Judge Me by Your Own Code

The encoding/decoding points that I was trying to make in class were not coming out of my mouth very well so I figured I would try to explain myself better with writing.

In Inga Muscio's book entitled "Cunt" she talks a lot about humans, women in particular, tearing other women down through the use of unannounced codes.  This sparked my interest again into Stuart Hall's essay on encoding and decoding and the use of language to do this.  I searched for some connection to what Muscio was pointing out but had a hard time grasping what Hall was saying and putting it into actual viable words for myself.

Hall says this: "The codes of encoding and decoding may not be perfectly symmetrical.....that is, the degreees of "understanding" and "misunderstanding" the communicative exchange - depend on the degrees of symmetry established between the positions of the....encoder....and decoder." There is not always a clear code, we have instituted our own unique codes for our individual situations and these may only be known to certain people inside of our chosen social groups.  Muscio's entire point is this small section of Hall's essay!  We all have our own set of unique codes and thus our own set of biases and judgements.  What is acceptable to me may not be acceptable to me.  The problem with this is that as human beings we judge each other based on these rules and codes inside of our own minds and not the codes inside of the person in question's mind.  

I think for the first time I have actually connected this theory to my everyday life.  I walk down the street and without thinking I instantly sum people up according to my personal standards of beauty, to my personal standards of activity, to my personal standards of dress.  I am reading (decoding) what another individual is doing based on the codes I have created in my small social group.  It's not quite fair is it?  Codes get misinterpreted and this in turn creates division amongst people.  I guess what I am really grasping at here is this idea that somehow codes have forever separated us.  It is obvious in terms of language barriers and things of that nature but it took a lot of work for me to relate it back to unconscious thoughts about people I may not even know.   

Benjamin and Dadaism

I don’t quite know where to start with my blog, so I guess I will just start. This year I am a scared little freshman and everyday I go to class and sit there in awe. I never thought a college class could be like our cultural studies class. There are so many amazing ideas being thrown around and people instantly responding. All I can do is madly write down people’s thoughts so I don’t forget. And then I think about the day when I may be brave enough to speak up. So, this is the beginning. Here is what I have come up with.

From what I understood of Walter Benjamin’s article I am obsessed with (hopefully what I understood is right). I am not in full agreement is with his stance on Dadaism. Benjamin seems to hate it. He says, “What they intended and achieved was a relentless destruction of the aura of their creations, which they branded as reproduction with the very production” (31).

Benjamin says this as though it is a bad thing. But this is where art has brought us today. Dadaism is making a statement about our society while using as little as possible. The artists at the time where so upset and angry with western culture and the horrors of war that had been shown through the media. It’s complete lack of order and sense was its theme. I don’t know much about it other than the art that was created, but from it came cubism and other art movements. This was one of the art movements that really freed the artists from any sort of restraints, a urinal became famous, and anything at the time was possible.

Benjamin goes on to say, “Dadaistic activities actually assured a rather vehement distraction by making works of art the center of scandal. One requirement was foremost: to outrage the public” (32).

In my mind, this is the one of the main purposes of art. If an artist feels that there is something wrong with the world, he should show it. Post WWI people were horrified at what had happened and they had to find a way to express it. This happened to be Dadaism.

The painting may enrage people or disgust people, but at least it makes them think. I would much rather stare at an apple in vinegar for an hour and wonder what the artist was thinking then watch another mindless chick flick acted out by terrible screen actor with fake boobs.

The rest of the article I loved. I just felt I had to defend Dadaism because up to last year I hated it. And then I had a crazy art teacher with her crazy ideas. And we spent an hour talking about a urinal and the thousand things it could mean.

This idea of reproducing production is still a hard thing for me to grasp. I still don’t quite understand. Does it mean that I could glue to forks to a piece of paper and ask the class to analyze what I’m thinking and hopefully be offended or revolted by it? I think not. But, maybe it is worth a try.

Hopefully I didn’t miss what Benjamin was actually saying. 

