Rick's Panopticon

Foucault highlights Bentham's Panopticon, a physical and ideological control, using visibility as a weapon of discipline. Useful in times of great disorder, this mechanism is a form of constant, participatory social surveillance. Over time, control is less and less pertinent. Without any further knowledge, members of society conform to the described norms for fear of disciplinary action- assuming constant observation.

Rick and Morty: Episode two describes Rick's happy place, an entire world designed with the sole purpose for him to hang up his lab coat and relieve himself. Being a genius, Rick has designed a beautiful planet simply so that he may "poop in peace" with a beautiful landscape surrounding him. He is troubled when he finds a broken twig next to his ceramic throne; someone else has used his toilet. After tracking down the alien that defiled his realm, he tries to punish the criminal. Yet the Alien is not frightened by the threat of death, he welcomes it. Undeterred, Rick plans to humiliate his Alien trespasser by programming the toilet to portray thousands of Ricks laughing at a single seated man. Rick's antagonist dies before the mad scientist can get his last laugh. Leaving the hero hollow and alone. With no purpose, Rick sits on the armed ceramic to be ridiculed by hologram copies of himself.

Rick's investigative abilities is an imitation of the power of social surveillance. While his Panopticon toilet is protected, he is a victim of his own 'norms' in the end.

Pre-Class Michel Foucault

Foucault begins with the system of measures taken against the plague in the 17th century: partitioning of space, continuous inspection, and registration. Plague could be stopped with order. He also discusses how Lepers were excluded from society in an attempt to create a pure/utopian society. The technique of supervising and determining the abnormal people in society today comes from the plague. Disciplinary techniques are used as a methods of control over "abnormal" people.

Foucault brings in Jeremy Bentham's panopticon, an architectural and metaphorical structure where "visibility is a trap." This leads to the development disciplinary society as a "society of surveillance" rather than the antiquity society of spectacle. The notion of always being observed is internalized and one conforms to "norm" and is "policed" by their own mind. For example, SnapChat has a feature where you can anonymously track your friends' locations on a map at anytime- creating a permanent visibility. You can see what they are doing according to their bitmoji's- like driving a car, playing golf or sleeping.

Post Class Bourdieu

In class on thursday, I enjoyed trying to define what  “middle-class morality” was. I found it helpful that I was able to try to describe the concept in my own words. This made me feel more comfortable to share my thoughts in the future. After class, I did some digging on what this concept means. While searching online, I found a Prezi by John Kremar that explained what the middle-class morality is all about. In the presentation, middle-class morality was defined to be “ the way a person is expected to behave and think when they are a part of the middle class”(Kremar, 2013).  By looking at this definition, I could easily apply it to what Bourdieu was trying to explain in his essay. These Tv celebrities and hosts are mostly paid to control the minds of the middle class. If we look at the middle class, they are the majority of people that live in America. Therefore, these two-bit celebrities are controlling the ideological mindset of the masses. For example, the Kardashians are making millions and millions of dollars doing just that. This whole family sets our fashion, social, and body trends, that consume the minds of the masses. The concept of individuality is technically stripped away because we are taught to be just like the people in “power” (aka the Kardashians or any other celebrity).
   
With my family being a member of the upper-middle class, I can see myself falling in line with the control of these two-bit celebrities. I feel like beauty standards are what I follow the most. Now with social media, I am always continually trying to find what Kylie Jenner is doing with her make- up to keep with the trend, or I am watching the Kardashian show to see where I should vacation next. By analyzing my behavior, I am almost ashamed that I am stripping away my own identity to fit in our “perfect” society. By studying Bourdieu’s work, I have become enlightened about  the truth, and in the future,  I will become more mindful about how to think about the world around us.

https://prezi.com/0xpm9ugiug0m/middle-class-morality/

Post Blog Bourdieu -RS

Pierre Bordieu takes a critical stance on the TV industry in particular. As he states, TV is "making everything ordinary" and two-dimensional so that there is a lack of depth on mainstream media. In addition, this is especially dangerous with news circulation, as this is a main medium in which people are informed on politics, state affairs, global events, etc. He makes a large statement in saying that TV only confirms what we already know, thus being a form of confirmation bias. Major TV networks are ruled by capital interests as they are largely owned by companies and joint corporations. One of the reasons why I have always loved and stuck by the media site, Democracy Now!, is because they are fully funded by the public and individual donations. In addition, I have come to trust and appreciate groups or public figures based upon their sources of funding. For example, Bernie Sanders receives a large majority of his campaign funding from personal and public donors. Many other Democratic candidates have found this tactic to be beneficial as well. I think that showing how feasible this tactic is helps the public better question and support methods related to financial backing. I think that a lot can be revealed about a figure or organization based upon their corporate affiliations and sources of funding, in the same way that a lot can be revealed about an individual by looking at their shopping history/habits.

