Pre-class 10/30 Blog--RS

Hebdige brings up many of the points discussed by theorists we have discussed in class this semester such as Barthes, Marx, and Althusser and ties their ideas all together in a discourse about ideology and hegemony. He mentions that Roland Barthes helped reveal how arbitrary the system of language is, especially if used as an attempt to reinforce and maintain class differences.  He comments on the relative fragility of this system in becoming myth one day.

This reminds me of our class discussion on Tuesday, in which I mentioned how ideologies related to gender affect language use between men and women. For example, men tend to use more commanding, concrete, and demanding language, which is also reflected by their dominative position and tendencies in society. Women on the other hand, tend to use more language that is uncertain, polite, and less direct. A woman might say more terms related to "may, can, if, etc" whereas a man might tend to use more words such as "I will, I'm going to, I am, etc." Therefore, this language that is more direct and straightforward may result in more likelihood of promotions, getting what one asks for, not being taken advantage of, etc. This is one subtle way in which ideology and its relationship to language has taken hold and established this hegemony. Hebdige also notes that a struggle between discourses within ideology is always with a struggle with signs, which is relevant in this instance.

Hebdige brings up this idea of subcultures and the cultural elite with his words. He comments on the notion of "reading society" being a skill that comes with being cultured and belongs to the upper wealthier classes. This notion has become more deconstructed in our current age I think, and has proven to be an issue, especially within liberal or Democrats. The "Right" in particular has used this as an offensive tactic by accusing the "Left" as being elitist and stuck up. It has even become an accusation to be part of the educated. Educated symbolizes privilege, and those who sit in their figurative glass castles of academia can seem to be part of a type of cultural elite that excludes those on the Right. Although there has recently become more notice of hegemonic differences, certain sides have also utilized this to their advantage to engage in a sort of "cultural warfare" as some say.


On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work. -Renee Sang

Post Class Blog/ Lyotard+Habermas

In response to Jurgen Habermas's Modernity: An Incomplete Project, Jean Francis Lyotard writes Answering the Question: What is Modernity. Lyotard questions Habermas's argument that modernity is an incomplete project. Lyotard takes on the idea of realism, writing that realism "always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch." He argues that we exist in a post era of modernity that demands a new way of representation and thought. Lyotard argues that the avant-garde has ended the idea of the singular meta-narrative and creates endless meta-narratives- especially within the culture of art. Today, the production and exhibition of art is still inaccessible to a large sector of the public. The notion of "high" art and "low" art is still prominent creating a large divide in understanding and even larger confusion. Likewise, the increased price points for contemporary works has created a large gap in the representation of artwork in now highlight shows featuring celebrity endorsements like Art Basel.

9/15 Post Class Blog

While reading "The Emergent Rules," I had a hard time connecting to what Jenck's wrote about postmodern architecture. It was not until I reflected on my own experiences in relation to the text, could I understand. This summer I worked at the Frelinghuysen Morris House and Studio in Lenox, Massachusetts. The studio was finished in 1930  and the home was built onto in 1941 in the styles of modern and midcentury modern styles. The building is built in the Bauhaus and international style- clean lines and lack of color and ornamentation. The exterior of the building has remained unchanged since completion. There has been talk about an addition of a new building near the home to be the reception center for visitors. If the museum/historic home were to add a portion to the building that was contemporary in style then there would be the eclecticism of Postmodern architecture. The museum would bring together the old and the new (dualism) eclectically. This type of style is present at the Louvre complex through the combination of contemporary and French Renaissance architectures.

Post Class Blog 10/29

Karl Marx theorized how Western society functions according to class structures. He said that the structure involved all of society and was acted as a rule. It included forms of government rules and also ideological rules like religion and law. The structure benefits the people (bourgeoisie) in power of material-the ruling class has economic power and intellectual power over society. In  American materialistic society, words like "fast, new, upward, many, and active" are positive because they are associated with the increase in capital. 