Awkward Decodings

Because of the fact that I had some trouble articulating my thoughts in class on Wednesday and because I haven’t posted anything yet because the site got my two emails confused and then I got confused (sorry, I won’t go off on a “Sami fails at technology” tangent…), I am going to write a blog out of turn.

After watching Flight of the Conchords on Wednesday, I made a connection between Jemaine and Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice. Besides the obvious—the awkwardness, the ridiculous complements, and the obliviousness—they have something more subtle in common, the inability to transfer the meaning of their messages to the receiver. The language they have encoded with a particular message has been decoded according to the dominant connotations of the day, rather than with the meaning originally encoded.

For example, at dinner Mr. Collins (and I’ll go off the recent movie, since I’m not sure if everyone has read the book and I don’t have a copy of it handy anyway) complements the Bennet’s cooking and asks which one of the sisters prepared the dish. Although to Mr. Collins this was meant to be a complement, Mrs. Bennet was insulted by the implication that they could not afford a cook. In the episode we watched in class, Jemaine makes similarly inelegant complements to the “most beautiful girl in the room.”

Both characters, in trying to articulate their idea of talent, beauty, etc, unwittingly pass on a message coded with a negative connotation. The connotations or implications are determined by the “dominant cultural order” according to Stuart Hall. However, as Hall points out, “[…] it is always possible to order, classify, assign and decode an event within more than one mapping”(169).

This is where the confusion lies for Mr. Collins and Jemaine. Although neither one may necessarily pick-up on the misinterpretation, we as spectators can, as Hall suggests, “[…] refer, through the codes, to the orders of social life, of economic and political power and of ideology” in order to “clarify the misunderstanding” (169). We have the advantage of knowing (or being able to find out) that in 19th century England, to suggest that one is not in a position to keep a servant is to suggest that they are of a low class, a terrible insult in a very class-conscious society. Although Mr. Collins lives in this time, he is not necessarily aware of the “dominant cultural order” that pervades his own society (which further examples of his mishaps would demonstrate). Jemaine also seems unaware of the dominant cultural connotations of todays language. To him, a high-class prostitute is beautiful (anyone seen “Secret Diary of a Call Girl"?). However the dominant cultural order would says a high-class prostitute is still a prostitute, someone contemptible with few morals.

What is most interesting is what these misunderstandings say about a particular culture and I would like to explore this further as we get farther along in class.

Nice Aura, man!

Walter Benjamin. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Probably best if read out loud (okay, I love Benjamin and especially reading his work out loud!)
Before launching into any preliminary discussion of his work, check this link out. I think it'll be instructive as you try to decipher the essay.
I'll begin with some preliminary quotes from Richard Kazis, in an evaluative essay on Benjamin's work
"“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” has become a standard reference for any attempts to analyze and understand the interrelation of political, technological and artistic development under capitalism. His insights are especially useful for the political analysis of film."

"Benjamin felt that the task of the proletariat and the task of the revolutionary intellectual were “to make the continuum of history explode.” The intellectual—the historical materialist—should reveal the significance of the present historical instant, should analyze the explosive convergence of past and future in the presence of the now, so that it can be transformed."

Another great link to get us going from a professor at UPenn

Rather than asking some questions, I would like to propose the two keywords for us to discuss
- aura
- authenticity

Listen to the Laurie Anderson song "The Dream Before". Now, watch the performance of the song by performance artist Meow Meow
Take a look at the lyrics below to help you:

Laurie Anderson The Dream Before (for Walter Benjamin) lyrics

Hansel and Gretel are alive and well
And they're living in Berlin
She is a cocktail waitress
He had a part in a Fassbinder film
And they sit around at night now drinking schnapps and gin
And she says: Hansel, you're really bringing me down
And he says: Gretel, you can really be a bitch
He says: I've wasted my life on our stupid legend
When my one and only love was the wicked witch.
She said: What is history?
And he said: History is an angel being blown backwards into the future
He said: History is a pile of debris
And the angel wants to go back and fix things
To repair the things that have been broken But there is a storm blowing from
Paradise
And the storm keeps blowing the angel backwards into the future
And this storm, this storm is called Progress

Laurie Anderson The Dream Before (for Walter Benjamin) lyrics


I would like you to, if you have time, to think about an image and to discuss its significance vis-à-vis Benjamin's essay.

