This is about how the author thinks porn is an extension of fundamental Christianity. It's pretty persuasive.
Porn is merely an extension of traditional Chrsitianity, in which the male is given the dominant role; there is a "sex-role discrimination that relegates men and women to specific roles on the basis of their supposed divinely assigned natures...continues to tell Christian women that God designed them for subservient roles...It is not far-fetched to say that pornography is an intensification of the gender differences in traditional Christianity. 'Good Christian businessmen' who spend their lunch hours in 'adult' bookstores live not in two worlds but in one, single universe in which men dominate women. Pornography, therefore, does not grow at the expense of traditional Christianity but as a further distortion of the already distorted social rolse embodied in its own religious vision." (Weaver, 1998, p. 238).
So basically, porn is a parallel of traditional Christianity. There is a flaw in this argument, for it fails to review the Bible as a whole; the latter chapters in the book emphasize equality among men and women. In fact, the idea of women as being subordinate has been identified as a cultural convention that the Jews have created socially.
This is about how advertising has constructed socially conventional beliefs of women.
Representations of women in "advertising's construction of women...postions them as finding ultimate pleasure, and indeed power, in catering to men's desires...They have also [been] identified by reducing them to bodies and body parts such as lips, legs, breasts, hair and finger nails. Women are encouraged to believe that the adornment of these body parts will make them more sexually attractive" (Carter et al, 2003, p.122).
This quote is very easy to understand. In short, women are turned from subjects to objects - mostly associated with sexual pleasure - in which both men and women indulge.
This is about how representations of minorities in the media should look like.
"The objective is not just to increase numbers. The focus is on harnessing power so that minority women and men can determine what is shown and how. For in the final analysis, inclusiveness goes beyond removing barriers or improving representation. It is about power-sharing and structural changes to ensure full, equal, and valued participation." (Fleras, 2003, p.304).
To put simply, the ones controlling the distribution of the media (such as television stations, magazines, newspapers, internet information), should be structured such that minorities are allowed to represent themselves. There is no point for a rich White man to display his perspective of what minorities experience, when most likely such point of view may be distorted, misunderstood, and/or biased. Thus, it is about sharing power within media organizations equally such that representations are unbiased and democratically acceptable.
This is about our understandings of "normality" and "intelligence" is blinded by social conventions, when in reality, such terms equate with uniformity.
"...we behave in uniform and continous patterns, [and] [the] literate man is quite inclined to see others who cannot conform as somewhat pathetic. Especially the child, the cripple, the woman, and the colored person appear in a world of visul and typographic technology as victims of injustice. On the other hand, in a culture that assigns roles instead of jobs to people - the warf, the skew, the child create their own spaces. They are not expected to fit into some uniform and repeatable niche that is not their size anyway. Consider the phrase 'It's a man's world.' As a quantitative observation endlessly repeated from within a homogenized culture, this phrase refers to the men in such a culture who have to be homogenized Dagwoods in order to belong at all. It is in our I.Q. testing that we have produced the greates flood of misbegotten standards. Unaware of our typographic cultural bias, our testers assume that uniform and continous habits are a sign of intelligence, thus eliminating the ear man and the tactile man." (Mcluhan, 1964, p.17).
Mcluhan, arguably the greates commuincations theorists of all time, has pointed out a very crucial issue that is nearly invisible in the North American society. As much as we seek individualism, we construct our singular identities by conforming to certain groups and values. For a very simplistic example, we treat people who don't own ipods or mp3s as "losers". It may be a joke, but in the long run, it continues to become a societal norm to make fun of those who have not bought such commodities. To add to his point, a social group will not allow another to join the group unless he/she has conformed to their beliefs and values. Only then, will they accept the differences, as long as the differences do not intervene with the conformities in which they have indulged.
This is about Karl Marx's famous statements about "commodity fetishism".
There are two forms of value in a commodity. The use-value and exchange value. For instance, athe transformation of a piece of wood into a chair through human labour is the chair's use-value. The exchange-value is the value in the marketplace. "That is, the connection to the actual hands and experiences of the labourer is removed as soon as the...[chair] is connected to money...In a capitalist society people therefore begin to treat commodities as if value inhered in the objects themselves, rather than in the amount of real labour expended to produce the object. 'The mysterious character of commodity-form consists thefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characterstics of men's own labour as objective charactersitics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things', as Marx explains...A relation between people the labourer and the capitalist) instead assumes 'the fantastic form of a relation between things'...In this, the real producers of commodites mostly remain invisible...we forget the underlying factor which alters the value of the commodity, the actual labour of the producer." (Paterson, 2006, p.17).
*This is an extremely difficult concept to understand...a good example would be a pair of jeans...who made them? How much wage do the producers recieve? How much do the owners of the big companies receive? What is the condition of the work terms?*
This is a paraphrase of Noam Chomsky regarding Capitalism and Democracy.
"Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -there's little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy" (Chomsky, n.d., n.p.)
Basically, he is saying that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist, because their fundamental principles are in disagreements such that they can be labelled as near-opposties of each other.
These are some concepts I've been constantly thinking about. I want to emphasize the Mcluhan quote about intelligence and conformity. This happens everywhere: In a group of friends, at school, work, church, even at home. People have a tendency to follow what other people are doing, and those who are smart enough to realize this hypocritical state of mind are labelled as dumb, pathetic, useless, and are even condemned. As one philosipher said, "genious is the art of non-habitual thought".