Althusser expands on Marx's theory by determining how ideology functions in society. He writes that ideology is broken down into two parts. The first is the ideological state apparatus (ISA). ISA's include: religion, education, family, legal, political, union, media, and culture ideologies. ISA's are imaginary places of creating thought. For example, family, church, and school all are methods of control of behavior. Repercussions occur when an individual does not follow the systems of thought. ISA's prevalent in every aspect of society and it is impossible to separate oneself from their reach. 

The second are called (Repressive) state apparatuses. RSA's are tangible areas of ideology. For example, government, police force, army, administration, court and prisons are agencies of the state apparatus. Althusser says that  RSA's different from ISA'S because they use direct violence. The RSA can have direct access into the private lives of people. For example, the police can pull over cars and enter homes. Althusser believes that RSA's targets the working class over the ruling class because of the lack of power. He believes that the state apparatus targets the working class due to their vulnerabilities. RSA's use force and ISA's need the acceptance of the public. 

Post class 10/24 Blog

Although I have never been an ultra Disney enthusiast or fanatic (e.g. the people who have seen every Disney movie and have matching family Disney shirts and dress up as Disney characters religiously let's say), I do enjoy the occasional movie or trip to the theme park. I have always been skeptical of any major corporation, even (or especially) if they have as strong of a public image as Disney. That being said, after discussing Eco and Dorfman in class, I had a bit more tangible proof as to Disney's mastery of deception.

Relatively no one can deny that every child has based their fantasies, hope, and dreams upon Disney. However, Disney has infiltrated this world so deeply, that they have come to set the standard for what is moral, pure, and good in the world. Why shouldn't our children gain their aspirations from Disney, since they spread such messages of hope, joy, and dreaminess? It seems that only the "crazy" or extremely conservative parents who are afraid of their children worshipping these cultish, fantasy, unholy figures don't fall into this category. I think this is simply another example that one can learn to be wary of anything widely accepted or considered popular opinion (within reason/limit).

Although I agree with Eco and Dorfman on many accounts, I still fail to see an alternative to this "Disneyfication of reality" besides being critical. Although I have always held a degree of skepticism to the purity of Disney's intentions in the back of my mind, I still watch (and sometimes enjoy) the movies, go to the theme park, celebrate their charity, etc. As mentioned in my last blog about Eco and Dorfman, I agree with many of the points, but this reading seems to be highly critical (naturally) without making me feel activated. Perhaps this is due to my already existing skepticism of Disney, and these readings are meant for those completely disillusioned or asleep of Disney's capitalistic intentions. However, I will likely still go to the theme parks, attend the movie showings, allow my kids to be involved with the franchise, etc. As with many of the critical readings I have come across in my past, I feel enlightened but not necessarily engaged to do something. They make notable points, but I fail to see any viable "solutions" (this is perhaps a dangerous word as well) or things that I should do but maintain my healthy skepticism. If Disney is spreading messages to children to serve their own capital interests, what should we surround our children with instead (especially since Disney is nearly unavoidable in this day and age)?

On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work. -Renee Sang

Pre-class 10/23 blog-Renee Sang

In the introduction to Ideology, it is simply stated that "every sign is ideological" (p. 33). Ideology has become impossibly entangled with politics and symbolizes power. In order to maintain power in our current political economy (not necessarily always the government), control of ideas and thought is crucial. Marx and Engels also touch on this concept.

I think this can also relate to our last class discussion of Zizek's idea of the spectacle. Zizek is saying that the image of something can create a spectacular effect that captures our fear and awe. This is one way in which terrorism has more effectively been able to disseminate fear from afar. In this digital and social media age, a physical act does not even need to be completed by the group to be "effective." The group can simply rely on the easy spread of information and take credit for everyday occurrences of violence or havoc to spread their influence.

The author in this section of ideology is also stating that all signs are ingrained with ideas tied to power systems, and all things are also ingrained with signs that contain these associations. Especially in modern society, control of thought and ideas is key to obtaining power, and it can be most effectively maintained if it becomes unconscious as the author notes. This naturalizing process can also be known as hegemony. The author therefore makes a good point by likening ideology to "a gigantic masquerade" (p. 34). 