How would you characterize art today?

How might Benjamin's critique be relevant in the study of hypermedia/internet?

Come in with one of your own questions

"the wire" and encoding/decoding

i came across an interesting criticism of the show, "the wire", formerly of HBO and now cancelled/ended. as a preface, the show, without doing an injustice to the plethora of issues it covers, is an investigation into the extent that corruption invades all walks of life in Baltimore. season 1 explores the drug trade in relationship to police and other institutions (such as the court system, ports, and school system), with the idea being that if you follow drugs, you have a drug case, but if you follow the money then you find a hydra.

while reading on wikipedia, i found a criticism of the show stating, "Despite the critical acclaim, The Wire has received poor Nielsen Ratings, which Simon attributes to the complexity of the plot, a poor time slot, heavy use of esoteric slang, particularly among the gangster characters and a predominantly black cast.[2]" 

Essentially this criticism is that, because of the coded dialogue, heavily influenced by actual code (systems for how to call another drug dealer b/c of fear of a wiretap) but also a perverbial code of slang about and because of drugs, it is hard for viewers to decode this encoded language. Ironically, one of the major attributes of the series is the need for the viewers to actively participate in this decoding of language, to engage in critical investigations through the characters that allows the viewer access information they would not otherwise have given to them; information concerning typologies and idiosyncrasies of characters that helps to explain actions that are otherwise inexplicable. As Professor Jha has mentioned at times, we live an anti-intellectual climate that stifles insightful or difficult discourses, coded explicitly or implicitly. The direct reference to the nielsen ratings, which do not rate or value HOW viewers participate in and through the show, just that they have the tv tuned to a particular channel, also illuminates an example in our current cultural/social/intellectual terrain of a lethargy that now is manifested into a real refusal to engage language as a chain of signification, in any forms.

below is an example of how this decoding/encoding plays out and involves the viewer- do not watch if you have a particular grudge against the f-word. sorry i couldnt post the video directly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbsnSVM1zM

Hall, FoTC, jokes, Lost

I know this blog is late--we all have to start somewhere.

Hall's theory of the process of television communication as a process of encoding and decoding through meaning structures comes to an interesting conclusion that I'll apply to Flight of the Conchords: that "broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse" and thus, on the viewer's end, "decoded meanings ... 'have an effect,' influence, entertain, instruct or persuade, with very complex perceptual, cognitive, emotional, ideological or behavioral consequences" (165).

Looking at the scene of the party and song we analyzed in depth today, it's easy to say that it was entertaining, and below the surface, a scathing parody of love songs and the culture of 'hooking up' in America; this is what we have decoded. The first question I'd like to pose is, how can we trace Hall's process (fig. 13.1, p. 165) backwards in an attempt to elucidate the "frameworks of knowledge" and "meaning structures" (encoded) used in the production of that particular song? Hall states that the "meaning structures" on the production and reception side may not be the same (166) but certainly they must be related, tied together with a common sense of pop culture--without appeal, the decoded message would fall flat. What I'm trying to grasp at here is what Hall calls the "moment of transformation into and out of the discursive form" (166). It causes imperfect transmission, "distortions" or "misunderstandings" from the "lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange" (166). 

We deconstructed the song "Most Beautiful Girl in the Room" to such detail and I have to wonder--does this make us more equivalent to the production side? Did we get somehow inside the minds of Bret and Jemaine, did we gain an insight as to their purposes for the song? How does the production crew of the show fit into their creative message? What about the guiding force of HBO? Or was it all a misunderstanding, a distortion, is it possible to read too much into something like this hilariously parodized love song? I had never heard of Jemaine being "ogreish" or more ethnicized before today's class, but the revelation has distorted my view some.

