Friday March 9th, 2007
The concept of Orientalism exists today even still in society. Although not alike as Edward Said’s book describes on the Eastern culture, we all have our own sense of ‘others’. For me, others would mean a lot of things. Others could classify as people outside my family, the opposite gender, any different nationality than me or even my tastes in music. It’s quite odd, the distinction between stereotyping and classifying one as the ‘others’. Is it safe to say that in Canada, with our diversity, do we still consider Said’s concept? I would think it is something unavoidable based on my previous examples.
After the 9/11 terrorists attacks in 2001 by people residing from the Middle East, the United States waged a war in Iraq to destroy terrorists. In my opinion, I think this created a big stereotype that Middle Eastern people are terrorists and invokes fear. This is probably because of our natural predispositions to create an image of what we hear and see and generalize it. Squires the author of this online article has his take on the misinformation of the Islam people here: http://www.muslim-answers.org/orientalism.htm
It’s amazing the misinterpretation and judgmental thoughts society can take on. We as students have probably learned that Nazis are bad and all Nazis are murderers that killed many Jews. At the same time, there are old men living today who were Nazis but are good people.
Friday March 2nd, 2007
One of the topics discussed in class was on Truth, Lies, Trust and the Media. My take on this is that trust can only be experienced. Whether it is face to face or experiencing first hand the reliance of information from news or a product, trust can’t be obtained from communication from intermediaries. When you are shopping online on ebay or amazon.ca, the one thing you are looking for is the sign of trust as was explained in class. One particular sign is the brand of the place you are shopping online. Generally, when you are shopping online, you are experiencing if getting your things online is worthwhile or if it is a pain in the rear. After completing the checkout, you have successfully gained results that will affect the way you perceive online shopping and its usability.
A question that was asked is if face-to-face communication is superior in identifying trust within a person? I think so. I think that discerning one’s emotion and actions and facial expressions is key to ascertaining if someone is telling the truth or if they are lying. In fact, speaking orally is only one of many things that a person does when they are talking. There are several ways to communicate using hand gestures, body language and so forth. Therefore, if you are identifying truth from intermediaries in the media or any type of communication it is probably less easy for someone to identify the truth or the credibility behind what is communicated. It is blurred when someone’s tone is missing from a text that is telling you a slogan for some product and you don’t know if it is in the context of comedy, seriousness or with the intent to sell and the meaning is false. We would require more clues or pieces to the puzzle like images or sounds.
I was asked in class today if my parents or me shop online. Frankly, no I do not. In this “cheating” age suggested by David Callaman in his book, “The Cheating Culture”, people are going lying crazy. There are many cases of scams going online and fraud and the misuse of confidentiality. When I think about it, it is actually no different than if a salesman is selling a faulty product or trying to scam you into spending money on something worthless. At least on that level, you can actually determine their trustworthiness by looking at the way they sell you or communicate. Buying online, ensures your anonymity but also the anonymity of the seller in which case, if you were to be scammed, you would have no idea who scammed you.
Something that was asked in class was if everyone lies? I suspect everyone does lie at some point of time in his or her life, some more than others. We probably lie to even out the keel between what we want to expose and what we want to hide. I think that lying in relationships is a necessity, suggested by Bella M. DePaulo is true. In the case of someone being unfaithful and both people want to maintain the relationship, either the lie is accepted to save from hearing the unbearable truth or it is ignored.
How we break trust with a single lie between relations with a person is much the same with the media and society. We lose trust in the media if they tell a lie, distorting it or using techniques such as concealment or equivocation. I suspect the media is hiding an enormous amount of information from the public just to cover complete anarchy and chaos that will ensue lest the secrets be revealed.
This website poses the question of whether or not the media is telling truth or lies and what you can doubt or believe.
http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20030916/infocus/
“Does the press today focus too much on sensational news stories? Who decides which stories make it to the front page?”
Private organizations and media companies strive for one goal. That goal is the production of material profits and wealth and quite simply, the news chooses to focus on stories that offer the most readers for their newspaper or viewers for their news broadcast. So just by looking at the way the media is run, the truth can sometimes be blurred. Even political figures such as Bill Clinton while in office violated American’s trust by denying sexual relations with Monica, all the while the media participated in investigating the incident and proved that President Clinton was a liar. All these different cases of violation of trust make it difficult and hinder communication as a whole. I think even white lies and exaggeration sometimes confuses people. The way we perceive media today is becoming less and less trustworthy in my opinion. Time and time again, scandals and violations continue to happen and it is almost like a relationship between a friend that lies all the time, you don’t know whether to believe them or not. To make a point, it is like the boy who cried wolf.
Friday February 23rd, 2007
Personally, I’m all for globalism. The readings on globalism are very interesting because it states that globalism emerges from nationalism. This type of ideology ensures that the nation is unified in my opinion.
