Youth is wasted on the young.
George Bernard Shaw
What classifies as the youth of today? It seems to be a stage “between childhood and adulthood” (Barker 407). Traditionally childhood leapt into adulthood through methods of rites of passage; one day a child and the next an adult. It was an honor to become an adult for with this role come great responsibility. Today, in the United States, there are many variations and beliefs as to what counts as “youth”. It seems as though when one is in this limbo faction of their life they are given much leeway by those that are adults in society. There are many adults that scorn those that coddle the youth, and they also scorn the youth themselves. Many young people are encouraged by their parents to stay in this youthful frame of mind as long as they can. Instead of teaching their children how to be responsible adults, these parents allow for their children to find it on their own. They believe that these are but children living in an ever complex world and there will be plenty of time later to be a grown up.
I agree that “many adults view youth as merely a state of transition”, but many adults disagree as to how long this transition should take place, and at what age it should start. A Jewish boy is declared a man at his Bar mitzvah when he is only thirteen years old. Do his parents really believe that when the boy wakes up the next morning he will be equipped to handle all the responsibilities of adulthood? Not in today’s America. Even the States have different laws that create lines in the sand as to what age restrictions shall be lowered. Restrictions such as the drinking age used to vary all across the country, but now is agreed to be the age of twenty one. This seems to be an unfair law, for the nation also agrees that the legal age to fight in a war is only eighteen. These are two very different signifiers as to when the country believes that a youth is now an adult.
Sometimes youth is used by young adults as a cover for their actions. For young people today, youth is “a privileged site in which to foreground their own sense of difference” (Barker 409). When youth is regarded by society to be a “privileged site” those on the cusp or that should be full-fledged adults hide in its security until they are forcibly cast out from its warm embrace. Like a bird that refuses to spread its wings and leap from the nest, so is much of today’s young society in America. Youth no longer seems to be this place of adjustment from child to adult but instead has become an excuse to be reckless and irresponsible for as long as they can hold on. They are able to do this because many in American society have granted them this choice.
Many young people in American society are doing the right things. They work hard; they know who they are, and what they want out of life. They’re not trying to play the system and they are admired by those that recognize their focus. There are a number of young people today that are afraid to spread their wings and take that leap into adulthood. Perhaps someone in their life placed that fear in them. Perhaps they come from a fractured family that lacks a positive role model, such as a caring father or mother. Perhaps they came from parents that never became adults and cling to youth in limbo.
Many young people know that it is in their youth that they can create their own cultural identity that will separate them from their parent working-class culture . “Youth cultures are said to ‘share the same basic problematic’ in relation to the dominant culture as the parent working-class culture. Nevertheless, they simultaneously seek to differentiate themselves from it. That is, subcultures involve the expression of difference from the identification of the parent culture” (Barker 414).
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Los Angeles. 2008. Print.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Less Lesson Leads Listeners to Listen
While getting my college education I remember a valuable lesson from my Pop Culture course that enabled me to be a much better instructor in the future. We were assigned to work in groups and cover certain topics chosen by the professor. I was in a group with eight other students and our topic was the movie “Goldfinger”. This was a 007 James Bond installment that follows the formula of a Western spy that must save the Western world and through impossible odds comes out victorious again and again. Each student in the group was to become the acting professor and involve the class in a thoughtful discussion.
One of the topics we covered earlier in the semester was “Orientalism” written by Edward Said. I found this topic greatly related to the movie “Goldfinger” and therefore I chose this to be my discussion topic for the assignment.
“Goldfinger” is not a movie that is easily accessed as my group quickly discovered. We looked online to find bits and pieces of it on “you tube”. Many of us ordered it from “Netflix” but I did not want to wait up to four days to watch the movie so I joined a local video store and immediately rented the movie, watched it very closely for signs in it that could be equated with the topic of “Orientalism”, and then returned the movie weeks later to pay an extensive late fee. I found it amusing that the young clerk behind the counter said,”ah, “Goldfinger!” now this is a movie worth the late fee!”
The “Orientalist” viewpoint in the movie is clear when one looks for it. The arch villain’s lead henchmen is a man of eastern dissent named “Oddjob”. “Oddjob” fits much of the characteristics Edward Said points out in his writings. “Oddjob” is clearly a servant to Goldfinger, submissive in every way, even willing to give his life for Goldfinger. He is mute and cannot seem to think for himself, he simply follows orders. The movie also portrays the other minor henchmen as plentiful, expendable, and Asian. They show no humanistic characteristics other than their human form. Many of them are killed yet none of them seem to care. They are portrayed as characters well beneath the intellect of those from the West. The characters from the West may be portrayed as the smart ones but much of their characteristics are negative. Goldfinger is filled with insatiable greed, Bond is filled with lust, Pussy Galore is in charge only of other women, Q is brilliant but spends every waking moment figuring out ways to kill people with technology. The rest of the group for this project discussed those aspects of the film. I cornered myself into this racist “Orientalism” topic which at first seemed very intriguing but as I made my presentation I feel as though I missed out on “the fun stuff” about Bond movies. Edward Said is clearly ungrateful for all the West has given him. Instead of seeing how welcoming the West is he chose to besmirch it and call it basically a racist society that will never understand the East. Said believes that since the West is incapable of truly understanding the East it makes up its own understanding that will always grade the East much lower than themselves. He never mentions how the people from the East grade the West. If we are to listen to Said’s words as the example to how the East grades the West, then perhaps we can conclude that Said is simply a hypocrite for his words give off a kind of authoritative tone that suggests he feels intellectually superior to the West.