One way that we can gain a familiarity with the production side and--I would think--try to avoid distortions or misunderstandings is through simple loyalty. The show has a great many running jokes; it would seem that all the characters have repeated behaviors that we laugh at, they entertain us on their own but also by the merit that we can see them coming. This ties to the show Lost--I'm not an avid viewer by any means, but there is a framework of knowledge that is constructed from the very first episode of the show, a whole convoluted and complicated world is the result, and it seems to shut out the potential first-time viewer if they attempt to enter a new episode without a command of the framework. It's all coded as meaningful discourse, but it is aimed in a way that anyone attempting to decode without the proper knowledge is left in the dark--how does this affect viewership? Certainly it works, as it's an immensely popular show, but how can they justify to their network TV infrastructure a show that doesn't seem to have a method for increasing its fan base? DVD is one outlet, but the model of Lost seems to be increasingly oppositional to Hall's model (from a commercial standpoint) as the number of episodes and seasons increases.

Oh, Those Silly Americans and their Cars.

Reading the chapter from Storey's Cultural Theory and Popular Culture on Marxisms had a particular part in it that really caught my attention. On page 58 Storey brings up the new kind of car advertisements that have been seen for the past couple of years that depicts cars in both wide open spaces and in a clean, pollution-free environment. "This mode of advertising[...]" Storey argues "[...]is a response to the growing body of negative publicity which car ownership has attracted (especially in terms of pollution and road congestion" so "therefore, showing car in both nature (unpolluted) and space (uncongested [of traffic, etc]) confronts the claims without the risk of giving them a dangerous and unnecessary visibility" (Storey 58). Thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. Take a look at the advertisements that Storey displays on pages 58 and 59 with the cars in these very natural scenes where there really is no traffic. Because people are beginning to feel so guilty about the effects cars have on the environment, car companies are starting to try and trick them mentally into believing: "Well, maybe this car isn't so bad after all..."

A perfect example of this can be found in this Toyota Prius Ad. Check it out- the ad does a very good job of depicting that the Toyota Prius is nature friendly and even....biodegradable? No, the ad is just trying to show the world that this car is good for the environment because it's a hybrid, and it can obviously be built from stick by a lake in the middle of nowhere by people who disappear...It's all very corny. Search for more Prius ads on youtube if you'd like, they're all very similar, it's kind of funny actually.

Going off that, there has been a very obvious boom in the hybrid department lately, but oddly enough it doesn't seem to be because of the depleting ozone layer or the pollution littering the air. Instead it is because (some) hybrids save money on gas, or rather allow the gas that they fill the car with to last longer than a non-hybrid car. Interestingly enough, I was browsing Yahoo! yesterday when I stumbled upon this interesting article. A car that can get 65 miles to the gallon? And it comes with a cute, sporty frame?? It seems like a dream come true, right? Well, they won't be selling it in the U.S. Why? Because it runs on diesel. The article tells you plain enough that "diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient." It surprised me too when I first read it because like many other Americans, I'm sure, I affiliated diesel with "a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers." Despite it's amazing mpg and more ozone-friendly nature, Ford doesn't think it will sell in the U.S. as well as it will sell in the UK, where it is hitting the markets this November, because of its fuel of choice. It seems to me like the U.S. just needs to suck it up and look at the facts: diesel could be very good for our environment and possibly our economy if we were just willing to embrace it. Which leaves me with the question that the Toyota Prius commercial actually ended with:

"Why not?"

