Adorno and Horkheimer say that "culture today is infecting the world with sameness" (57) While there is a lot of evidence that culture is indeed doing this, it is interesting to note that they wrote that statement well over half a century ago. Culture has, to some extent, driven the world towards sameness. Human beings often want to blend in with others and be accepted and specific cultural groups can be quite intolerant of other distinct groups. In addition to inter-cultural conflict, one only has to look to the annals of history to find an impending avalanche of evidence to the fact that most cultures are quite intolerant of other cultures. Times like the crusades and the age of imperialism are good examples of these.
That said I think that their idea has to be upgraded to fit with our time: the age of the internet, the age of the high-speed mutagenic narrative. A completely accurate rephrasing of their idea, if I may be so bold as to say so, is that culture today is infecting the world with different samenesses. This is in line with hebidge's Ideas about subcultures the world splits itself upinto different little groups the groups merge into the mainstream where they crosspollenate each other before dividing again into different groups.
Monday, November 5, 2007
GM 23 October, response to Francesca’s 10/30 Adorno
Your blanket statement concerning “white privilege” concerns me. More particularly your statement, “The myth of success is an ideal that minorities are conditioned to see as attractive in that it validates their labor in seeking to attain the successes white’s find with less struggle.” I would agree with this if you substituted “minorities” with anyone not included in the top ten percent of the wealthiest people in the United States, white, black, males, female, gay, straight, etc.
Granted, there are biases and prejudices in this country, both north and south. As an independent, white-male businessman who routinely does business with other business people throughout the country, I’ve witnessed it and have experienced it from others myself. I’ve been subjected to prejudices from whites, blacks, northerners, southerners and foreigners, males and female because I’m white, from the south, from Florida, because of my accent, and because of my looks.
But what I find interesting is that you have fallen into the ideological trap which keeps us all down, mired in the mud. You list the impeding factors to minorities not getting ahead as sex, sexual orientation, and race. Of course, racism remains an issue, as I’ve said; I’ve been a victim of prejudices, by whites and blacks. But the fact remains that the major impediments are government regulations and an unfair and burdensome tax system; which, only benefits the top ten percent of the countries wealthiest people. What ever their color happens to be.
Oh, we’re all free. We can jump into our automobiles and ride from one end of the country to another, we can fly anywhere in the world and we can pretty much say what we want. We can even have this conversation, but start bucking the system; or, in a postmodern way, start criticizing the totalizing-centered tax structure which benefits the elite, then you’ve become a subversive and may very well end becoming a martyr.
Granted, there are biases and prejudices in this country, both north and south. As an independent, white-male businessman who routinely does business with other business people throughout the country, I’ve witnessed it and have experienced it from others myself. I’ve been subjected to prejudices from whites, blacks, northerners, southerners and foreigners, males and female because I’m white, from the south, from Florida, because of my accent, and because of my looks.
But what I find interesting is that you have fallen into the ideological trap which keeps us all down, mired in the mud. You list the impeding factors to minorities not getting ahead as sex, sexual orientation, and race. Of course, racism remains an issue, as I’ve said; I’ve been a victim of prejudices, by whites and blacks. But the fact remains that the major impediments are government regulations and an unfair and burdensome tax system; which, only benefits the top ten percent of the countries wealthiest people. What ever their color happens to be.
Oh, we’re all free. We can jump into our automobiles and ride from one end of the country to another, we can fly anywhere in the world and we can pretty much say what we want. We can even have this conversation, but start bucking the system; or, in a postmodern way, start criticizing the totalizing-centered tax structure which benefits the elite, then you’ve become a subversive and may very well end becoming a martyr.
Sally, Foucault
Never did I think reading about prisons and quarantines would be so interesting! I found Foucault's essay, Discipline and Punish, to be engrossing and applicable to the world in which we live. I can now add to the phrase "big brother is watching", the term "panopticon." The term originated in the 1700's and was first used by Bentham. "The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power."(99) Whether it is a surveillance camera mounted at an intersection or the architectural design of a prison employing the features that ensure "separated individualities." (98)
Elimination of the crowd - that compact mass - that can cause so much disruption is the desired benefit of panopticonism. If we speed through an intersection or run a red light, we are not one of the many cars on the street- we are isolated and become "the individual" who committed a traffic offense. That individual has no excuse, can't hide in the crowd employing the "going with the flow of traffic" excuse, but is required to take responsibility for his actions alone and pay the required fine, etc. Traffic violators are on a level playing field as a result of panopticonism.