In any case, I had so much to cover during my portion of the presentation that by the time I skimmed over a recap of Said, I found my allotted time to have elapsed, and I was unable to discuss the lighter side of my observations of the characters in the movie. With a group of eight people giving a presentation at the same time it just seems as though there are too many cooks in the kitchen and the customers (the class) have waited too long for their order so they get up and leave (mentally). It was an incredibly fun and interesting project and my fellow group mates did a great job. I believe that a couple of small changes to the assignment could make it even better. Smaller groups, more topics, with a strict time limit of 45 minutes could possibly be the only changes I would suggest. All in all this memory of the class has taught me so much. I need to focus more on specific ideas when given such a short timeframe in which to work. I tried to cover way too much and from this I learned many things but when giving a presentation with a discussion type format it is less lesson that will lead listeners to listen.
One of the topics we covered earlier in the semester was “Orientalism” written by Edward Said. I found this topic greatly related to the movie “Goldfinger” and therefore I chose this to be my discussion topic for the assignment.
“Goldfinger” is not a movie that is easily accessed as my group quickly discovered. We looked online to find bits and pieces of it on “you tube”. Many of us ordered it from “Netflix” but I did not want to wait up to four days to watch the movie so I joined a local video store and immediately rented the movie, watched it very closely for signs in it that could be equated with the topic of “Orientalism”, and then returned the movie weeks later to pay an extensive late fee. I found it amusing that the young clerk behind the counter said,”ah, “Goldfinger!” now this is a movie worth the late fee!”
The “Orientalist” viewpoint in the movie is clear when one looks for it. The arch villain’s lead henchmen is a man of eastern dissent named “Oddjob”. “Oddjob” fits much of the characteristics Edward Said points out in his writings. “Oddjob” is clearly a servant to Goldfinger, submissive in every way, even willing to give his life for Goldfinger. He is mute and cannot seem to think for himself, he simply follows orders. The movie also portrays the other minor henchmen as plentiful, expendable, and Asian. They show no humanistic characteristics other than their human form. Many of them are killed yet none of them seem to care. They are portrayed as characters well beneath the intellect of those from the West. The characters from the West may be portrayed as the smart ones but much of their characteristics are negative. Goldfinger is filled with insatiable greed, Bond is filled with lust, Pussy Galore is in charge only of other women, Q is brilliant but spends every waking moment figuring out ways to kill people with technology. The rest of the group for this project discussed those aspects of the film. I cornered myself into this racist “Orientalism” topic which at first seemed very intriguing but as I made my presentation I feel as though I missed out on “the fun stuff” about Bond movies. Edward Said is clearly ungrateful for all the West has given him. Instead of seeing how welcoming the West is he chose to besmirch it and call it basically a racist society that will never understand the East. Said believes that since the West is incapable of truly understanding the East it makes up its own understanding that will always grade the East much lower than themselves. He never mentions how the people from the East grade the West. If we are to listen to Said’s words as the example to how the East grades the West, then perhaps we can conclude that Said is simply a hypocrite for his words give off a kind of authoritative tone that suggests he feels intellectually superior to the West.
In any case, I had so much to cover during my portion of the presentation that by the time I skimmed over a recap of Said, I found my allotted time to have elapsed, and I was unable to discuss the lighter side of my observations of the characters in the movie. With a group of eight people giving a presentation at the same time it just seems as though there are too many cooks in the kitchen and the customers (the class) have waited too long for their order so they get up and leave (mentally). It was an incredibly fun and interesting project and my fellow group mates did a great job. I believe that a couple of small changes to the assignment could make it even better. Smaller groups, more topics, with a strict time limit of 45 minutes could possibly be the only changes I would suggest. All in all this memory of the class has taught me so much. I need to focus more on specific ideas when given such a short timeframe in which to work. I tried to cover way too much and from this I learned many things but when giving a presentation with a discussion type format it is less lesson that will lead listeners to listen.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Fools of Attraction
After reading the book titled "the rules of attraction" I was even more grateful for the life I live today. The "eighties" were a crazy time and this book, this story, is frighteningly accurate in many ways. They live in a bubble waiting for something to happen, while wanting nothing to happen. The characters in the book are always observing, judging, and manipulating each other as they stagnate in a cesspool of decadence and despair. A character named Lauren sums it all up best when she says,” Life is like a typographical error: we’re constantly writing and rewriting things over each other” (85).
“The rules of attraction” is the story of four main characters attending college near the East coast of America during the late 1980’s. They all come from not perfect, but acceptable backgrounds. They also seem to be financially capable but they have no respect for money and find ways to spend it frivolously. This may explain why later in life Lauren is said to marry a senator. All four of them have an identity that has been formulated by their family life as they grew up. However, at this point in their lives they are hell bent on destroying everything they were, stripping away all of their previous identity to formulate one for themselves all on their own. In a strange way all four of them achieve their goal, for they strive for rock bottom, and they all succeed. They tore down the structure of their identities to its very foundation, and it is this period of demolition that the reader witnesses throughout this tragic tale.