I agree with the author's point that "every sign is ideological," and in fact this quote gives me some perspective on the definition and role of ideology. All things are engrained with associations, messages, and implications that are also influenced by systems and sources of power. It's important perhaps to recognize this dynamic is the reason why we strive for a critical lens in Critical Media and Cultural Studies.


Noted quotes/notes:

• "Every sign is ideological" p. 33
• ideology is "so deeply bound up with politics, domination, and issues of power" p. 33
• Marx and Engels working in the context where control of ideas isn't necessarily as significant to maintaining power
• social control of thought now is of importance for power and politics p. 33
• ideology ingrained with systems of power
• Neo-classicism 
• Intellectual and material control =ultimate power/supreme control
• Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs)

On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work. -Renee Sang

Pre Class Blog 10/23

I think that one of Mark Poster’s main points about virtual reality is related to the multiple realities that are created, and that we experience with the internet and virtual reality in society, he says, “The effect of new media such as the Internet and virtual reality, then is to multiply the kinds of "realities" one encounters in society” (446). As reality is considered a state of existence, and we are able to exist through online personas, it makes sense that we can have realities that are virtual. So, Poster is saying that we can use the internet and virtual reality to become someone else, perhaps of a different gender and age, we can even have an entire life and create new cultures this way. However, Poster is saying that this is the creation of a new, virtual reality, even though it may resemble every day, it is fiction, and considered a separate reality. Poster is saying that due to technology, we are no longer limited to our one reality, we are able to create and experience multiple realities. An example of a virtual reality is the game, Sims. In the game, you can create a character or whatever age, gender, hair color, body type, etc. and name them whatever you want. This can be as similar or different as your everyday reality as you want it to be. Through your role as a Sims character, you are able to live out a life completely separate, and become immersed in Sims’ culture. So, by playing in the Sims’ reality, and experiencing non-virtual reality, you have already encountered two forms of reality, and thanks to technology this can happen in a number of different ways, so that we experience many different realities in society. Reality becomes multivalent, as the number of realities increase exponentially. I think that this can be related to previous theorists, like how Lyotard argues that postmodernity fractured the grand narratives of modernity into postmodern micro narratives, the totality of reality has disappeared and technology has fractured reality into many realities, which I think is the next big step in contemporary culture.

10/22 Pre Class Blog Tianna-Marie

While reading the essay “Postmodern Virtualities,” I could finally understand what the author was saying (I think). At the beginning of the piece, I liked how Poster gives the historical analogy of technological advances in the middle ages. While reading this section of the essay, I was able to agree with Poster that technological advances can shape a culture and dictate the way that people communicate with each other. With Poster giving examples of the ways merchants in the middle ages communicated due to their access to “new technology,” it made me think about how our culture and communication techniques today are shaped due to our access to technology. In today’s society, everything we own is digitalized. For my generations specifically, we grew up on computers, and most of us had a smartphone by our teenage years. Since we had access to this type of technology, our communication with the world has broadened. Back in the middle ages, Poster discusses how people valued face-to-face communication. Now, our generation communicates via text messages on our smart devices or direct message on our social media outlets. With seeing these differences between the two technology times, I am not sure if our generation has an advantage or disadvantage. Of course, my generation can contact people across the globe and can become immersed in different cultures with one click, but what is happening with our human interaction skills. As a member of the millennial generation, I feel like we lack these face-to-face communication skills that were valued in the middle ages. This then makes me think about and question if the Postmodern era is better than the modern era. I am not sure if this could be an argument, but I see some pros and cons with each one. 

I know in the past the I wasn’t really understanding other Theorist “theory talk”, but I appreciate how Poster presented his argument. He wrote in a way that I could understand, so I appreciate that. Also I feel like this article was easier to read because I could relate to Posters predictions about the future of technology since I am technically living in it right now. 