In addition, we noted in class that the middle-class is under a lot of pressure to do the "right" thing or make the moral and conscious choice. The middle-class is also very exhausted and drained from their constant work. I think work very accurately defines and characterizes the middle-class, after all. Although I and other students or individuals in my circle are always constantly trying to make the conscious decision (buying organic, not using straws or plastic bags, attending marches, staying informed on candidates etc.), I've come to realize how unfair the system is and how much pressure and exhaustion is put on me and the everyday middle-class. With having to balance jobs, academics, a social life, personal matters, etc. there is a lot of task and moral responsibility put on people who are already working full days. Making informed and conscious choices or upholding civic duty shouldn't be so tasking or laborious. We shouldn't have to go out of our way to have these options. Yes, there is a certain degree of responsibility and initiative for the everyday citizen to take, however, I think that is troubling that such efforts should be so difficult and challenging to access. For example, the U.S. does not give the day off for Voting day, unlike many other nations. Obviously it is a civic duty for each citizen to partake in this process if they are able, yet, it is made harder for people who have a full work day, family obligations, school, etc. I think a large "fix" can be made by holding major corporations accountable. For example, in matters of the environment everyday people are urged to eat organic (more expensive), use reusable containers, stop driving, save water, etc. Yes, one individual's actions make a contribution, but large corporations can make MUCH larger of an impact. Electing leaders and figures who have the power to make more executive and widespread decisions over corporate control is one way in making more effective change. The ones in power are the ones who should be held accountable. I think it's dangerous to blame individual people and that it is more effective to look at the (oftentimes faulty) systems that govern them.


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

Post Class Pierre Bourdieu

In the essay, "Introduction: The Aristocracy of Culture," Bourdieu connects taste and culture. Consumers taste for daily products is constructed by their culture and their culture is constructed created by the products they consume. Taste is in relationship to position in class hierarchy. In order to reach as many people (middle class), Bourdieu says TV news "suits everybody because it confirms what they already know and above all leaves their mental structures intact"(254). He says taste for the middle class is framed by the upper class controlled news and "two bit spiritual guides" disseminating ideology in order keep a class hierarchy. Bourdieu says that these guides or "journalists want nothing so much as to be part of the intellectual crowd. No doubt, this structural inferiority goes a long way to explain their tendency toward anti-intellectualism" (255). Newscasters become revered as intellectual sources for the middle class and actual intellectuals become "too smart" to relate the to middle class. Anti-intellectualism is inherently dangerous when rejecting scientific consensus. For example, anti-vaccine parents are putting their children and other children at risk for easily-preventable diseases that have the potential to kill.

Pre Class Blog- Bourdieu

As I read through and interpreted the content of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological critique of television and journalism my mind was tugged in many directions. There was a large emphasis on the pressures of “viewership” and “ratings” being the huge determining factor of media production. That journalists become known and trusted when television picks up their stories, and in order to do so, they need to provide content discussing things that are thought-provoking enough to get attention but inoffensive in nature. In many of my Public Relations and Communications courses here at Rollins, we discuss this same line of thought, coined “fluff content” it’s something we try to avoid but still get sucked into as it’s what large audiences enjoy consuming. 

My mind is focussed on how these theorists apply to both my understanding of cultural media, as well as how it applies to the Public Relations profession that I am studying to be part of. My example of media that illuminates the theories presented in this reading is that of Instagram ratings and timed-posts. There are applications that analyze the content you post on Instagram for what is in it,  the words used in the caption, and the time it is posted, all surrounding what received the most viewer engagement. Engagement is the core of what Pierre Bourdieu is talking about in his theory, engagement in communication, culture, and response. This is a tenant of communication and of culture as they really go hand-in-hand. I have found that when working on Instagram feeds and curating social media guidelines the main point of the content and placement has to do with the engagement of the desired audiences and less to do with the off-the-cuff ideas or inspiration from those behind the scenes. 