Perhaps the characters in the story feel a need to go through this self-destruction period because they think of their identity as not their own. This identity that they attempt to remove is the identity created, molded, and manipulated by their parents, and childhood. To truly become independent perhaps they believe that this previous identity must be stripped from their existence to make room for the identity they develop for adulthood.
We generally reflect on our identity when we find things aren’t going our way. We reflect when we are facing new challenges and want to know how we stack up to the event. If we believe that we do not possess an identity that will enable us to succeed with our desires we may attempt to forge a new identity that will. Perhaps, “identity is best understood not as a fixed entity but as an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves that is subject to change” (Barker 216).
Identity and self are portions that make up who we are. I disagree that “identity exists as a universal and timeless core of the self that we all possess” (Barker 217). I disagree with this because it uses the word “identity” as singular, and I would be much more convinced if it were plural. I believe that the self is the core of who we are, and the identity is simply a mask we put on to achieve our intensions. The core of the self within all of us is the compilation of a lifetime of experiences. The self is the home of our arsenal of identities formulated to be utilized at any moment to get us over the many of life’s hurdles. Each one of these “identity masks” is a true facet of the core of one’s self. We are different things to different people and therefore our identity much shift and flow with every change of setting, environment, or circumstance. For my wife my identity is husband, for my child I am the father, in class I am the student. My identity is always shifting for I take on different roles for different people. An identity is one of many that collect around the self, wraps around the core, which encapsulates the soul.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Los Angeles. 2008. Print.
Ellis, Brett E. The Rules of Attraction. Vintage Contemporaries. New York, 1998. Print.
“The rules of attraction” is the story of four main characters attending college near the East coast of America during the late 1980’s. They all come from not perfect, but acceptable backgrounds. They also seem to be financially capable but they have no respect for money and find ways to spend it frivolously. This may explain why later in life Lauren is said to marry a senator. All four of them have an identity that has been formulated by their family life as they grew up. However, at this point in their lives they are hell bent on destroying everything they were, stripping away all of their previous identity to formulate one for themselves all on their own. In a strange way all four of them achieve their goal, for they strive for rock bottom, and they all succeed. They tore down the structure of their identities to its very foundation, and it is this period of demolition that the reader witnesses throughout this tragic tale.
Perhaps the characters in the story feel a need to go through this self-destruction period because they think of their identity as not their own. This identity that they attempt to remove is the identity created, molded, and manipulated by their parents, and childhood. To truly become independent perhaps they believe that this previous identity must be stripped from their existence to make room for the identity they develop for adulthood.
We generally reflect on our identity when we find things aren’t going our way. We reflect when we are facing new challenges and want to know how we stack up to the event. If we believe that we do not possess an identity that will enable us to succeed with our desires we may attempt to forge a new identity that will. Perhaps, “identity is best understood not as a fixed entity but as an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves that is subject to change” (Barker 216).
Identity and self are portions that make up who we are. I disagree that “identity exists as a universal and timeless core of the self that we all possess” (Barker 217). I disagree with this because it uses the word “identity” as singular, and I would be much more convinced if it were plural. I believe that the self is the core of who we are, and the identity is simply a mask we put on to achieve our intensions. The core of the self within all of us is the compilation of a lifetime of experiences. The self is the home of our arsenal of identities formulated to be utilized at any moment to get us over the many of life’s hurdles. Each one of these “identity masks” is a true facet of the core of one’s self. We are different things to different people and therefore our identity much shift and flow with every change of setting, environment, or circumstance. For my wife my identity is husband, for my child I am the father, in class I am the student. My identity is always shifting for I take on different roles for different people. An identity is one of many that collect around the self, wraps around the core, which encapsulates the soul.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Los Angeles. 2008. Print.
Ellis, Brett E. The Rules of Attraction. Vintage Contemporaries. New York, 1998. Print.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Graduate from the Romantic Comedy
The romantic-comedy has changed throughout time. In more recent years the romantic-comedy has made some “radical” change due to the development of the “pill”. The “pill” allows for society to lower the bar when it comes to taking on sexual partners. The need for chivalric behavior, and time consuming traditional courtship, has dissolved into the loveless lovemaking world of the one night stand. The media sees that it needs to change its formula for the highly profitable category of the romantic-comedy to attract interest and mirror the time period more accurately.
The “pill’ is a development brought about by bright minds in the pharmaceutical industry. This means that the “pill” is an instrument developed by “culture at the top”. The “pill” is then sprinkled like a hybrid seed over the fields of society. It quickly grows, taking over large areas where its soil is most conducive to growth and rich with nutrients. These were areas of high populations and major cities. Society’s youth embraces the new drug and when the youth embraces something so follows the media. With the media’s interest, comes a wave of public influence, in the form of the reformulation of the romantic relation.