Particularly fascinating is the concept ushered in by Bentham that "power should be visible and unverifiable."(98) Is that camera actually recording? Is the guard in the central tower or not? Is he watching or asleep? The result of such unverifiability is restraint within any society - an intentional by-product of such permanent visibility and unverifiability. In the acceptance of such measures, are the citizens of a free society giving up any rights of privacy? That's a complex issue, but my first reaction is yes, we are. However, Foucault presents the need and effect of panopticanism in such a non-sinister, matter-of-fact manner that it sounds reasonable. "Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes..." speaks of automation of power and that's rather disturbing on some level. For prisons it works, but in society, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the concept. The individual "becomes the principle of his own subjection." True, our behavior as a society may improve because we think we're being watched, but it is at the price of perverting the concept of free-will in a free society. To behave because we HAVE to do so is not the same as behaving because we WANT to do so. There is a certain pride – American pride - in the latter. Fascinating concept - this Panopticon.
Elimination of the crowd - that compact mass - that can cause so much disruption is the desired benefit of panopticonism. If we speed through an intersection or run a red light, we are not one of the many cars on the street- we are isolated and become "the individual" who committed a traffic offense. That individual has no excuse, can't hide in the crowd employing the "going with the flow of traffic" excuse, but is required to take responsibility for his actions alone and pay the required fine, etc. Traffic violators are on a level playing field as a result of panopticonism.
Particularly fascinating is the concept ushered in by Bentham that "power should be visible and unverifiable."(98) Is that camera actually recording? Is the guard in the central tower or not? Is he watching or asleep? The result of such unverifiability is restraint within any society - an intentional by-product of such permanent visibility and unverifiability. In the acceptance of such measures, are the citizens of a free society giving up any rights of privacy? That's a complex issue, but my first reaction is yes, we are. However, Foucault presents the need and effect of panopticanism in such a non-sinister, matter-of-fact manner that it sounds reasonable. "Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes..." speaks of automation of power and that's rather disturbing on some level. For prisons it works, but in society, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the concept. The individual "becomes the principle of his own subjection." True, our behavior as a society may improve because we think we're being watched, but it is at the price of perverting the concept of free-will in a free society. To behave because we HAVE to do so is not the same as behaving because we WANT to do so. There is a certain pride – American pride - in the latter. Fascinating concept - this Panopticon.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Eddie, 10/30
While “buy buy buy” is the staple of our modern consumerism-driven capitalist society, I for one do not find it an especially surprising phenomenon.
Assuming that the theory of evolution is at least a little correct, our ancestors lived in the wild. There, people had to forage. The more they gathered, the least likely they are to perish in the cold of the winter. Even if we avoid the contestable question that people could identify characteristics in mates who could forage more, there is still the simple fact that people who got less stuff died more often. Individuals, families and subsequently clans who won more necessities, thus, garnered more success in nature and became the majority in numbers. In other words, we are all genetically predisposed to piling up stuff.
Though if we are descendants of those food-hording cavemen, then why are we not inclined to take our paychecks to Publix and clean their isles of creamed corn and Wonderbread? Because such an idea is a gross extrapolation of the mechanism of foraging, We do not simply collect. We are driven to obtain items which are of value to us. Our instinct is to get things which are potentially valuable or functional to us in the future. It is that potential which intices mothers to keep empty shoeboxes and fathers to drag old machines home from the dumpster. Objects intrigue us, usually, because they hold a promise of some form of useful application and that promise is how companies make us “buy buy buy.”
But with the idea that usefulness makes us buy, we are introduced to the concept that some things are more useful than others. Otherwise, we would be reduced to randomly buying whatever we see and be hopelessly unable to decide what we ‘want’ to buy. This ability to discern the usefulness of items is natural selection in our modern society. We are all familiar with the concept of taste. While describing what is tasteful is dreadfully hard, we can all agree that people with taste, at the very least, seem more knowledgeable than someone without. A person who spends four thousand dollars at Walmart on cheese and ham sounds a lot less flattering than someone who knows how to build a capable home theater system with his four thousand. I, for one, would choose the Sennheiser guy as my friend and not the Kraft guy. It is this looming, arbitrary and shapeless notion of “taste” which causes some people to fit more into society than others. Those who are less adept to buying are familiar with Foucault’s description of marginalizing and isolation.
I wish to take this chance here to state my belief in the role and responsibility of one educated in theories of culture. If we now know and agree that we are inclined to buy and are defined by such a mode of consumption, it falls upon us to consider what is beyond buying. What is the alternative to consumerism? How might we exist outside of buying stuff and having people buy our stuff? Can we even choose to not want to buy? Pondering those questions, I came to the chilling realization that I do not, currently, know what is outside the box. That bothers me, and I hope it bothers you too. We are trapped in “buy buy buy.” We must free ourselves.