Like, Bourdieu discusses when the focus becomes on what other people want to hear, see, or read about the journalist (or creator of this cultural media) truly loses their individual voice. For me, working in Public Relations is about representing an organization’s voice and brand so it really isn’t about individuality. But for the journalistic fields, I can see this as posing a serious problem. If journalists aren’t in control of the media who is? And do we get to decide the kind of influence this has on our culture? I would join in Bourdieu’s optimistic view of this as I too believe with critic and discourse of the powers controlling television and media we can create more original and honest cultural content. 

Pre-class 11/14 blog -RS

Bourdieu

I think theorist Pierre Bourdieu is bringing about a fair and pertinent point when he notes that there is a type of classist system in terms of people's preferences in everyday culture. The type of things that people choose to engross themselves in---art, movies, literature, news, sports, music, etc.---are all influenced by social hierarchies. In addition, education plays a large role in this system. The way we are educated and exposed to different cultural systems and practices is largely influenced by how and under what system we learn and gain our education. Once again, this is an example in which an institution governs how we think, act, and express ourselves. There are also different codes for certain cultural activities as well. For example, art, theatre, opera, literature etc. has always been associated with being more "cultured" due to its associations with the upper class. Even still, different music tastes (e.g. rap, pop, hip hop versus classical) have associations to their respective social classes. Although all of these forms of "taste" can coexist, issues arise when people try to deem certain tastes to be more cultured (usually due to social class) as opposed to others.

In addition, Bourdieu states that "A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded" (p. 250). In regards to the contemporary art world, I am highly in agreement of this statement. In the contemporary and modern or "high" art world, there is tendency to exclude certain groups and be inaccessible to much of the population. Especially with the rise of conceptual art, there has been more of an inaccessibility issue with artist's creating "out-of-touch" works and more accusations of people being "art snobs" or in the "cultural elite." Much of the literature on art and theory as well has included exclusive language that is not necessarily accessible to all people. It is language that is confusing, winding, and verbose, that can daunt certain populations from approaching. I think that there has recently been more effort to make artworks that are accessible to all groups, however, the art world has a long way to go in liberating art and becoming an inclusive environment.


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

Post Class 11/12

In class today, I got an aha moment about myself and my contribution to society. When we were talking about ideology and why it matters to us as a society, I started to think about my individuality. When Dr. Cummings said that our individuality was at stake, I got a little bit nervous and began to think about how my individuality is constructed due to the ideologies that grasp us. While thinking about this dark truth, I started to wonder how I could change this narrative. I know in class, Dr. Cummings mentioned that once you enter a system, you can make a change. Through that statement, it made me think about ways that I can critically think about the ideologies that are around me. I believe, as CMC majors, we are given the tools to think critically about the world around us. To make a change in my society today, I can use what I learn in these classes to lend a critical lens in my future job. Thinking about how I can potentially change our societal views is amazing because I feel like, within this, I can start to gain my individuality back.

Also, during the class, I enjoyed listening to Noam Chomsky. Even though I couldn’t quite understand the historical events that he was talking about during the interview, I could still see the concepts that we learn in class in action during that historical period. For example, I remember when Chomsky was talking about the Italians and how they were slowly conforming to the ideologies during that time (“the whomps are un-whomping themselves”). Looking at Chomsky’s statement, I quickly saw this as the “other” conforming to the ideological state of society. I am proud of myself that I am finally able to identify different theories to real-world situations. At the start of the semester, I thought I would never be able to do this, so I am so proud of where I am at right now

Post Class Blog Jameson

Jameson interprets postmodernity not as a style or a movement rather as a cultural dominant of late capitalism. Jameson is looking through the Marxist lens to critique the development of class society and how capitalism begets class struggles in social and economic systems. Jameson describes postmodernity as a cultural dominant as "...the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and terror." He says that other scholars have defined postmodernity as a break from modernity but says that this idea of a "break" is an example of how we have lost touch with understanding the past, through crisis in historicity and pastiche. Jameson says that parody was replaced with pastiche. Here adopts Baudrillard's simulacrum, a representation or imitation of a thing that replaces reality. Parody implies that there is a moral judgement or comparison to norms while pastiche is a bricolage without a grounding in societal norms. Pastiche celebrates rather than critiques the work is imitates. This results in the bracketing of history into the understanding of eras with generative and commodified attributes 1930s-ness or 1960s-ness. Jameson says that Postmodernity superseded modernity in a part of a continuum not as a clear and steady break that we are taught to believe through the upholding of pastiche through Hollywood nostalgia film and the addictive need to create newer and more unique products for consumption.  Examples of nostalgia films that bracket history into a generative and therefore replicated and digestible images include: Midnight in Paris, Dazed and Confused, Woodstock, and Hugo. All films set in imaginary representations of imagined periods separate from reality and beyond history to invoke nostalgia for an ideal history we never experienced.