Films such as Annie Hall is one of the “most influential, and narratively the most unrepeatable: work of conscious iconoclasm…” and it “…jettison the usual elements of the romantic comedy” (4). One of its noticeable breaks from the pattern of prior romantic-comedies is its lack of the traditional “happy ending” (4). The definition of the word “comedy” according to the American Heritage Dictionary is, “A dramatic work that is humorous and has a happy ending”. Hence the category itself needs to be changed and called the “radical romantic comedy”.
This radical brand of romantic-comedy “is often willing to abandon the emphasis on making sure the couple ends up together, regardless of likelihood” and this is one aspect that separates it from the once popular traditional formula (4).
The Graduate is another stunning radical romantic-comedy that pushes far from the traditional grid, and in the end, oddly finds itself smack dab in the middle of the grids center. The Graduate’s “narrative arc” changes the usual “boy meets girl convention” and replaces it with “boy meets woman, gets woman, ditches woman for her daughter, loses daughter, gets daughter. Therefore the tradition of boy meets girl remains in tack, but how they get there is the radical difference. Also there are many scolding examples of romantic tradition flaws. By illustrating ugliness within tradition the film gains interest from a youth market that desperately searches to make their mark on society. The film illustrates Mrs. Robinson’s lack of morale stability when she pursues a family friend’s young son. This may illustrate to the youth market that marriage is a fraud, and a fools dream.
The film is artfully crafted and is capable of manipulating an audience to root for Ben to get the girl even though he slept with her mother. Ben chases her down in the end of the film and in a panic as though her marriage would be a big mistake. For as illustrated earlier in the movie, marriage is a fraud. This leads one to wonder that if marriage is a fraud, perhaps all of tradition is a fraud. This may suggest to a young audience that tradition is merely a captive that holds society in a strangle hold, forcing all to follow its flawed pathway through life. Thank goodness Ben got there in time to stop her from marrying and conforming to the lifetime of lies brought about by societies captive called tradition (sarcasm).
The romantic comedy has become radicalized by the advent of the “pill”, the media, and the thirsty young generation of its time. This category title, however, has become the norm thus it has become everything it strived not to be. Much like a child that has grown and realizing one day says, ”Oh my gosh, I’ve become my parents!”
Definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary to wrap one’s head around the meaning of Romantic-Comedy:
Romance - A love affair or a mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous
Adventurous - Inclined to undertake new and daring enterprises
Mysterious – The quality that is associated with the unexplained, secret, or unknown
Fascinating – To hold an intense interest or attraction
Comedy – A dramatic work that is humorous and has a happy ending
Works Cited
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy meets girl meets genre. London: Wallflower, 2007.
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Bantom Dell. New York. New York. 2001. Print.
The “pill’ is a development brought about by bright minds in the pharmaceutical industry. This means that the “pill” is an instrument developed by “culture at the top”. The “pill” is then sprinkled like a hybrid seed over the fields of society. It quickly grows, taking over large areas where its soil is most conducive to growth and rich with nutrients. These were areas of high populations and major cities. Society’s youth embraces the new drug and when the youth embraces something so follows the media. With the media’s interest, comes a wave of public influence, in the form of the reformulation of the romantic relation.
Films such as Annie Hall is one of the “most influential, and narratively the most unrepeatable: work of conscious iconoclasm…” and it “…jettison the usual elements of the romantic comedy” (4). One of its noticeable breaks from the pattern of prior romantic-comedies is its lack of the traditional “happy ending” (4). The definition of the word “comedy” according to the American Heritage Dictionary is, “A dramatic work that is humorous and has a happy ending”. Hence the category itself needs to be changed and called the “radical romantic comedy”.
This radical brand of romantic-comedy “is often willing to abandon the emphasis on making sure the couple ends up together, regardless of likelihood” and this is one aspect that separates it from the once popular traditional formula (4).
The Graduate is another stunning radical romantic-comedy that pushes far from the traditional grid, and in the end, oddly finds itself smack dab in the middle of the grids center. The Graduate’s “narrative arc” changes the usual “boy meets girl convention” and replaces it with “boy meets woman, gets woman, ditches woman for her daughter, loses daughter, gets daughter. Therefore the tradition of boy meets girl remains in tack, but how they get there is the radical difference. Also there are many scolding examples of romantic tradition flaws. By illustrating ugliness within tradition the film gains interest from a youth market that desperately searches to make their mark on society. The film illustrates Mrs. Robinson’s lack of morale stability when she pursues a family friend’s young son. This may illustrate to the youth market that marriage is a fraud, and a fools dream.
The film is artfully crafted and is capable of manipulating an audience to root for Ben to get the girl even though he slept with her mother. Ben chases her down in the end of the film and in a panic as though her marriage would be a big mistake. For as illustrated earlier in the movie, marriage is a fraud. This leads one to wonder that if marriage is a fraud, perhaps all of tradition is a fraud. This may suggest to a young audience that tradition is merely a captive that holds society in a strangle hold, forcing all to follow its flawed pathway through life. Thank goodness Ben got there in time to stop her from marrying and conforming to the lifetime of lies brought about by societies captive called tradition (sarcasm).