Geertz, Clifford. "Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight"

(b. 1926; d. 2006).
Good site for introduction to Geertz from University of Chicago

Aw, heck...let's start with a brief excerpt from wikipedia (yes, I vetted it)

Culture, outlined by Geertz in his book The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), is "a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life" (1973:89). The function of culture is to impose meaning on the world and make it understandable. The role of anthropologists is to try (though complete success is not possible) to interpret the guiding symbols of each culture (see thick description). His oft-cited essay, "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight," included in The Interpretation of Cultures, is the classic example of thick description at work. Geertz was quite innovative in this regard, as he was one of the first to see that the insights provided by common language philosophy and literary analysis could have major explanatory force in the social sciences.

I picked this essay for us to read because it will be instrumental in helping you develop a method for reading culture as you begin research for your own project. Rather than spending time laying out his arguments, since this is not an extremely difficult essay to read, I'll, instead, pose some points to consider, and to blog about:
1) How does Geertz read the Balinese cockfight in relation to Balinese culture?
2) Look at the descriptions of the locations and the audience of the cockfight. Why does Geertz include these details? Write a blog entry on this.
3) "For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually, it is men". Examine this quote in relation to the structuring of Balinese society. What are the multiple ways in which "cock" operates in the social sphere?
4) In what ways did the culture of cockfighting change with the invasion of the Dutch in 1908?
5) On p. 7, Geertz discusses Jeremy Bentham's concept of "deep play". How does this concept inform the essay (esp. considering that the title borrows Bentham's words).
6) Find a point to critique in the essay.

Hall, Stuart. "Encoding/Decoding" Thoughts to get you started...

Hall, Stuart. "Encoding/Decoding";
Here's a nice, albeit long, introduction to semiotics
Mary Klages' introduction to the Swiss Linguist, Ferdinand de Sassure, is good and concise.

Hall. "Encoding/Decoding"
Stuart Hall was born in Kingston, Jamaica in 1932. A trained sociologist, he, along with Hoggart and Williams, was instrumental in developing the Birmingham School for Cultural Studies. Hall has been placed within a post-Gramscian Marxist school, and, as one critic points out, "[c]ertainly Hall's relation to the marxist tradition is, and always has been both a complex and creative (if necessarily troubled) one" (Morley 15). He emphasizes the materialities of power and inequality and thus, is dissatisfied with any form of "idealist" analysis (ibid., 15).

The essay you read for today is "Encoding/Decoding", a seminal work in mass communication. It provides a much needed intervention in the field of mass communication, especially in regard to the relationship between the producer and the consumer. Drawing upon the work of the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Sassure, and structuralism, Hall develops a theory that challenges the assumption that there is a direct correlation between the producer (encoder) and the consumer (decoder). Rather, he argues, that "[r]eality exists outside language, but it constantly mediated by and through language; and what we can know and say has to be produced in and through discourse" (Hall 166-7). Thus, knowledge is discursive, and relies upon a system of signs, coded signs and iconic signs.

Here is where we can see the influence of Sassure. Sassure, in his book, Course in General Linguistics discusses how reality and our interpretation of it relies upon the linguistic sign. For him, the linguistic unit is "a double entity [... united by] not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image" (65-6).


As you can see from the image above, the signifier (sound-image) and the signified (concept) unite to form a sign, which he uses to designate the whole. Two important points to note on the relationship between the signifier and the signified: 1) the relationship between them is arbitrary. For example, when we see a picture of a tree, we then utter the word tree to name it; the relationship between them could just as easily have been the picture of a tree and the sound n-u-n. Following this, the nature of the sign itself is arbitrary. The second principle he makes is that the signifier is linear. He argues that "The signifier, being auditory, in unfolded solely in time from which it gets the following characteristics: a) it represents a span and b) the span is measurable in a single dimension; it is a line.

Now that we've taken an important detour through Saussearean linguistics, let's turn to Hall's arguments in the essay. He discusses how the naturalization of coded signs in mass communications produce "apparently 'natural' recognitions" (167). This prevents the ways in which we can analyze the ideological effects of these codes. Remember, Hall is interested in the concept of hegemony, particularly the ways in which consent is integral to the social construction of hegemonic systems. What does this mean in the relations between the visual medium and the audience?

