  Even the way that they are set up inside has this artsy urban feel to it.  But what i tend to forget is that Columbia chose to create this image to go along with the image they portray of being an individualistic urban art school, like no other school.  It is common sense after realizing this to re-examine the set up of Columbia and understand how Columbia uses different aspects to create the image they had in mind.  And to understand it wasn't just done, it took time, planning, changing, and group effort to create the final image.  

 Thinking about common sense slightly puzzles me, so much of the things we do in our everyday lives is common sense, for example locking your door when you leave, turning off the lights when you go to bed, to wear a jacket when it is cold out.  But all of these actions are done without thinking, they become natural actions.  In a sense common sense takes up the largest part of our everyday actions creating and shaping us into the people we are today. 

Ideolologies I See

I think that commonsense is everywhere in the world. If these common senses were not taken into consideration then I think a lot of the world would be in chaos. It is common sense to drive on the right side of the road in America, if it wasn't then there would probably be thousands of deaths everyday. But not all the people in America are idiots so there are not nearly as many deaths as there would be without commonsense. It is commonsense to nowadays to thank a person after they did something hospitable to you. If people do not think this is commonsense, then these people are not humans. Many commonsense activities involve ideas that are known to almost everyone that is why it is called commonsense and that is why commonsense ideas are almost everywhere we look from the roads, to the structure of classrooms, and the ways teachers teach.

The Ideaology of Columbia College

The Columbia College ideology: Create Change. All right, do you want four quarters or ten dimes?

This weekend I worked the Columbia College Open House. I’ve worked it three times before and have gone to it twice. So a grand total of six times, hearing the exact same spiel, watching the excitement in all the new student’s eyes, and the disbelief that a school as cool as this really exists. Maybe just maybe they can do what they love and be successful…

It sounds corny but we’ve all been there. The question is why do we buy into this promising future Columbia ideology, because after a year and a half here Columbia can be a frustrating place with it’s almost total lack of organization and effective communication with it’s students. For example, did you know we have a sports program? A baseball, two soccer teams, fencing, and a cross-country team that went to compete in Rome last year. It’s all true, but who would know it?

The thing that draws the new students here, and make it’s current students feel special is their ideology of an art school. I’m going to compare Columbia with Roosevelt. Let’s start by looking at the actual buildings. You walk into a Columbia building, there’s an art gallery to your left, the third floor is painted bright turquoise, and there’s weird furniture. You walk into a Roosevelt building. The paint is conservative, the furniture is leather, and to your left there is an overflowing bulletin board of happenings around campus. The differences make us feel that since our school building is a little more radical in interior design that we are more creative than the mainstream, but no matter how you look at it a couch is a couth even if it’s made of yellow plastic or leather. Actually the leather one would probably be more comfortable. But I digress.

At the Columbia house, they do exactly what the book says. They lure students in with vague ideologies but when the students get here, they don’t address students problems (like the Health Center, what a joke that thing is). However, since the ultimate ideology is that if you get an education you will be successful Columbia tells students that they can “author the creative future of the country” students go to this school with the hopes of fulfilling their dreams to the fullest. Now I’m not saying that Columbia’s a terrible place. I have learned a lot of things here, but the only way to achieve anything is to work really hard. It seems humorous though that students seem to forget that once they get here.

(Pg 92, Q 1)

History of Civilizations

If, like Nealon and Giroux say, history is written with an emphasis on the narrative, then the topic of Athens and Sparta creates a simplistic version of conflicts between states. It's much easier to understand two states fighting when one is seen as reckless and "bad" while the other is structured and "good." Athens and Sparta are prime examples of this ideology; assuming that all is black and white. It implies that society, upbrining and class standings influence events and the actions of a culture.

Like the chapter says, we can learn from history and grow from it. I'm not sure that our teachers choose to spend time on it as much as the books choose to cover the topic. Historians seem to believe that knowledge of this topic is beneficial. Perhaps this theory helps us to recognize violations against human rights and a group of people. One of the most important topics covered in this chapter addressed genocide and the importance of refusing to ignore it, not matter how terrible it may be.