The romantic comedy has become radicalized by the advent of the “pill”, the media, and the thirsty young generation of its time. This category title, however, has become the norm thus it has become everything it strived not to be. Much like a child that has grown and realizing one day says, ”Oh my gosh, I’ve become my parents!”
Definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary to wrap one’s head around the meaning of Romantic-Comedy:
Romance - A love affair or a mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous
Adventurous - Inclined to undertake new and daring enterprises
Mysterious – The quality that is associated with the unexplained, secret, or unknown
Fascinating – To hold an intense interest or attraction
Comedy – A dramatic work that is humorous and has a happy ending
Works Cited
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy meets girl meets genre. London: Wallflower, 2007.
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Bantom Dell. New York. New York. 2001. Print.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
You had me when you showed me the money!
Observing Jerry McGuire and the meaning of love.
There are many forms of love. Love of a spouse, a child, and a parent all seem like top of the list forms of love. Love then seems to get a bit diluted, love of a movie, love of food, and of course love of money.
Jerry searches for companionship, for it is said that he must never be alone. He is a very successful agent in the sports arena until he writes his thoughts and shares them with his company. This sends his career into a downward spiral that just gets worse and worse.
He loses his job, his fiancee, and his good name in a very short period of time. He scrambles to get back on top with the help of a woman and a football player that still believe in him. In the end he gets the girl that truly "completes" him, and he "shows' the football player "the money!" This perhaps illustrates that for him to find true love of a friend and a wife is contingent on his personal success in the business world. For without success he is not the man he wants to be. His confidence rides on his success and without it he is incapable of love. When he feels like a failure he can't focus on love and therefore he cannot receive it. At any moment in his struggle for success he could fall, self-destruct, and never come back. If he had failed in his mission to make the football player a success I do not believe he would have been capable of love, for he would have hated himself. Love simply depends on many variables for it to truly take effect. It is unfortunate to think that love depends on success in the business world, but in Jerry McGuire's case I believe it is true.
There are many forms of love. Love of a spouse, a child, and a parent all seem like top of the list forms of love. Love then seems to get a bit diluted, love of a movie, love of food, and of course love of money.
Jerry searches for companionship, for it is said that he must never be alone. He is a very successful agent in the sports arena until he writes his thoughts and shares them with his company. This sends his career into a downward spiral that just gets worse and worse.
He loses his job, his fiancee, and his good name in a very short period of time. He scrambles to get back on top with the help of a woman and a football player that still believe in him. In the end he gets the girl that truly "completes" him, and he "shows' the football player "the money!" This perhaps illustrates that for him to find true love of a friend and a wife is contingent on his personal success in the business world. For without success he is not the man he wants to be. His confidence rides on his success and without it he is incapable of love. When he feels like a failure he can't focus on love and therefore he cannot receive it. At any moment in his struggle for success he could fall, self-destruct, and never come back. If he had failed in his mission to make the football player a success I do not believe he would have been capable of love, for he would have hated himself. Love simply depends on many variables for it to truly take effect. It is unfortunate to think that love depends on success in the business world, but in Jerry McGuire's case I believe it is true.
Obsersvations at the farmer's market
We enter the large parking lot and I strategically begin my search for the perfect spot. I notice there are more empty spaces than usual and find it to be a bit odd. My wife says perhaps it is because many people in the area are on vacation this time of year. I accept here theory and begin my observations of the surroundings.
We exit the car and the coolness from the air conditioner swiftly departs from my body. My eyes squint from the bright rays of the sun as it reflects off all that is light. The rays absorb into the dark asphalt creating an unbearable heat that rises up and pours over my face. The discomfort makes us hurry to get the car seat carrier into the stroller and off we go.
As we walk across the parking lot I see other families leaving the market and heading for their cars. A mother with two young sons opens the minivan door and begins to load her bags. The boys are very good and stay put until she is ready for them to get in.
The farmers market is on a strip of road that is lined with permanent stores on either side. The farmers, craftsmen, and all others, have set up their tents as they do every Sunday morning. People of all races, color, size, age and class gather here. No one seems to treat any other differently because of their differences. The setting here is the opposite of the stressful, complicated, continuously at odds, clashing world the media pushes on us every time we tune in. People are relaxed, natural, and it all seems so real. Here we are not behaving as the media would like. Here we are not demonizing one another for our beliefs, class, or color. Here, the people are just enjoying the day as they walk through this eclectic market on a beautiful Sunday morning. So many people, from so many backgrounds, all find themselves here in this place. That shows that this is a place of common ground. This is a place where we all chose to be on a Sunday morning to walk about and take in the day. With this in common I find it strange to see the lack of depth we seek to know about one another. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing, and I don’t expect everyone there to be good friends. I simply find it interesting to observe peoples remarkable ability to interact with one another as they ignore one another.
The smell of fruit fills the air. On either side of the street under the tents are tables lined with all the fruits and vegetables one could ever hope for. The smell of peaches, then strawberries beckons to the senses. The eyes close, take in a full breath through the nose, the corners of the mouth rise, the feet glide across the hot pavement into the shade of a tent. Now it is the eyes turn for pleasure, for the shade allows for them to fully open and capture the bright colors of the fruitful bounty.