This should help you get started in reading the essay and finding some key points. I want you to examine closely his discussion on connotation/denotation, polysemy, and signs as "maps of social reality" (169).
- What is the difference between coercion and consent (go back to the Gramsci piece we read for last time) and think about the value of such work upon Hall's essay.
-what is the relationship between the visual and the audience? How, where, who constructs meaning?

Representations

I have fallen in love with "The stranger" which is a newspaper (I think it's free) in Seattle.  It's awesome and you guys should all check it out.  But.....the point of my blog is not that, though the stranger definitely did lead me to finding out about the blog called slog on thestranger.com.  

Dan Savage posted something this morning that really caught my eye.  It was about I-1000 that deals with a terminally ill patients right to end their life.  In the midst of the debate about whether or not Sarah Palin will be good for this country (she won't, but not the point) abortion gets brought up.  Does a woman have a right to have an abortion?  Yes?  Well if you can kill the unborn "baby" inside of you shouldn't you also be able to end your own life, especially if you have a terminal illness?  

I actually want to connect this to one of the readings we did and then part of a discussion we had in class last week about representation.  Abortion is at the forefront of debates, it's probably the single biggest thing Palin gets talked about for (her daughter's pregnancy is really not helping this situation), and yet ending your own life is not talked about very often in this way.  How did we decide that ending your own life is not as pretty of a subject to talk about?  What is it that makes abortion such a hot topic while ending your own life is not talked about at all?  

In the Graeme Turner article we read he made the point that what gets brought out to the public is something that "not only represents the nation: it also entertains us."  He was referring to Australian film in his writing, but I think it crosses over pretty well to the over arching idea of representation and what ideas get shown.  Abortion is messy, but it is fascinatingly messy and there are two big sides to this issue.  There are pictures and movies etc and this is "entertaining" to the general public in some kind of weird (not going to try and describe it here) way.  I think what Turner says about trying to enhance commercial viability is exactly what has happened with certain political issues.  Gay marriage is at the forefront of the California elections right now and yet I don't think I know very many people who know what any of the other props on this years ballot are.  What makes something entertaining and thus viable?  Turner's theory on this being the reason for why things make it there gives me that first step, but I'm still searching for the second.  Why do certain things fascinate us while others are of very little interest?  

 

Readings for tomorrow - Monday, 9/21

Hi all: I have no internet access right now at my home, so am quickly trying to get some points uploaded for tomorrow's class discussion. I found great notes for Althusser at:
Lit crit
and mass think
They should get you started on posing some questions. I promise to upload my own questions early tomorrow morning, so please do check the blog prior to coming to class.
Priya

They're Ready; Howabout Y'all?

I found a report on BBC South Asia this week that discussed a secondary school in Thailand that has recently opened a separate toilet for transsexual students. The principal said that between 10 and 20 percent of the students at the school identify as transsexuals. "Katoi", or Ladyboys, are very common in Thailand, and now this school has taken a step towards acknowledging them. The students who now use the transsexual toilets seemed to be happy to have a place to be themselves now, whereas in the past, they were either bullied in the boys’ bathroom, or made the female students uncomfortable in theirs.

Just reading a summary of the article first made me question the idea as "going too far" as a knee jerk reaction. Even, as a gay man, I'm really cautious about progressive steps that can be viewed that way. It wasn't until I saw this video that I actually was happy for the students. They're very proud of who they are and seem to not fear any repercussions for demanding equality.

What I'm interested in is how America, great superpower that it is, has, for the last fifty years, sat back and watched "third world" nations jump enormous social and cultural hurdles. We're asking ourselves if gay couple should be allowed to get married while "3rd world" nations like South Africa legalized gay marriage more than a decade ago. We ask ourselves if we're ready for women leaders when India, Pakistan, the Philippines and a host of other countries have elected women as heads of state for years. We question issues of gay rights.....and Thailand builds transsexual toilets.