Comparing Athens and Sparta to Star Trek simplified the topic even more finely. By comparing the presumably uncomprehensible past to a part of pop culture, it becomes accessible for a much wider audience. I have a very small amount of knowledge regarding Star Trek and the characters on the show, but through hearing the plot of the show from my dad, I can understand the situation between Athens and Sparta.

The "Clash of the Civilizations" theory reminds me a lot of the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians. As outsiders viewing a conflict, we often believe the myth "They've always hated each other;" however, as I've heard the book repeat over and over, the world is getting smaller and smaller. Events that take place on the other side of the world effect us more than we know.

It seems as though traditional history is continuously simplified. Maybe historians underestimate their audience and assume that we will not understand complex, unique situations. Depending on which country, book, school you are examining, it could seem that a specific history is forgotten. History usually leaves out countries and states where no significant conflict has occured.

That Damn Dirty Harry

I was a bit confused by the way the assignment was laid out in the syllabus, so I went with Question 2 from page 92.

The over-arching theme at the heart of Dirty Harry is one of revenge, and getting justice when it would be otherwise impossible. The ideology at play is one of two wrongs making a right, really. You have to accept that, in the face of his partner having died, everything Dirty Harry does is called for, including the collateral damage, which is considerable.
The film is set in San Francisco in 1970 because it represented a total end of free love and the hippie movement of the time. Here was a city that was at the center of a huge movement based almost solely on ideological ideals, and Dirty Harry was the antithesis of that. I enjoyed this part of the question, because I never thought about the choice of city before. It makes the movie that much better.

We always need a bad guy

pg. 106, question 1:

In our history, there has never been a situation where there isn't a good guy and a bad guy. Even in our present society, everything is based on the scale of good and evil. These ideas and discriminations are sometimes personal, but in history they are, more often than not, conjured by our societies viewpoint. Our historians decide how we view our history, and there's a big emphasis on "our." The differences between Athens and Sparta is that which we, as an American society, have no authority in constructing that history. Our historians took away what we decided to be important, who we decided was the good guy, and how to retell their history. The interpretation of this history is similar to everything in our current society, easily comparable with international affairs, because we hear "the other side" even less often than affairs within the US. An excellent current example is the issue of Kosovo's independence. The first, and biggest, issue is that Americans virtually have no idea what is going on in Kosovo right now. The small percentage that does know, knows a miniscule amount of information that has been gathered from either picking up a newspaper or hearing about it on the 5 o'clock news. I do, however, still have a little faith in our American culture, that a group of people are adequately educated on this topic. Nonetheless, our second problem is that the group of individuals who are familiar with this problem are only educated by corporate America and are not being shown the different sides and points of views. When our future history books are written, Kosovo's independence will be what is examined by America, rather than the views of the Serbs or Albanians. We have grown up with the ideology that independence is the right thing- no one questions that notion. That is where our problem lies. The group of American's that is aware of problems maintain this viewpoint, pro independence, but they generally don't take into account the repercussions of the things they have accepted to be "right." With Kosovo's independence, the Serb's safety is dramatically threatened and, currently, it seems as thought Kosovo's independence is causing more problems that positive solutions. On the other hand, anyone could argue that the Serbian's safety is less important, because they're radical and setting the US embassy up in flames. I'm sure that I've gone way too far off topic, I seem to be good at this, but being Serbian has made me extremely passionate about this topic. If I wasn't Serbian, I know that I wouldn't have such an opinion either way, in fact, I would probably be for Kosovo's independence. But my personal tie to this topic is the reason that I am able to (relatively) look at this subject as objectively as I can. Does this mean that our historians have to also hold personal ties to events in history in order to document them as "accurately" as possible? I don't know. But I do know that my continuous education of cultural studies and our social problems has made me much more pessimistic about my goal to save the world.