Post 11/7 blog -RS

After our discussion of Jameson and subcultures during Thursday's course, I have a better understanding of how society's current state of culture interacts with their dismissal of violence and injustice abroad.  Jameson uses such critical language, because the situation is urgent and demands a shift in thinking. As he notes starkly, "the underside of culture is...blood, torture, death, and horror" (p. 410). When we live in such a culture where "depth is replaced by surface," we don't see the whole picture nor care to see the whole picture. We are in a world of recycling, copying of style, and pastiche. Everything lacks depth, originality is practically non-existent, and nostalgia is ever present.

Jameson says that we have a sort of nostalgia for things in the past that we never even experienced. I think this is more prevalent than ever, especially with a surge in "retro" and "vintage" style that is reviving bell bottom jeans, mom jeans, scrunchies, vinyl, polaroids, etc. This is also extremely present in modern day media with remakes and continuations of past series' (e.g. Spiderman, live-action Cinderella, live-action The Lion King, Star Wars, etc.). It seems that we are in a state in the film industry to borrow and try to make the classics that we once knew even grander. As we iterated in class, Jameson believes that this nostalgia for the past comes from a dissatisfaction with the present and our own state of society.

I appreciated however, that although most aspects of society are ingrained in this pattern, the creative industry is one that attempts to reveal or free individuals of the constraints of society and culture. It seems that those in the art industry particularly aim to point out the invisible forces that dictate how we function and live in society. Although I think there is sometimes a lack of accessibility in this realm, artists have come a long way in portraying, affecting, and changing society.


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

Post Class Blog- Jameson

I was really intrigued and almost stuck on the concept presented by Jameson that “pastiche eclipses parody” on page 415 of his work The culture logic of late capitalism. This idea is most evidently seen to me as present within cinema. Much like how I discussed in class this is seen in films like Quinten Tarantino’s Once upon a time in Hollywood and Damian Chazelle’s LaLa Land. Both films jump from a scene that looks identical to the 1950s and then skips to the 1980s, or even midwest in the early eighteen hundreds then jumps to the 1970s in the very next frame. These films show a “bricolage” or eclectic sense of time, space, style, technologies, and linguistic references. Leaving the viewer guessing and piecing together what they see and relate to prior texts or representations of the timeframes referenced in these films. Personally having seen both of these films and not able to fully connect which parts of each film to an entire place and time I felt this sense of confusion mixed with the nostalgia for a time I didn’t exist within. I was not alive in the eighteen hundreds, the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s, yet, from my own consumption of previous cultural texts from those times, I am able to intertextually connect to certain objects, style, or technology. Yet, not as accurate as someone who may have actually lived during that cultural time. 

On this same thought, the idea of style again comes into play. I for one am almost notoriously known for liking, wearing, and representing a large range of different “styles.” This is directly reflecting this same logic of late capitalism that Jameson is offering in this text. The fact that some days I want to dress with inspiration from the 1970s and other days drawing inspiration from the early 2000s and the like I am borrowing and combining aspects of all to give me a bricolage of my own personal expression through style. A true postmodern logic of expression, observed in myself. 

Instead of doing a playful representation of a time period in the past, combining a variety of different time periods is what these films really embody. Jameson’s theories on the cultural logic of late capitalism seem to directly fit in the representations that these films utilize. 

Post Class 11/5/19

In today’s class I really enjoyed the dialogue that I had with my fellow classmates. I feel like we all connected ideas that helped us understand the theorist a little better. One part of class that I enjoyed was when we connected CMC 100 to one of Hebdige quotes about the how the hegemonic powers deal with the “other”. In this part of the class, we discussed how people of power exoticize the “other” in order to neutralize the “disturbance” the subculture causes. While learning about this section on of my fellow classmates connected this concept to our CMC 100 content analysis projects. From here, I connected Hebdige’s concept directly to how we see the exoticization in beauty magazines. In high fashion magazines we see exoticization of cultures constantly. I remember when I did my content analysis for CMC 100, I saw that African American beauty was determined by their exotic “tribal” ancestry. Most of the African American models were dressed in ancestral tribal clothing that included different kinds of animal prints. With looking at this project and applying it to Hebdidge theory, I can understand how exoticization can be seen as an issue within our cultural dynamics. 