Assuming that the theory of evolution is at least a little correct, our ancestors lived in the wild. There, people had to forage. The more they gathered, the least likely they are to perish in the cold of the winter. Even if we avoid the contestable question that people could identify characteristics in mates who could forage more, there is still the simple fact that people who got less stuff died more often. Individuals, families and subsequently clans who won more necessities, thus, garnered more success in nature and became the majority in numbers. In other words, we are all genetically predisposed to piling up stuff.
Though if we are descendants of those food-hording cavemen, then why are we not inclined to take our paychecks to Publix and clean their isles of creamed corn and Wonderbread? Because such an idea is a gross extrapolation of the mechanism of foraging, We do not simply collect. We are driven to obtain items which are of value to us. Our instinct is to get things which are potentially valuable or functional to us in the future. It is that potential which intices mothers to keep empty shoeboxes and fathers to drag old machines home from the dumpster. Objects intrigue us, usually, because they hold a promise of some form of useful application and that promise is how companies make us “buy buy buy.”
But with the idea that usefulness makes us buy, we are introduced to the concept that some things are more useful than others. Otherwise, we would be reduced to randomly buying whatever we see and be hopelessly unable to decide what we ‘want’ to buy. This ability to discern the usefulness of items is natural selection in our modern society. We are all familiar with the concept of taste. While describing what is tasteful is dreadfully hard, we can all agree that people with taste, at the very least, seem more knowledgeable than someone without. A person who spends four thousand dollars at Walmart on cheese and ham sounds a lot less flattering than someone who knows how to build a capable home theater system with his four thousand. I, for one, would choose the Sennheiser guy as my friend and not the Kraft guy. It is this looming, arbitrary and shapeless notion of “taste” which causes some people to fit more into society than others. Those who are less adept to buying are familiar with Foucault’s description of marginalizing and isolation.
I wish to take this chance here to state my belief in the role and responsibility of one educated in theories of culture. If we now know and agree that we are inclined to buy and are defined by such a mode of consumption, it falls upon us to consider what is beyond buying. What is the alternative to consumerism? How might we exist outside of buying stuff and having people buy our stuff? Can we even choose to not want to buy? Pondering those questions, I came to the chilling realization that I do not, currently, know what is outside the box. That bothers me, and I hope it bothers you too. We are trapped in “buy buy buy.” We must free ourselves.
Francesca 10/30 Adorno
In discussing Adorno’s ideology, a particular concept resonated with the nature of white privilege. Adorno writes, “The defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful.” This quote conveys the American myth of meritocracy. Our country represents an ideal of boundless success that can be attained through any person’s hard work. This ideal serves as the integrity of a capitalist economy. However, the integrity of such an economy is theoretical. When put into practice, the objectives of capitalism are either catalyzed or impeded by various factors. These factors include those of sex, sexual orientation, and most evidently, race. The notion of the American dream is presented to those of minority populations in order to substantiate their hard work. Yet, there is transparent racial discrimination that serves as subtle barriers to ultimate financial achievement. As the dominant culture, whites possess a collection of unearned assets that are unknowingly utilized daily. This concept is relative to that of the “invisible backpack”, ascribed by writer Peggy McIntosh. The myth of meritocracy in this country provides subjugated populations with the false hope that hard work renders the line between themselves and the dominant culture indistinguishable. Yet, as Peggy McIntosh maintains, white privilege can metaphorically be seen as a package of tools white’s unconsciously utilize to maintain their advantage in achieving the American dream. By being given preferential treatment in terms of job promotion, housing location, etc, whites have the upper-hand in acquiring optimum financial advancements. This is given at the expense of minorities whom remain subverted under the control of stereotypes. McIntosh’s invisible backpack provides evidence for the mythology of meritocratic achievement. Thus, Adorno’s argument that these subjugated people cling to such a myth more ardently than the dominant culture is manifested in white’s lack of recognition regarding their privilege. As whites do not recognize the assets they possess, it is only when a population fails to possess such assets that their utilization is of concern. The myth of success is an ideal that minorities are conditioned to see as attractive in that it validates their labor in seeking to attain the successes white’s find with less struggle.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Sally, 10/30
Reading/discussing Horkheimer and Adorno's essay: The Culture Industry: Elightenment as Mass Deception gives rise to some misconceptions/misgivings I have had about society, in general. Among my peers, there is a common sentiment that our society is out of touch with the valuable things in life and it has become transient and superficial. A throw-away society with permanence and meaning having lost their place as important characteristics of relationships and "things." I tended to agree with my friends' assessment, but, then, I read this essay - an essay that was written in 1944! At the end of the essay, this conclusion appears: "...personality means hardly more than dazzling white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions. Consumers of cultural commodities which, at the same time, they recognize as false." (71) Again, let me underscore the fact that this was written in 1944, in Germany, near the end of WWII; i.e., life was difficult then. The amazing irony is that in the midst of a war, people actually were concerned with white teeth and having no body odor. What I find most amazing is the historical/contemporary application of this one quote. If that same quote had appeared in an article today, we wouldn't think twice about it; we (at least my friends and myself) would respond, "So, what else is new?" thinking the quote is describing the underbelly of our society. Yes, personality is still hardly more than white teeth and no body odor according to cultural standards. Magazine ads and tv commercials readily come to mind promoting just that. Have sparkling white teeth and YOU will be a sexy dynamo with a personality to match! It all hinges on the white teeth....amazing, amazing, amazing that this was an observable characteristic of Adorno's society in 1944.