Blog Post 6

Pg. 92 Question 1 

This question is quite the unexpected one. The reason being is I for one can attest to the fact there a number of things that are looked over on an everyday basis which we do take for granted. As for the building we have class in, it would make sense that there are 4 elevators because our class is on the 13th floor, without them people would come to class late, be sweaty, and out of breath. Also this class meets once a week so it makes sense that we meet for three hours, because any less time we would be unable to cover all the material that is required. Now this "common sense" idea works well when looking at anything in your environment because without it a lot of things could not have been created or work as well as they do. So some things other than material or structural are effected by this ideal. Just like the common golden rule treat others as you wish to be treated. It basically just makes sense why wouldn't you want to be treated fairly and kindly. Overall this whole idea of common sense makes the majority of things in life make sense, so much so that we over look them everyday. Some times people need to stop look back and realize these things and use it as a process for tackle new problems and fine solutions. 

Ideology in the Classroom

p. 92, Question 2
This idea of ideology being present in the physical space that we live our day to day lives in is very interesting and thought provoking. It's interesting specifically because I have never thought about these things before. What presumptions are made when designing these spaces, and how are they taken granted for and made invisible by the users of these spaces? As I think about classrooms and how they may be designed, the first “commonsense” assumption that comes to my mind is the idea that the teacher stands in front of the class. Most classrooms are set up with a blackboard on one wall that is presumedly at the front of the classroom. While teachers and students are free to move the desks about the room in any fashion they like, the placement of this blackboard puts some constraint on the manner in which they may do so. Most buildings have bathrooms on each floor, assuming that the students and teachers will be there long enough for these facilities to be used. Some classrooms are set up with a large desk or podium that are specifically for use of the teacher. Again, we are brought back to the commonsense idea of the teacher leading the class; that the teacher needs more work space and tools in order to interact with the class. Most rooms are large enough for the students' desks can be set up in a circle, allowing for open discussion, taking some of the attention away from the teacher as a focal point. Overall, however, the classroom is set up for a teacher to lead his/her class and be in a position where most of the attention is on her/him.

Ideology

Ideologies that I see around the campus would be just the preconceptions of certain things. Most people that don't attend Columbia have their own views about the school and the people. Even students have views about the curriculum, and the dorms. Commonsense decisions made as part of the classroom would be for example the school's faculty and offices. These offices and faculty basically keep the school in order and makes things easier. If there were no offices and faculty, then the school would have no order and no structure. These offices keep things together and in order. If we tease out these presuppositions then we are just imaging what things would be like if these ordinary tasks and ideologies are not there. Common sense of space is how we view the world and how we operate in a manner which we think is normal. It takes a lot of adjusting to something new and out of the ordinary.

History - Question 2

History is written and rewritten. What ways does this make history more complex, conflicted, and open ended?

First of all, to Nealon and Giroux's conclusion that history is not neutral. Of course it isnt'! How long did it seriously take them to figure that out? History is always subjective, and thats why it can be "rewritten." A PERFECT example is that club Ahmadinejad belongs to that believes the Holocaust never happened. Think about that. This is an event in history that is proven by photographs, eyewitness accounts, and the miles of documentation created by the Germans WHILE they were committing genocide. And yet, there are people who just say that the Jews made the whole thing up to gather enough sympathy to get their own country. Fucking baffling. But, it serves as a perfect example to how "conflicted" and "open ended" history can truly be. Also, it serves as a wonderful counter-point to the "history goes to the victor" premise. Another prime example that I'm really shocked isn't in this book is the issues that caused the Civil War. The Theory Toolbox sure loved talking about Gettysburg, but damn did they miss an interesting topic. In the North, we all know that slavery was the main issue of the Civil War. We won, so shouldn't we have full rights to the history? Well, we don't. Many schools in the South really lean the roots of the Civil War towards the state's rights issue, and actually try to avoid talking about slavery. Granted, they still have to address it, but there is a huge difference in saying "slavery started the war" and saying "state's rights started the war, and slaves were kinda involved." So here we have people who LOST the war and are still able to provide their own slant on the events! The point I'm making is the problem with history is there is no way to stop people from putting their own spin on it, and in some cases they attempt to completely change it. The facts can only tell so much of the story, and even worse, the facts can be ignored.

If You Don't Like The Past, Then Just Change It.