‘Globalization refers to all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society' Martin Albrow, 1990
One thing comes to mind, how does this affect Canada as a multicultural nation? More importantly, how does it stack up with nations around the world who are not the leaders in globalization? When you think of the leaders, I would probably have to say that the United States are the leaders and this is most likely because they constantly expand and dominate markets. Think about it, would you ever be a Bush bashing, Paris Hilton hating Internet chatting junkie if not for the leakage of American culture in your television set or computer monitor? I think not. Americanization is real. I notice the ‘ brand and coca-cola brands or logos are the most recognizable symbol around the world and more people recognize those logos more than anything. In India you can find a Mcdonald’s that sells all types of local recipes that serves as a twist to the American food chain. With that come people’s way of dressing, their style and image all portrayed within the media. To add, globalization incurs around the world a person’s sexuality, music, lifestyle, cultural attitudes and religion. With globalization, especially on the Internet, anyone can access this information highway. The Internet is one of the reasons globalization is inevitable. Even in places like China, where the government uses censorship and not just anybody can say what they want, the Internet serves as a pool of access for people to view whatever they so choose. United States being the most profitable nation would probably be a leading competitor in the media and taking advantage of this type of medium. The Internet is free and should never be regulated, this brings the argument over if the CRTC should regulate the Internet or if private companies supplying a connection to the Internet regulate it. For the most part, it can be self regulated that meaning, anything illegal or against human rights would probably be banned. One example would be child pornography or pirated movies. Self-regulation by laws and policing has removed these types of things from the Internet.
A number of benefits come from globalization which I have found research on. As of the beginning age of globalization to the activities thereafter of World War II, countries have shown to profit and grown. Also there is increase in international trade, investment and global literacy.
I had a look at a website for further information on the effects of globalization and what it all means: http://www.globalisationguide.org/
It talks about the impacts of globalization and other key questions about it. One perfect example I think is during the catastrophic earthquake that happened in India, without these lowered barriers between nations and globalization, Canada would never as a nation come to the aid of India to help shelter and send supplies to the victims. We would not be acting as a country; people would instead probably individually help out those in need across the globe. I say without globalism, people wouldn’t see themselves as part of the world and only limited to their own little communities. With globalism one can say, I am part of Canada, and this nation is part of the world. We have a sense of that belonging, like a voice of Earth in unison, we can feel connected. It is also important to note that the world has suffered a little bit less, increasing standards of living and less people starving in third world countries. Globalism is very beneficial. It was also mentioned in class that with the taking on of Globalism, nationalism would be gone. I completely agree with this statement because nations belong to so many uniting factors like the U.N and even Democracy.
Friday February 16th, 2007
My understanding of the practicality of television in homes is that it replaces the radio of back then. In the readings, it explains the history of television and how the home was important. Back then, the woman had to always stay home to nurture her children and the husband would be the dominant figure in the household. Things certainly have changed. The most predominant issue we now face is same sex marriage and gender roles. Modern times have created images of sexuality that have become the norm for women as well as men. Sut Jhally’s documentaries titled “Killing Us Softly 3” and “Tough Guise” are proof that there is an issue with culture and society. On one hand, women are obviously used as sexual objects in advertisements and this image is forced down upon young teens who try to follow popular culture. On the other hand, men suffer the same mentality situation where they must be a tough non-emotional type. Maybe with a certain introduction of technology like the television did to change the home will come along to change these stereotypes too?
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaGenderAndDiversity/KillingUsSoftly3
Friday February 9th, 2007
Regarding Post-war television lecture, I believe the development of suburbs and mass consumption very intentional indeed. People started having more disposable income and buying more things because the result of cheap housing made by the government in the Housing Act and that leads to having more families and increased standard of living among society. I think mortgage is a big thing in determining if you will be able to buy anything. If I were going to get a place without mortgage, obviously it would be extremely difficult to manage any finances. The idea of women and domesticity takes us back to that reading on the home and television. Women were liberated from their mandatory duties as a housewife, but with mass consumption and all the advertisements on house cleaning products like this advertisement: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_w4e-C90EBw , women are going back to the idea of a housewife. Are women content with this? I have wondered about that or if it is just the media who is showing it for the sake of money.
Friday February 2nd, 2007
The concept of free time discussed in class was that nobody really has free time and everything that they are doing, they do it cause they have to or they are bored. To really have free time and leisure you must enjoy something you do. But what happens if that something you do is work, therefore can it really be described as free time or leisure? The author of the reading shows this predicament and I think that it is true. We all surf the net or play sports, because it is something to do to relieve us of our boredom. So when we see it is leisure, is it not something we “have” to do?
One example I thought was relevant and fascinating is the idea that all companies like to use golfing as a sport to consolidate the company and create social relations and strengthen the bond between co-workers.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/03/04/a12b_biz_0304.html
This type of thing is very common in businesses and I find it connects with what was talked about. Golfing is no longer a past time it is something that is needed in order to be efficient in a business oriented environment and ensuring co-workers construct the proper relationships between each other.