The second aspect of the quote has to do with consumerism. I won't be as hard on our society after reading that non-meaningful (i.e., wasteful) spending has been around for decades; even so, there were a lot of societal successes in those later years. Adorno gives an example of a "telephone voice" as being pleasant and that it "bears witness to the fact that one is attempting to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success." It is an example of "the fake." Well, I can't find too much fault with that type of falseness because it speaks more of interacting as well-mannered adults. It is of concern, though, when we willingly seek such false "commodities" in our culture and think nothing of it. It feels good to us, so we do it. We pay money for it. I can't help but think of Disney in this regard. We pay for an experience that is free from worry, distress or worldly-concerns. I've done it....and probably will do so again in the future. But, I always KNOW the whole experience is fake and I am choosing to "go along for the ride," so to speak!
Adorno does a good job of illuminating culture and its hold on us....Dr. Casey summed it up succinctly when he said, "We're gonna buy, buy, buy although we know it's not real and it doesn't bring happiness."
Overall, I think I feel good knowing this has been a characteristic of societies for a long, long time. I won't be so hard on our society when I encounter the superficiality and "falseness" that is promoted as "real." Before, it irritated at times; now, I'll take solace in the fact that it's nothing new. We, the masses, seem to survive the superficial and the "false" in our lives; who knows, in the big scheme of things, it may play an important psychological role.
The second aspect of the quote has to do with consumerism. I won't be as hard on our society after reading that non-meaningful (i.e., wasteful) spending has been around for decades; even so, there were a lot of societal successes in those later years. Adorno gives an example of a "telephone voice" as being pleasant and that it "bears witness to the fact that one is attempting to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success." It is an example of "the fake." Well, I can't find too much fault with that type of falseness because it speaks more of interacting as well-mannered adults. It is of concern, though, when we willingly seek such false "commodities" in our culture and think nothing of it. It feels good to us, so we do it. We pay money for it. I can't help but think of Disney in this regard. We pay for an experience that is free from worry, distress or worldly-concerns. I've done it....and probably will do so again in the future. But, I always KNOW the whole experience is fake and I am choosing to "go along for the ride," so to speak!
Adorno does a good job of illuminating culture and its hold on us....Dr. Casey summed it up succinctly when he said, "We're gonna buy, buy, buy although we know it's not real and it doesn't bring happiness."
Overall, I think I feel good knowing this has been a characteristic of societies for a long, long time. I won't be so hard on our society when I encounter the superficiality and "falseness" that is promoted as "real." Before, it irritated at times; now, I'll take solace in the fact that it's nothing new. We, the masses, seem to survive the superficial and the "false" in our lives; who knows, in the big scheme of things, it may play an important psychological role.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Francesca 10/30 Adorno
In reading Adorno, I found his concept of the cultural filter applicable to various postmodern mediums. The evolution of technology in terms of film and television has rendered our generation a reflection of fictional characters. This can be seen as a chicken and egg debate of life imitating art or vice versa yet the similarities are undeniable nonetheless. Many shows are targeted at specific audiences in order to assure favorable ratings. By means of presenting fictional characters that represent typical people, television networks secure audiences that are seeking to identify with a specific group. As these characters demonstrate idealized standards of attractiveness, the bar is set for viewers as to how they should look. In addition, the contrived problems presented in these shows attempt to convey situations that are plausible in real life yet with a dramatized twist. In other words, these shows are your life, only better. For instance, shows such as the O.C. portray teens with super-model allure and worst-case scenario daily problems. In turn, teenagers gravitate towards such shows as they serve as a guideline for how they should look, dress, act, and feel. Life imitates art in this respect. Yet, the astronomical ratings for such shows calls networks to reproduce art exorbitantly to supply an undeniable demand. Thus, art imitates life for profit. The cultural filter serves as the explication for capitalism’s role in shaping young people’s social identity. The need to associate oneself with a group for the sake of personal validation is not a new phenomenon, but the manner in which society renders profit from it is. In conclusion, the evolution of technology has enabled Adorno’s theory to be substantiated at the expense of our generation’s individuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)