I've posted a Reuters video report and you can check out the BBC report at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7529227.stm

The Shock Doctine

Just really quick.......check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc 

My "Hippie" friend Lauren (she called herself a hippie) is the one who showed me this.  Just wanted to give credit where credit is due. 

Project Never Forget

I looked up project never forget as well as the remembering 9/11 section on the young America's foundation.  I could not find the picture that we talked about in class but I did find the base image of project never forget to be somewhat disrespectful as well.  Here is the link so you can see for yourself.  http://www.projectneverforget.com

I contacted the leader of our campus Conservative/Republican club to see if I could get ahold of the image talked about in class this morning, but while I am waiting on that I want to say something about the image on the front page of project never forget.  I am no longer shocked by pictures, I guess I'm just that desensitized, but I am not a fan of this picture at all.  Why is America supposed to be represented with a man with a gun?  I understand that this project is about honoring the lives of fallen soldiers who do carry and use guns on a daily basis, but is that really the image we want to remember or have associated with a human?  I am anti violence of any kind and living in a world in which the supposed greatest country on earth needs to be represented with a large gun literally jabs at my heart strings.  In many ways I think this project is a great idea as it does honor the life of fallen soldiers and that's something I fully respect.  I have not been able to find out too much about the politics behind this project but as they are strong affiliated with YAF I'm going to go ahead and guess that it is pretty conservative.  That part aside, however, I can't understand why anyone, no matter what their politics are, wants to remember a soldier by having a flag and a man holding a gun.    

Does anybody else feel this way?  Or am I being far too critical of this picture?  I would venture to say that a good percentage of our class is probably not "for" the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but what does this picture say to you?  Does it say "American, we've got guns" like it does to me or does it say something a little more profound an meaningful?

Update 9/19.....I just uploaded the picture from the remembrance on our campus.  I am not positive that this is exactly what was talked about in class, but this is what I was sent.

Pressure

In Stuart Hall's article entitled "Cultural Studies and it's Theoretical Legacies" Hall very early on makes the disclaimer that he does not want to carry around the black person's burden of speaking "for the entire black race on all questions theoretical, critical, etc".  My immediate reaction was to think that it must suck to have that burden and thus that pressure but past that I wondered if white people (the supposed non minority in politics etc) feel that they have a burden of sorts.  And if so, what is it?

What in our society makes an individual feel as if what they say matters to everyone else?  Stuart Hall eagerly wants to get rid of this identity, trying to disclaim it in only the second paragraph.  But news anchors, comedians, and many more people around the world desire the burden of having everyone look at what they say as if it is the most important thing ever said.  

I want to break down this pressure and really look at what it must feel like to speak for an entire race.  Why does Hall feel he has this burden?  Is it because he is the only black critic on the scene?  Or is it just because he is the most notable?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but I know that pressure is something no one seems to crave once they have tasted it.   

In the present race for the white house Obama is being called the next voice of black people as he stands a very good chance at winning the race and becoming the first man of color in the white house.  But he does not actively claim that he speaks for all black people, his strategy is rather to say that he speaks what he believes is true of hard working Americans with race being a moot issue.  He often gets talked about because he is not "black enough" and that he is hurting black people by not being true to his race.

I keep coming back to the idea of pressure.  In this society we just seem to tear people down.  Hall does not want to be the critical spokesperson for black people because he does not want the entire world to be torn apart based upon his feelings and thoughts.  He recognizes that he is one man and thus does not want to be responsible for an entire race.  We are all individually one person and most of us do not have any incredible responsibilities in our race, but we all are one thing or another that some of our friends may only know one of.  Why are we so obsessed with the little pieces that what we say can take the entire stance for whatever thing it is that we happen to represent?  I want more, more knowledge, more opinions, more realities than just knowing one fraction of the piece of this huge puzzle we all still are trying to figure out.

What does it take for music to be cultural?