People are all around; some are haggling for a better price, others are paying in full. I pass by a tent that has no crowd, and the woman behind a table of less appealing fruit calls out, ”Free Samples!” to no avail. I continue to move with the flow of people.
Up ahead, I see plumes of smoke billowing from the tents ahead. As I enter this cloud the smell of meat cooking on the grill instantly sends my stomach into a growling tailspin. The sound of the sizzle, the sight of people all around me taking that first bight, their mouths covered in sauce, their faces filled with satisfaction. The path narrows and bottlenecks, herding us tightly through, forcing the crowd to slow, making it almost impossible for a meat eater to resist, but I break the spell and press through.
I find a place to sit and observe the people of the market. With two cameras, a pad and pen, I began to write down what I see. I began to feel very uncomfortable doing this and wondered what the people must have thought that I was doing. I thought that I must appear very suspicious to them, or at the very least peculiar.
A vendor greeted a shopper next to me as I sat there. A large plant screened my location, and I pretend not to be interested. A little girl with her mother approaches a rack that holds small colorful animal marionettes. The vendor pulls a purple bird marionette from the rack and demonstrates its lifelike mobility for the fascinated girl. The mother pulls out some cash and they agree to the price. He thanks them for the purchase and the girl walks off with a smile.
Perhaps the scenes from the farmers market embrace the theory of culture from the ground up. To observe the farmers market is to be standing on the ground floor of a particular place in American culture. By observing this ground floor activity through the lens of a “thinker” I realize that perhaps the simplest beginnings of culture are brought about by pleasing the senses. There are many more senses than simply sight, touch, and taste. Perhaps other senses should be added to the list such as moral and common sense. “Italian Marxist theorist and political activist” Antonio Gramsci suggests that “all people reflect upon the world and through the ‘common sense’ of popular culture, organize their lives and experience” and “thus, common sense becomes a crucial site of ideological conflict…” (Barker 444, 66). Common sense “is the terrain of the ‘taken-for-granted’” where a “practical consciousness…guides the actions of the everyday world” (Barker 66). As human beings, our senses are working 24/7 taking in all that surrounds us. Our senses are constantly bombarded by the world around us, and much of it is simply ignored by our ever self-absorbed mind. When we focus the mind at our powerful senses, one may discover the amazement of what reality has to share.
From the article titled, “Introduction: ‘The Politics of Culture’” by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan suggests that before the 1960s and 70s, “culture was associated with art, literature, and classical music.” Then the article ties “the word ‘culture’” to a “much broader sense to mean forms of life and social expression.” Perhaps culture is much more than this. When many cultures regularly come together, like the many seen at the farmers market, at what point do they become one culture? Perhaps at that one moment, at that one place every Sunday they, in some strange way, meld together to make up one unique eclectic culture.
The people of the farmers market were in small groups of families, friends, or were there alone. They were all experiencing the same day, in the same moment, at the same time. The small groups shared with one another, their interests, their experiences, and what they were sensing all around them. Those that were alone were generally the vendors. They seemed to connect with other vendors that were alone, or kept to themselves, trying their best to turn shoppers into buyers. So many people, so much in common, yet they seem to just bounce off one another. They almost behave as though anyone that is not in their group does not really exist as they do. Those that are not part of their group, or family are just additions to the atmosphere of the setting. They do not matter, for they are living lives that will never make much connection to their own. We don’t embrace each other until we need each other and that is where culture comes into play.
The people walk the market, barely looking at anyone that is not part of the group they we came with. All groups going about their lives, enjoying the day, never really thinking about the other groups, and they are strangers to each other. They are divided by life’s path, yet together by life’s path. They pass each other by on the street as though they don’t even see one another. Sometimes they even collide, and with a simple “excuse me” the moment is forgotten. There is however a bond between these strangers that is stronger than steel and if it were threatened they would come together as one. This bond is their culture. Culture that comes from the bottom is stronger than any other. For it seeps deep into the roots of its society. Culture from the bottom ties to its people like a string of DNA and becomes the fabric of tradition that forms the quilt of a people’s history. Culture is much more than the flickering of images on a screen, or splotches of ink on a page. Culture is who we were, who we are, and who we are to be, it just depends on what we believe.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Los Angeles. 2008. Print.
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
We exit the car and the coolness from the air conditioner swiftly departs from my body. My eyes squint from the bright rays of the sun as it reflects off all that is light. The rays absorb into the dark asphalt creating an unbearable heat that rises up and pours over my face. The discomfort makes us hurry to get the car seat carrier into the stroller and off we go.
As we walk across the parking lot I see other families leaving the market and heading for their cars. A mother with two young sons opens the minivan door and begins to load her bags. The boys are very good and stay put until she is ready for them to get in.
