Pre-class blog Appadurai

As Americans, we are often (rightly so) accused of living in a bubble. We tend to also live in a Eurocentric/Western world as well. I have constantly heard that we must prepare for this "ever-increasing globalized world and economy" throughout multiple forms of media. There is no doubt that with increasing migration and movement of people due to environmental and conflict causes, areas are becoming more globalized. We have access to people, resources, and cultures more than ever before as Appadurai notes. Society is being characterized with change and movement and Appadurai is saying that there is also a lot of cultural relativity involved with this and a changing of culture in both parties (not just on one end).

Despite living in a bubble, I have also commonly heard that the United States is quite diverse and like a "melting pot of cultures." I agree that the U.S. possesses a diversity of peoples (it also leaves out a lot of people from the narrative). However, it does not necessarily contain a diversity of imagination and ideas/opinions (maybe just a lot of polarization). Touching back on Marx and Althusser's ideas on ideology being natural and permeating of everything within a culture, we have become overwhelmed by capitalism's economical and political control. In some sense, all of the "scapes" that Appadurai mentions are governed by capitalism. For example, the mediascape of the U.S. is controlled by major companies and conglomerates. Our ideoscape is then impacted by the ideas and information we receive from these sources. In addition, the idea of the Imaginary as Appadurai brings up, is tied to the idea of the (imagined) American Dream (This can also then impact immigration and influence ethnoscapes). This dream as we know, is yearned for even more by those who don't have it and not achievable or accessible to all. These are only a few examples.

Although I have slight trouble grasping some of Appadurai's opinions on globalization, the framework of five landscapes is helpful in understanding the context and implications of our globalizing world.


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

Macherey and Locus of Control

What is most important in the work is what it does not say- Pierre Macherey

This quote seems to intend that the circumstances and bias surrounding media give meaning between the lines. I struggle with this stance, Macherey is normally a critique of structuralist thought. This text, taken literally, implies that there is some malignant all-seeing organization of thought presiding over world affairs. What the script does not say is the personal bias and ideas each reader brings to the page. Each individual interprets everything under a microscope of memories, each passing lens slightly filtering the experience. I think that Macherey is proposing the importance behind an internal locus of control. The power of intention lies within the individual, to hand off the small burden of cerebral stimulation is to also donate precious independent thought.

Stance on any given perspective is swayed not only by the idea but often the nature of said idea’s presentation. Understanding why something was omitted gives a peek at what might be reasoning behind a given  sector of thought. Conversely it might display errors or counter - arguments within the presenters logic. Representing or omitting certain facts can often be used in a pathos-styles statement: “vapes have killed 6 kids this year” while this might be true, it offers little vantage over the entire vaping debate. This single data point is much like peering from the side window of the Titanic; it is simple to understand and easy to agree with but from the inside, you will never see the vastness of the entire vessel - a simple response to the above vaping quote is: “how many are killed by tobacco products each year?” This gives a broader understanding of the issue and its connections/roots. As more data and evaluation is presented, a better picture can be produced. 

Barthes vs. Habermas

I am interested in language because it wounds or seduces me.”
-Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text

I cannot help but be reminded of a section of What is Postmodernism by Habermas. I talked about the idea of pain as the driving mechanism for pleasure. The Sublime Sentiment, and idea or thought that prescribes both injury and arousal, is the essence of life. Bottling these memories brings true meaning to life. In my previous post I settled that the taming of pain and  measuring it against social norms brings meaning to life.

This quote by Barthes jumps track. The sexual notion of this quote ‘wounds’ and ‘seduces’ implies an anticipation of sorts. It seems that Roland is trying to point out the nature of man: To dominate life yet be bound by experience. Pain nor pleasure drives each individual to continue to rise each morning, it is the expectation of a gamble. To discover a new planet, conquer the sky, climb a mountain, defeat the enemy or build a media empire: It is all to simply throw yourself against the coals, to see if what version of you is waiting at the end.

Ferdinand de Saussure: Agreeing to Disagree

“Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula.”- De Saussure

De Saussure is impressing the importance of language in this quote. Yet without thought, language could never have existed. During the 20^th century, mediums of language like written text, codes, and the invention of the telephone in 1876 was breathing new life into a global industrial era. Even today many often neglect the luxuries information systems have to offer. Each passing generation inherits an abrupt tsunami wash of knowledge.

In this way, communication and written arts have enlightened the world like stars among the vast expanse. Similar to the vastness of the universe, there is a sea of referents (stars). Humans are simply incapable of consuming this infinite amount of media that is presented at the tap of a finger. In this way I fin that I disagree with De Saussure. While thought may be vague and immeasurable, language is over-saturated. Ease of access has created an equally impassable route to truth.

Lyotard Commentary

“Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and 'retro' clothing in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter of TV games. It is easy to find a public for eclectic works.” Jean-Francis Lyotard

I feel that Lyotard is commenting on the effect of the global market upon socialization. He was a pioneer in the developing Postmodern world. The Cold War in its industrialist nature, seem to have shaped much of his disposition for ‘universality’. The introduction of the internet software information systems presented wealthy capitalist groups with new and uncharted ways to exploit the masses. Corporations had the novel opportunity to organize and push subliminal metanarratives among the airwaves. He paints a picture of technological dominance, very reminiscent of the rather new fear of AI (Skynet). Lyotard predicted human susceptibility to the digital long before the arrival of terrifying AI like Microsoft’s Tay or the Chinese bot XiaoIce. 

Failed AI experiments while terrifying are far less threatening to global social wellbeing when compared to aggressive marketing. As global citizens we are currently held far closer to whims of those that wish to push eclecticism by the computers in our pockets.

In each individuals’ search to be just that, individual, many fall prey to the siren song of marketing. Bombarded with constant advertising messages, millions choose to present the life they wish they had instead of the one they have. It is easy to select an avatar to play the high stakes digital game, it takes for more soul-searching to confront individual characteristics. In order to cope with the (wo)man in the mirror, these marketing messages help us cope with the strain of increasing electronic involvement. In this way, eclectic tastes are an easy target for

Habermas In the Rain

The sublime sentiment , which is also the sentiment of the sublime, is, according to Kant, a strong and equivocal emotion: It carries with it both pleasure and Pain. Better still, in it pleasure derives from pain.

-Habermas, What is Postmodernism (43)

That was a lot of commas. This really reached out and snatched my attention, I feel a though it describes the irony of Life itself. What is sunshine without rain or snow? Would we find pleasure in beautiful weather if not for nasty, muddy or cold conditions? There is no perspective on perceived good until one has experienced perceived bad. Yet all of this perceived positive or negative is purely subjective, yet judged by billions. Yet much of that experience or judgment seems to be driven by an eclectic taste, generally a well-accepted social narrative. It all seems rather arbitrary.

Is not the most erotic portion of a sky where the clouds gape? (repurposed Barthes)

Maybe that is what makes the sublime sentiment so innately human. People use that alleged pain or pleasure to quantify existence: To accurately feel both, revisiting each sentiment, is to be truly alive.