After reading the section in Storey's chapter on "Culturalism" about "Stuart Hall and Paddy Whannel: The Popular Arts" it got me thinking about music. In this particular section, Storey talks about how Hall and Whannel say that "pop music exhibits 'emotional realism'; young men and women 'identify with these collective representations and...use them as guiding fictions. Such symbolic fictions are the folklore by means of whic hthe teenager, in part, shapes and composes his mental picture of the world' (218)" (Storey 42). Storey then goes on to explain the Hall and Whannel find pop music less cultural than say, jazz music. Their claim is that "teenagers should be persuaded that their taste is deplorable and that by listening to jazz instead of pop music they might break out of imposed and self-imposed limitations, widen their sensibilities, broaden their emotional range, and perhaps even increase their pleasure" (Storey 43).

With all this in mind, I started to wonder what it takes for music to become a part of our culture. Would you argue that because a particular song is played on the radio it shouldn't be considered part of our culture? I mean, ultimately, what I'm sure it comes down to as it always does is the definition used when defining what culture is. However, what I want to ask is what do you think it takes for music to be defined as cultural? Does it have to have that rich "cultured" sound that we often associate with things such as operas, ballets, orchestras etc? Does it become excluded from the cultural scene when it's played on the radio? What about rap, indie, underground or music in other languages? There are plenty of people who believe that music is a large part of what they believe their culture to be.

Still trying to figure out the definition of what culture is, it is difficult for even myself to decipher what it means for music to be cultural. I find myself thinking particularly about rap music for some reason. Perhaps that is because it essentially started out as a way for a person to express themselves in a unique way but easily shifted into something that is largely stereotyped in a negative manner. Which brings me back around to the topic of discussion: requirements for music to be cultural- should there be any?

Out of prison vs. out of academia

After our discussion in class yesterday about the world of the academy being so vastly different from that of the world outside, my mind started reeling.  I spent quite a bit of time comparing this to different things in my own life (namely volleyball)  and whether or not it was possible to reconnect to an outside world.  Luckily for me I got distracted with playing volleyball and then went home to have dinner thus leaving behind my thought process.  I was watching a true life story of a woman who has been in prison for basically the last 20 years.  She knows no other life but prison, knows no other people except her peers in prison and peers that got in trouble with her originally.  

My head started to reel again while watching this.  The comparison is huge!  It's virtually opposite of  the academic world that we were talking about in class but it is incredibly relevant.  How does one begin to adapt to a new life?  A new way of thought?  A new way of seeing the world around them?  I'm interested to hear what people think about this.  Is it a fresh start?  Will this woman get the same start that our author (I'm blanking on his name right now) got when he left the academy?

Film Industry "recognizes" Bollywood

To see this story with its related links on the guardian.co.uk site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/sep/10/bollywood.newscorporation

Twentieth Century Fox launches Bollywood venture
News Corporation-owned studio to produce Asian-language films for worldwide distribution
David Batty and agencies
Wednesday September 10 2008
guardian.co.uk


Twentieth Century Fox today announced it has set up a new Asian studio in an attempt to tap into the lucrative Bollywood film market.

The studio is a joint venture between the film giant and the Asian satellite broadcaster Star, which are both owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Fox Star Studios will produce Asian-language films for worldwide distribution. It will start out making Bollywood films in India, with plans to expand to China and south-east Asia.

Twentieth Century Fox is not the first studio to try to capitalise on the success of the Indian film industry outside its home market. In 2007, Sony Pictures Entertainment produced its own Bollywood musical, Saawariya.

Sony-owned Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia invested in Ang Lee's Oscar-winning Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which was released in 2000, while Warner Bros Pictures set up a joint venture with China's state-run China Film Group and Hengdian Group in 2004, and has invested in Hindi films.

The Walt Disney Company last year released a Chinese-language children's movie that mixed live action and computer animation. It has also teamed up with Indian studio Yash Raj Films to make computer-animated movies.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008

If you have any questions about this email, please contact the guardian.co.uk user help desk: userhelp@guardian.co.uk.