As an African American woman, the term exotic has always bugged me.  This is because people that are not of color would comment and tell me “oh you’re so exotic looking. What race are you?”. When I was younger, I would think that being called “exotic” would be a good thing, but now that I am taking this class, I know that this is an unconscious strategy to deal with “the other”. It’s almost scary to think about all of the things that we talk in class (so I don’t think about it if I don’t have to), but I am happy that I have the chance to be conscious about our twisted society.

Pre-class 11/7 blog Jameson -RS

Jameson---Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism

Jameson is another highly critical theorist who speaks on culture, capitalism, and postmodernism.
He particularly references many of Karl Marx's ideals in culture as related to the political economy. He agrees that a society's cultural standing is dependent on its economic state. In addition, he particularly characterizes the status of postmodern society as being stuck in depthlessness.

Jameson is adamant on his point that the postmodern society is just circulating ideas, information, media, style, etc. Everything is a repeat or a copy of old ideas and constantly being recycled or repurposed. This is also coming from his idea on the pastiche and its overwhelming role in postmodernism. He is also implicitly noting that the pastiche is causing people to be more complacent, uninterested, and inactive. Because he believes that things lack true depth, he sees that content today is not making any meaningful statements or going further beyond simply making a statement. Content is stagnant when it tries to create content, if it even bother tries.

As I've mentioned in previous blogs, discussions, and critiques of critical media literature, I often agree with many of the points brought up by theorists. However, I struggle to see what solutions (if this is even the right word to use) or positive forms of action that they offer (besides being critical of course). Obviously, in the works and studies we examine in CMC teach us to use a critical lens and keep our eyes open. It is also evident that this is not a practical mindset 24/7. All we can do is be mindful and informed to our best ability. However, although this point is not a new one to me and it needs to be heard, I would still like to be refreshed by a piece of literature that is able to be proactive and fully activate readers without discouraging them to the point of cynicism.


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

Post Class Blog- Hebdige

In Dick Hebdige’s “From subculture: the meaning of style,” he presents a compelling look into culture landing on the ideas of where style originates. Building on definitions and applications of culture, hegemony, and ideology he presents a robust argument of how the subcultures in society are borrowed if not later stolen from to be incorporated in the mainstream. The meanings of a subculture are vast, but specifically from them, we can understand more acutely what their antithesis is, as in mainstream culture. In other words, subcultures seek to break and or bend the rules of society and culture (resisting ideologies) so by looking at what their key point of resistance is we can glean a more well-rounded understanding of the ideologies that are most prominent. I also appreciated how ideology was described by Hebdige as a little allusive or hard to consciously be aware of because research definitely indicates that which can be confusing to some or incredibly intriguing to others. 

From this reading, I made the connection to the opening night film of the Global Peace Film Festival that came to the Rollins College campus earlier in this semester, titled “The Remix: Hip Hop X Fashion” this film explored very similar occurrences in style appropriation as was mentioned in this text. Hip Hop fashion started as a thriving subculture and almost an exclusive scene for the Hip Hop community, until it started to become borrowed, bent, and bought by mainstream culture. The film brought to light how the originators of this style weren’t properly recognized during this boom, nor did some even want that spotlight. 

Another connection to a film titled “Merchants of Cool” was made as this film explored how there are marketers specifically targeted to observing the subcultures of young America to better understand trends and forecast future purchasing habits. It’s interesting to see how history repeats itself when it comes to subcultures, that what was once despised soon becomes praised. I guess the old cliche if you can’t beat em’ join em’ is relevant to this phenomenon.

Post class blog 10/29

Henry Jenkins identifies this concept of a feedback loop and appropriation, where the mainstream industry takes independent ideas and DIY aesthetics that are becoming popular, and uses it for its own capital gain. These ideas and trends are often appropriated from different cultural and ethnic groups, which causes a lot of controversy and offense. Different trends that have become popular include white people, in particular, wearing traditionally African American hairstyles, such as, dreadlocks and corn rows, as well as, whites, again, appropriating Native American culture and wearing traditional headdresses to festivals. Both of these trends have taken off in previous years, creating entire industries, and have come under fire for the offensiveness that they cause African American and Native American communities. We also saw the appropriation of black hip hop fashion, and in particular, the industries role in the appropriation, in the documentary The Remix, where corporations like Louis Vuitton and Vogue, stole ideas from black designers and passed them off as their own, and made them mainstream. This is a huge problem with the mainstream industry, because it passes off cultural tradition as trends, and doesn’t give credit to the creators. Although a lot of trends that are appropriated can cause offense to cultural groups, it can happen to anyone. All throughout high school, I wore large t-shirts, leggings, Birkenstocks, scrunchies, my hair in buns every day and carried around a Hydroflask, and that was my individual style. Five years later, due to the rise of Tik-Tok, a video sharing app like Vine, this look has started to get noticed and become known in our culture as being a ‘VSCO girl’. Now my individual style is a trend, so if I try to wear the same clothes I’ve been wearing for the past five years, I am classified as main stream, unoriginal, boring and made fun of in the way that ‘VSCO girls’ are made fun of throughout the internet. It isn’t so much that it is offensive to me, but annoying, and I can’t imagine how I would feel if my traditions were appropriated, such as that with the Native American headdresses, etc. It also puts into perspective; how difficult it is to be individual in a world where technology and corporations can disseminate everything over the internet to create trends faster and larger than ever before.