After reading this section it was as though my eyes slowly began to open up. Who really does decide what should and shouldn’t be considered history? According to Griel Marcus, the Sex Pistol’s were an important mark in history. Being a musician, this would certainly be to no surprise, because the Sex Pistol’s changed the music industry. Stating facts like this one really make history an open ended topic. If this were the case and history really went by what anyone wanted it to go by; would history classes still exist? I believe Nealon and Giroux make a good point by stating that history is like a narrative story. It has a point of view and the author has the ability to put down what he thought was significant. The only way we can understand what has happened in the past is by looking over what the author has written. And whose is to say that the author is including every important detail in his writing.

Many of these writings are written by individuals who have an educated background. This idea takes us back to the beginning of the semester stating that academia are the ones who run our lives. They choose what is right and wrong. What is history and what is just useless information. However, when it comes down to it this is a good thing. Imagine a world in which history was written by anyone. Would the history written be factual? With academia deciding what is history and what is not helps us to decide what we should learn and stay focused on. This information we should not only learn but we should learn from it and see why it is considered history from academia’s perspective. There is only so much information we can obtain and with history having margins, we are able to keep all of the information from getting to complex and open-ended.

The Media Sucks

I hate the media, because of the stranglehold it has on our society and our culture. The role media plays in our democracy is one of sheer crap. All they ( the media) do is fear monger and inform us about all of the horrible things that are going on in the world. While we go to school and or work all day everyday it's incredibly nice to come home, crack open a drink and allow the overwhelmingly pessimistic news networks to make my life feel even more hopeless than it already is. A disturbing trend that has taken course in the media is the slow death of actual journalism. Journalists steal leads and stories from other sources, thus creating a lot of redundancy throughout the internet, television and radio. Every channel is the same crap. Fox News brings us the lovely "Fair and Balanced" perspectives from gung-ho conservatives who feel that their inability to compromise or be tolerant of others needs to be shared with all the world over a loud speaker built into their own voice boxes. CNN wants us all to think that everything is a lost cause, and that we're all doomed to be destroyed. CNBC is all about money, but at least they don't pretend like they aren't. At least I can still watch the Daily Show and laugh about our government's problems, but not become depressed about it.

All in all, the media has immense bias, and hardly anything these days can be absorbed pure information. It's all dummied down and dialed up with emotion from the so- called "journalists" that it's hard to know how to interpret all the information out there. Everyone believes their personal view needs to be inserted into the discussion of facts and fiction, which creates a lot of rooms for error and hostility. Oh, but need not worry, friends! We still have the New York Times- why would they ever print something without all the facts?

Blog 5 (trapped by media)

The question, "What is media's role in a democracy?" is relative to what culture your speaking about and you is answering. So, I'll answer from the point of view of a "middle class" American citizen in a capitalistic democracy. I think media is a part of popular culture. It shapes how we see ourselves and others and sets up scales of what's acceptable to whatever group you what to interpellate yourself with: the playa, the jock, the entrepreneur, the indie rocker. And I tend to agree with the Marx's view that popular culture is controlled, if not produced, by the bourgeois class in order to zombify the proletariats out of revolting. And with all the descriptions of US corporations merging into 5 or 6 huge, god-like companies in the last chapter of the Theory Toolbox, my view is furthered strengthen. 

Media's bottom line, be it a news channel or the home-shopping network is profit. Above and beyond money to operate, they want money enough to compete in our socially darwinistic economy where the more money you have, the more power you have to leverage in a democracy seemingly more respectful to the wealthier voice. Money somehow implies intelligence and authority and corporations try to shape every last detail of their image so that the consumer will feel like they themselves are becoming more intelligent and powerful by using a companie's product. And if all media is also this capitalistic, competing beast out for our loyalty and all "news" about our the decisions we make as a democracy are drawn from media, then media conglomerates are indeed a threat to a properly working democracy. 

The checks and balance of competition in the market place is threatened by the merging of huge corporations, yet many of the new products they produce (or buy out once they become popular), such as YouTube, should give us a little hope. They're still affecting us in subversive ways through advertisements on the site, but the nature of free video posting to anyone is revolutionary in concept and could be seen as hope of "the people" winning ultimate control over the media we're all so "inbed" with.