The farmers market is on a strip of road that is lined with permanent stores on either side. The farmers, craftsmen, and all others, have set up their tents as they do every Sunday morning. People of all races, color, size, age and class gather here. No one seems to treat any other differently because of their differences. The setting here is the opposite of the stressful, complicated, continuously at odds, clashing world the media pushes on us every time we tune in. People are relaxed, natural, and it all seems so real. Here we are not behaving as the media would like. Here we are not demonizing one another for our beliefs, class, or color. Here, the people are just enjoying the day as they walk through this eclectic market on a beautiful Sunday morning. So many people, from so many backgrounds, all find themselves here in this place. That shows that this is a place of common ground. This is a place where we all chose to be on a Sunday morning to walk about and take in the day. With this in common I find it strange to see the lack of depth we seek to know about one another. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing, and I don’t expect everyone there to be good friends. I simply find it interesting to observe peoples remarkable ability to interact with one another as they ignore one another.
The smell of fruit fills the air. On either side of the street under the tents are tables lined with all the fruits and vegetables one could ever hope for. The smell of peaches, then strawberries beckons to the senses. The eyes close, take in a full breath through the nose, the corners of the mouth rise, the feet glide across the hot pavement into the shade of a tent. Now it is the eyes turn for pleasure, for the shade allows for them to fully open and capture the bright colors of the fruitful bounty.
People are all around; some are haggling for a better price, others are paying in full. I pass by a tent that has no crowd, and the woman behind a table of less appealing fruit calls out, ”Free Samples!” to no avail. I continue to move with the flow of people.
Up ahead, I see plumes of smoke billowing from the tents ahead. As I enter this cloud the smell of meat cooking on the grill instantly sends my stomach into a growling tailspin. The sound of the sizzle, the sight of people all around me taking that first bight, their mouths covered in sauce, their faces filled with satisfaction. The path narrows and bottlenecks, herding us tightly through, forcing the crowd to slow, making it almost impossible for a meat eater to resist, but I break the spell and press through.
I find a place to sit and observe the people of the market. With two cameras, a pad and pen, I began to write down what I see. I began to feel very uncomfortable doing this and wondered what the people must have thought that I was doing. I thought that I must appear very suspicious to them, or at the very least peculiar.
A vendor greeted a shopper next to me as I sat there. A large plant screened my location, and I pretend not to be interested. A little girl with her mother approaches a rack that holds small colorful animal marionettes. The vendor pulls a purple bird marionette from the rack and demonstrates its lifelike mobility for the fascinated girl. The mother pulls out some cash and they agree to the price. He thanks them for the purchase and the girl walks off with a smile.
Perhaps the scenes from the farmers market embrace the theory of culture from the ground up. To observe the farmers market is to be standing on the ground floor of a particular place in American culture. By observing this ground floor activity through the lens of a “thinker” I realize that perhaps the simplest beginnings of culture are brought about by pleasing the senses. There are many more senses than simply sight, touch, and taste. Perhaps other senses should be added to the list such as moral and common sense. “Italian Marxist theorist and political activist” Antonio Gramsci suggests that “all people reflect upon the world and through the ‘common sense’ of popular culture, organize their lives and experience” and “thus, common sense becomes a crucial site of ideological conflict…” (Barker 444, 66). Common sense “is the terrain of the ‘taken-for-granted’” where a “practical consciousness…guides the actions of the everyday world” (Barker 66). As human beings, our senses are working 24/7 taking in all that surrounds us. Our senses are constantly bombarded by the world around us, and much of it is simply ignored by our ever self-absorbed mind. When we focus the mind at our powerful senses, one may discover the amazement of what reality has to share.
From the article titled, “Introduction: ‘The Politics of Culture’” by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan suggests that before the 1960s and 70s, “culture was associated with art, literature, and classical music.” Then the article ties “the word ‘culture’” to a “much broader sense to mean forms of life and social expression.” Perhaps culture is much more than this. When many cultures regularly come together, like the many seen at the farmers market, at what point do they become one culture? Perhaps at that one moment, at that one place every Sunday they, in some strange way, meld together to make up one unique eclectic culture.
The people of the farmers market were in small groups of families, friends, or were there alone. They were all experiencing the same day, in the same moment, at the same time. The small groups shared with one another, their interests, their experiences, and what they were sensing all around them. Those that were alone were generally the vendors. They seemed to connect with other vendors that were alone, or kept to themselves, trying their best to turn shoppers into buyers. So many people, so much in common, yet they seem to just bounce off one another. They almost behave as though anyone that is not in their group does not really exist as they do. Those that are not part of their group, or family are just additions to the atmosphere of the setting. They do not matter, for they are living lives that will never make much connection to their own. We don’t embrace each other until we need each other and that is where culture comes into play.
The people walk the market, barely looking at anyone that is not part of the group they we came with. All groups going about their lives, enjoying the day, never really thinking about the other groups, and they are strangers to each other. They are divided by life’s path, yet together by life’s path. They pass each other by on the street as though they don’t even see one another. Sometimes they even collide, and with a simple “excuse me” the moment is forgotten. There is however a bond between these strangers that is stronger than steel and if it were threatened they would come together as one. This bond is their culture. Culture that comes from the bottom is stronger than any other. For it seeps deep into the roots of its society. Culture from the bottom ties to its people like a string of DNA and becomes the fabric of tradition that forms the quilt of a people’s history. Culture is much more than the flickering of images on a screen, or splotches of ink on a page. Culture is who we were, who we are, and who we are to be, it just depends on what we believe.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Los Angeles. 2008. Print.