Post 10/29 class blog (response)

In response to Tianna-Marie's blog post on Hebdige, I found many parallels to our ways of thinking and analyzing "From Culture to Hegemony; Subculture: The Unnatural Break." We both drew connections to how Hebdige includes Barthes in his discussion, especially in regards to language.

This also circulates back to the our class discussion on Tuesday, in which we analyzed the way in which ideologies cause and control how we act in society, even down to how we communicate and interact with language. I had brought up the point of how gender ideologies influence how we use language, and how this in turn can affect power dynamics and roles in the work force. Similarly, Tianna-Marie had brought up ways in which race ideologies cause her to express herself differently with language, depending on the situation. I also agree that we have largely become submissive to our roles and these forces that control us (this is hegemony).

Every interaction in society is coded in a way, and includes hierarchies that are often unnoticed and unrecognized. Language, which largely permeates how we communicate and interact with daily society, is only one component of hegemony and ideology. Other habits that we believe to be small and tied to our individualism are also largely affected as well. For example, fashion, food, social habits and activities, etc. However, I do wonder what can be done about this. I'm not necessarily going to pyschoanalyze every activity that I participate in for example, to see if it is a result of a larger ideological scheme intended to enforce power dynamics. Studying these topics however, might make me more wary in the future or less reluctant to "stay in my lane" perhaps. Regardless, it's interesting to note how every individual is influenced by these dynamics so we can be better equipped to understand the position of others, rather than judge.

In addition, I agree with Tianna-Marie about topics coming up that have continued to remind me of previous CMC courses. I have found my experience in CMC 100 and 200 to be extremely helpful in interpreting certain theories and how they relate to social injustice and my own role in it. Topics and terms that I have also thought to have forgotten have also resurfaced and been useful towards my responses in class discussions. They have also been useful in connecting theories to a larger theme or picture.

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

Hebdige Blog Post Post class

In Hebdige Essay, "From culture to Hegemony; Subculture: The Unnatural Break," I liked how the author tied in Barthes's perspective into the essay. In the section of the piece, Hebdige talks about how Barthes wanted to  "expose" the nature of our culture in our society. Through Barthes' analysis, he finds that our culture and society are controlled by systematic elements (ideologies) that keep us at float. Barthes deeper understand about culture and who controls it started to make me think about how I operate in society. Between class on Tuesday and now, I was thinking hard about if the actions that I have partaken in my life are entirely based on what I wanted to do, and honestly, I could find one action that was entirely my own decision. For example, I realized that everything I buy is to be up to date with the latest fashion or technology. I don't think  I ever thought about if I, Tianna-Marie, wanted to purchase those items. Due to the ideology of capitalism that shapes America, citizens are always craving for the latest trend to fit in. With internalizing this information, it made me aware of how my life is controlled by ideologies and the ideals of people in power. I think this section of the class has helped me understand the difference between modernism and postmodernism. This is because it is easy for me to put these concepts into perspective when I am wrestling with these two concepts in real life. Before this class, I was submissive to the fact that certain metanarratives were controlling me and my decision making, which essentially constructed the structured lifestyle that I abide by. Now, with learning about what I am learning in this class, I am asking the questions and searching for meaning outside of these narratives that are controlling me.

Also, while reading this essay, it made me think about an activity that Dr. Tillmann made us do in one of my CMC courses. In CMC 200, we did an activity where we identified how these ideologies and metanarratives impede our everyday thinking. This activity helped me understand about the hegemonic powers that control our culture. With learning about theory it can be quite tricky sometimes, but I am happy that I can go back to the concepts that I learned in my 200-level class to help me tease out these big concepts.