Pre-Class Blog 10/22

Mark Poster

Postmodern Virtualities

As I read through the initial part of this text I was immediately drawing connections to some of the most recent articles that I read for another course I am enrolled in. Discussing specifically how this new postmodern way of virtual life, commerce, and communication affect the way we perceive and form our ideas of identity. This is interesting to me on many levels, as a communications and public relations student, I am intrigued to understand the intricacies of how this digital form of interactive communication and message affects the way people see themselves within it. 

I tried to apply this to my own understanding by thinking of how elusive an online identity can be, and specifically how endlessly malleable it has become in this era of social media communications. A persona or “vibe” of a social media account reflects a user’s “avatar” but that is no longer definitive nor concrete. A reputation is built on observations and is culturally constructed, but an online persona or identity is built and maintained by the individual. You can change your expressed identity freely now, and this causes me to ask the question of what happens to the user’s perceived identity in this era?

On this same thread the article titled: “How Disney magic and the corporate media shape youth identity in the digital age” author, Henry Giroux talks about the effect that Disney in their marketing campaigns have on the formation of identity in the youths of America. In unison with some of the other theorists, we discuss in class this article critics the way Disney makes its fortune. Although I don’t entirely agree with the core argument of Disney’s corruption of youth, I think it is a relevant and thought-provoking critic of this multi-billion dollar empire. Specifically referencing how the digital push of Disney media into the hands of children has shifted the identity formation of children to solely that of a functioning consumer. Emphasizing the child’s role as a consumer rather than a curious thinker or purely a child.

Given that I have been raised in a media-saturated culture, and my childhood experience was largely shaped by Disney media and "magic" I wonder how much of the ideas I have of myself were constructed by the marketing campaigns of this empire.

Post Class Blog 10/3

In preparation for out first exam, we discussed the major themes in our readings so far. We mainly covered the beginning of the class including theorists: DeSaussure and Macherey. The main take away from the review material was that Postmodernist thinking points to the arbitrary. We discussed how there is no relationship between signifier and signified-and how all language is arbitrary. Modernist theorists looked for meta-narratives that we the causation for everything and they were also obsessed with finding the "original." Postmodernist thinkers do not spend much time looking for the original referent but are more concerned at analyzing how each text is in reference to each other. This extends into Benjamin's discussions about the mechanical reproduction of a text and how the 'original' is then altered because it is given a new context by its reproduction. This brings to question whether there is a true original because if everything relies on its reference to another text then there cannot be a true referent. All artwork, literature, and texts rely on millions of references because the language which they are thought and read is arbitrary in nature.

Post-class blog 10/3 -RS

In this weeks readings on Baudrillard and Zizek's "The Desert of the Real" and Eco and Dorfman et al.'s "The Disneyfication of Reality," we examined Disney's role in imagination, the creation of fantasy, and in grasping reality. In Eco and Dorfman et al.'s essay, the specifically critique Disney on their involvement in children's lives and imagination.

Disney has virtually become such an icon associated with children's dreams and fantasies they they have come to set the standard what is good and pure. The authors comment that Disney's comics and other content is embedded with politics and values that "are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be" (p. 112). Even more, Eco and Dorfman note that basically all children's literature and content is manipulated by the adults who create them to inflict certain ideas and values upon them. They state that the imagination of children is channeled to "ethical and aesthetic ideals" set by society (p. 113). They basically also state that children exist for adults to project their own hopes, fantasies, unfulfilled dreams, and regrets upon.

Although I understand and agree for the most part with Eco and Dorfman's declarations and critiques on Disney and children's literature, I struggle to understand what their call to action and takeaway they have for readers. I sense a main theme of using a critical lens and being especially wary of Disney, with a point that no matter our intentions, children's content is inevitably always political. However, do they suggest that there be no children's literature unless it is written by the kids themselves?