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What comes down must go up
This week’s reading titled “the politics of culture” delves into an intriguing question as to where culture begins. Some suggest that culture comes from the bottom realms of society, while others contend that it is controlled by top corporate minds. Those that embrace the “top-down” model seem to suggest that those that live in a capitalist society are basically living a lie that is controlled by large corporations. They seem to imply that corporations “victimize” the public through control of mass media, and melt the minds of modern man. The article also suggests that society has been somehow fooled by capitalists and forced into seeing the world their way. Some believe that culture comes from the top down, while others think it comes from the bottom up. Culture that comes from the top down is related to “the media, television, film and the like as instruments of economic, ethnic, and gender domination”. The article emphasizes that those in control of these instruments of influence are “large corporations” that are “largely run by men”. The article states that this top down invasion of forced inspiration is not “the media and the entertainment industries” fault for they “cannot help but assist the reproduction of the social system by allowing certain kinds of imagery and ideas to gain access to mass audiences”.
Culture that rises from bottom to top is said to occur from society attempting to break from the mainstream world designed by “capitalist social order”. The youth of every new generation seems to want to make a name for itself and do this by “resisting their assigned social roles through rituals of dress, dance, and music “.
Remember when we were the next generation in America? We were the generation after the “baby boomers” and we were called “generation X”. We did not name ourselves, nor did a capitalist in an ivory tower, but we did want to make a name for ourselves, and we did. We did not make a name for ourselves because the capitalist wanted to sell us the same stuff our parents bought when they were young. We did it so that we would be remembered in some strange way by future generations to admire. We did it so that our parents would realize that although we love them, we are not them, and we had a deep desire to strike out on our own. We were independent yet so dependent on each other. The retail markets didn’t steer us, we steered the market. The capitalists took note of our interests and listened to our ideas. They had the power to develop these ideas and share these products with others from our generation to enjoy. Capitalist listened so well that they made many attempts to market interesting products that they think the public wants. They advertise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in the end it is the consumer that decides. It is the consumer that chooses to purchase a product and no amount of advertising can ever force anyone to buy it. However, some of these products became popular and this is an example of culture integration from the “top-down”. John Fiske who “developes a semiotic model for analyzing television programs in Television Culture (1987)… argues that viewers or audiences… can ‘decode’ cultural messages in ways that allow them to think resistantly about their lives”. On the other hand Susan Bordo who wrote “Material Girl” suggests that “culture overwhelmingly dominates women’s lives especially, imposing models of bodily beauty that get construed as freely chosen options by those victimized by them.” The word “victimized” used in Bordo’s argument is completely hyperbolic. Using words like “victimized” are powerful suggestive, manipulating words. It’s as though Bordo is trying to sell the reader on her point of view by hurling strong words of outrageous accusation.
Culture does come from below in a grass roots kind of way, but those at the top are always listening, and looking for that new blade of grass to surface so they can cultivate, and fertilize it to spread across the lawn of society. In this cycle of culture one may suggest that the top and the bottom are more symbiotic to one another than some may expect.
Works Cited
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
Culture that rises from bottom to top is said to occur from society attempting to break from the mainstream world designed by “capitalist social order”. The youth of every new generation seems to want to make a name for itself and do this by “resisting their assigned social roles through rituals of dress, dance, and music “.
Remember when we were the next generation in America? We were the generation after the “baby boomers” and we were called “generation X”. We did not name ourselves, nor did a capitalist in an ivory tower, but we did want to make a name for ourselves, and we did. We did not make a name for ourselves because the capitalist wanted to sell us the same stuff our parents bought when they were young. We did it so that we would be remembered in some strange way by future generations to admire. We did it so that our parents would realize that although we love them, we are not them, and we had a deep desire to strike out on our own. We were independent yet so dependent on each other. The retail markets didn’t steer us, we steered the market. The capitalists took note of our interests and listened to our ideas. They had the power to develop these ideas and share these products with others from our generation to enjoy. Capitalist listened so well that they made many attempts to market interesting products that they think the public wants. They advertise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in the end it is the consumer that decides. It is the consumer that chooses to purchase a product and no amount of advertising can ever force anyone to buy it. However, some of these products became popular and this is an example of culture integration from the “top-down”. John Fiske who “developes a semiotic model for analyzing television programs in Television Culture (1987)… argues that viewers or audiences… can ‘decode’ cultural messages in ways that allow them to think resistantly about their lives”. On the other hand Susan Bordo who wrote “Material Girl” suggests that “culture overwhelmingly dominates women’s lives especially, imposing models of bodily beauty that get construed as freely chosen options by those victimized by them.” The word “victimized” used in Bordo’s argument is completely hyperbolic. Using words like “victimized” are powerful suggestive, manipulating words. It’s as though Bordo is trying to sell the reader on her point of view by hurling strong words of outrageous accusation.
Culture does come from below in a grass roots kind of way, but those at the top are always listening, and looking for that new blade of grass to surface so they can cultivate, and fertilize it to spread across the lawn of society. In this cycle of culture one may suggest that the top and the bottom are more symbiotic to one another than some may expect.
Works Cited
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)