Friday January 26th, 2007
One of the things I enjoy is exploring deep and ancient civilizations and all the things they used to do. When comparing old media with technology today I can appreciate all it has evolved into. Cave paintings is a form of storytelling thus, bringing about books and literature. In turn, books inspire the creation of motion pictures. So it’s quite amazing how pictographs led to the development of communication and first forms of literature. All of what we know like our clothes comes from tailoring thousands of years ago, and I believe that in this age of the 21st century where globalization and new media is vastly being developed, the one highlight of the age is the Internet. It does anything a television does and offers even more information. The Internet could very well even replace print media because of its accessibility and convenience.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/STUDENTS/Purdy/INDEX.HTM
The article above has an alternate view that seems to suggest that the Internet might be a detriment to society. This is because of our media habits that we talked about and how our language is shortened and degraded in a way from using chat and email.
Friday January 19th, 2007
Do I think of myself as going with popular culture? Yes, it is something futile to resist. It is so dominant within our daily lives, the way we talk to our peers and the way we dress, what our taste in entertainment is and our lifestyle. Looking at the lecture on culture, I think during the 1980s, the Air Jordan shoes made by Nike was the extreme of popular culture. In fact, watching these advertisements, http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3903404782678417828&q=air+jordan , it was amazing how the product took off in such a successful way. Air Jordan’s actually became such high-end popular culture that people were robbed in the streets for their pair of Michael Jordan Sneakers. This is the result of media showing Michael Jordan as a rebel and that was their theme in selling. Having Air Jordan shoes meant you were a rebel and defying authority because Michael Jordan used those sneakers in his basketball games even though they did not match his uniform and was fined for it every single time.
To think that popular culture could be so powerful in shaping society to become violent over is almost unthinkable, but history shows that it did happen, and I think this really is an important point to note about popular culture.
Thursday January 18th, 2007
On the note of high culture and popular culture not being able to distinguish from each other, I believe that in contemporary society that holds true. We are connected within the public sphere that there is no clear line that identifies different status. People can do things that would have qualified as high culture back then even if they were not the right status for it. Even style of clothing and music are now taking styles and culture of the ghetto or poor to make famous and popular again. Movies like Zoolander promoted that kind of idea and even the concept of ripped jeans was originally derived from poor people who couldn’t afford non- ripped jeans but it became a statement of fashion later on. It shows the extent of popular culture.
http://www.junkitz.com/designers/blog/images/Ugly%20Ripped%20Jeans.JPG
Even Disney is using commodification of a culture of their own, their own fantasy world targeted at young children. The word Disneyfication I think was used in class. Makes you think about what other things has become a commodity as a result of urbanization.
Friday January 12th, 2007
Is culture the result of society? Or is society the result of culture? This question was brought up in class and I think that the result of society is ultimately from culture. Take for example the death of princess Diana, if we had not have the predisposition that she is royalty and royalty is important nationalistic figures of society, then why would it be televised and everyone making such a big deal out of it. Even going to the root of the incident was because paparazzi were chasing the Princess in her vehicle. If the paparazzi did not have the mindset and the cultural knowledge of royalty and important famous political figures then, their pursuit in the princess would never have taken place. Looking at the events after, funeral and burial and ceremony of the princess are all ritualistic and have been done as a part of culture for many centuries. So this is why I think that society is a result of culture.
Here is a link to the story of princess Diana: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/48hours/main612794.shtml
Friday January 12th, 2007
In regard to the functionalist paradigm, it is entirely correct. Yet, in a way a society that runs itself in order to sustain and survive itself seems strange. A society as an organic whole operates to serve the system according to Comte. The ‘market’ consists of all types of products and new inventions, but they would not be there unless there is a demand for them by society. All the costs and profits that come from selling them continues a long cycle back, the cycle of consumption. After the lecture on this, you sort of get a sense for the bigger picture of how things are run and why there needs to be commercials. They are in order to maximize the most viewers that will buy into their product. One example in modern society today is super bowl ads.
<
Where does the demand or need come from? I think it all comes down to the first person that thinks of it and others follow. Kind of like popular culture, where one person picks up on something and it becomes widely accepted.
Thursday January 11th, 2007
My first post is on the topic of Play and society. The current and most evident source of Play in society nowadays is video games because it suspends reality and transports you to another reality. Here is an advertisement for the Playstation 3 that I found quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vox3URUTuig It shows just how real playing can become and you can easily be sucked into this alternate fantasy world. Even the history of video game consoles date back awhile and it shows that people have the desire to play. Sports in particular have even been used in old civilizations like in Rome if gladiatorial combat is a form of sport. A bloody sport I might add. All in all video games are the most predominant form of play in my opinion that offers escape and realism at an immense level. Even in the media and in different cultures that may not have access to such luxuries, carnival and parade have been a part of their culture so it is quite easy to see all the types and forms of play that are apparent around the world.