In addition, I feel that they go so deep in their critique of Disney and the politicization of Children's literature that they raise many more questions involving philosophy, especially regarding ethics and morality. For example, If we're projecting these value onto kids is that even our right to? Who are we to determine what values and rights we project onto the young, impressionable children? What values should we even project onto them and is there even an answer to what we SHOULD be teaching them? If children's literature is thought of as being used to promote good teachings and lessons upon kids, how do we decide what the "right" and "wrong" messages are to promote on them? Although Eco and Dorfman's analysis is deep and thought-provoking, it is almost so highly critical that I fail to see a cohesive attempt at what individuals could do to work towards a solution.

Pre 10/3 class blog-RS

In reading on Disney's relationship with reality this week, it is interesting to consider their role in children's lives and their own perception of reality. Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart comment on Disney's political reaches and involvement in the lives of children. It seems that Disney has become the standard for pure, moral, and innocent ideals. They are able to easily get away with propagandizing and hide traces of politics since they not only follow but have become this standard.

The authors state that "Children's comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be" (p. 112).
It appears in my interpretation that according to Dorfman and Mattelart, all types of childhood stories and fantasy are politicized and influence children to follow the whims and values determined by the adults writing them. It is no doubt that due to their imaginative and impressionable nature, care must be taken in producing content for children. The types of statements made by Dorfman and Mattleard would come as troubling to any adult and are a critical yet meritable approach. However, I struggle to understand what the authors' suggestion is for keeping politics out of children's literature and other content (if there is a way).

They clearly and skillfully point out the deception in Disney's actions as well as the problematic features of the fantasy world itself. However, does this simply mean that children should only be producing their own content? Or that they should only look to reality and actual social happenings for life lessons? Does any imaginative world created by adults for children have a facilitated political motive even subconsciously? I feel that with further thinking, this piece then brings up a lot of philosophical questions and concerns regarding morality and ethics. If the adults are the ones producing the content that has political tones and influences children, what are the correct, if any, messages that they should be projecting? Should they even be projecting these messages? This only serves to bring about more questions and not much of an idea as to how children's content should even be framed. Although critical and enlightening, I hope to see a solution (if this is even the right word) for approaching the imagination and teaching of children.

On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work. -Renee Sang

Post-Class Blog 10/1

The connection Baudrillard made between the simulation of a ransom and the effects that simulacrum could have on the public trust of law and order. This is specifically correlated to the pilot episode of Black Mirror, I find that the theories we cover in this course really correlate to a lot of the messages that Black Mirror showcases in their episodes. 

This show in specific though is about the British parliament, the princess was taken and there was a ransom asked of the prime minister to publically stream himself doing indecent things to a pig for her to be released. There was the struggle shown of the prime minister basically being told he absolutely has to do this against his will, and the mass media and public relations professionals being the ones applying this pressure. Little did everyone know this was just a way for the person who ransomed the prime minister to see how fast the public officials would crumble under ransom via simulacrum. The live stream was scheduled, everyone was advised not to watch, yet, everyone did and was off the streets, and nation-wide commerce paused for that moment. And right as the screening aired the princess was released unscathed into the road, and the ransomer committed suicide. 

A dark episode that made me sick to my stomach watching but was a grotesque way of telling this same message that Baudrillard was communicating in this portion of his work. That we can highlight the malleability of reality, or the lack thereof, by a simulacrum. His overall stance is that simulation is a new reality, and this media example shows that via scandal which is also in line with Baudrillard’s arguments. 

I wrote the above section on my personal example of Baudrillard prior to class, but after our class discussion using Disney as a media text to correlate to the readings I saw in a greater way how the false “reality” that Disney creates of “real” places in their parks is changing the reality that we experience if we go to these places. Specifically, I grew up going to Epcot and always found the Japan and Mexico pavilions at the park some of my favorites. I’m part Mexican so that explained the first cultural tie, but I was just deeply fascinated by the Japan pavilion at the park. This last year in September of 2018, I went to Japan briefly and remember saying to my friend I traveled with how “this feels like a theme park” that my very point of reference for the experience I was having in Japan was that of my experience in Epcot. Therefore, highlighting the effect of this simulacrum on my actual experience in real Japan, as feeling “unreal.”