Until next time.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Communications 110, Simon Fraser University.
I will be declaring communications as my major. I admit that SFU is not the greatest university around. However, it is known for its communications department as successful, interesting, and internationally acknowledged. When I attended my first communications lecture, Intro to Communications 110, I realized why it was so great. Fortunately for me, this happened to be taught by the Graduate Chair of the Department of Communications, Gary McCarron.
I dare to say that he is one of the best, if not the best, lecturer ever. I could not say this before, for I had never attended any other university lectures. Yes, I am in second semester of my first year now, and I realize that it is nearly impossible to have another lecturer like Prof. McCarron. His lectures are very powerful yet humourous, and livens things up when certain topics seem extremely boring. An example is when one lecture was about privacy and the political aspects of this.
Most first-year students are NOT interested in politics. But Prof. McCarron talked an hour about an incident between the government and one person's debate about how he got caught with a growth-op (I forget the actual term for this). It seemed like ten minutes, but it was time for the mid-lecture break by the time he was finished speaking about that one topic. I downloaded all the mp3 files of his lectures when I was in his course, and I still have them, and when I have time, I will listen to them again.
One of the main themes of CMNS 110 was: "The medium is the message", a famous statement made by one of the most innovative communications theorists of all time, Marshall Mcluhan. It basically means that despite what the content may be - sports, sex, activities, debates, ethics, etc - the medium, that is the technology or method through which communication occurs, is ultimately the message. I find it very interesting that Gary McCarron, in this case, the medium, became the message of CMNS 110, rather than the course material, which in this case, is the content. Had it been a different professor, a boring, vague, and arrogant character, I would not have understood at least half the material. It was also Gary who confirmed my interest in majoring in communications.
I will now attempt informal introductory paragraphs of what I learned from this course (medium is the message, bias of the medium, ideas of our "identity", capitalism, democracy, privacy, gender issues, ethics, morals, psychology, etc), in order to help me with my future cmns courses.
1) When we live in a world full of constantly improving technologies, it is inevitable that society itself will undergo a change. This is not an issue; it has been a proven fact. Television has changed North America so much that our beliefs, our values, and our idea of what is "normal" was based on what we saw and heard on television. This was a couple decades ago. Today, the interminable growth of the internet continues to confirm our beliefs, values, and idea of what is "supposed to be". Again, the change itself is not an issue, but rather, how that change occurs, and how that affects us as participating audiences in the media. This is also proof that society and media are dependent on each other, and therefore undergo a transactional form of communication.
2) The Western idea of Democracy is so simple that sometimes we fail to look at what it really means: everyone is equal, everyone has basic rights, everyone has a chance to succeed, etc. However, if one looks at this crucially, he might ask, what does it mean to be equal? What does it mean to have basic rights? What are the basic rights? Do we, ultimately, treat and be treated equally?
3) North Americans live in a literate culture. The ability to read and write goes beyond what we normally assume. Such skill has led to the revolution of media technologies: the radio and, arguably, television (oral), to the internet (literate).
There are pros and cons for both sides. I think the most important point out of the seven main points of the two cultures is the level of comprehension one experiences in a situation. The oral-biased person is situational, whereas the literate-biased person is abstract.
4) The creation of one's identity has been a debate for many years. George Mead's proposal of the "thought as the internalized conversation" is perhaps the most popular theory of building an identity. Basically, there is a "I" and the "me". The "I" is the personality full of desires and wishes, whereas the "me" is the conscious self, assuming the attitudes of others. So in a quite study hall, if the "I" wants to yell out, 'world peace!', the "me" assumes the role of the 'generalized other' - the term Mead uses for everyone else - and, in simple words, has a conversation with the "I", saying that this is a study hall and that the self should stay quiet and continue to study. I still remember this complicated theory, for this was, and still is, one of my favourite topics in communications. It had a bit to do with psychology as well.
5) Capitalism and democracy: Can capitalism really exist in a democratic country? Marxism and socialism comes into debate. Noam Chomsky is a big promoter in this issue. Marx says that we lose the history of commodities that we acquire, such as the workers involved, the processes that occur with the products, etc. The crucial point is the labor wages, conditions, and terms. If we live in a democratic country with democratic beliefs and values, how can we continue to purchase products that allow its producers to recieve injustice? While the big corporations with elite businessmen recieve all the wealth in a "free, open, capitalist market" and a very tiny percentage, which is handled by the wealthy, goes to its actual workers, is this not fascism? Is this not what America fought against? It is not necessairly political fascism, but it is economic fascism. Is it democratically correct if we see starving kids in third world countries and say, "poor kids", then continue to drive our technologically advanced automobiles to go to fast food restaurants, eat and waste the food, and then spend ten-plus dollars to watch a movie - the same ten dollars that is equal to approximately a month of a person's income in a developing country?
6)Speaking of Capitalism, advertisements provide huge areas of debate in the communications sector. Advertisements do not promote products, but images, beliefs, and "the normal". When it achieves to sell a product, that's not all that ads have done: they have also gained the audience's loyalty. Not just any loyalty, but misinterpreted loyalty. For example, the ads of women always consist of slim, large-breasted, great facial features, etc. Studies have shown that only 8 percent of American women fit into such criteria., and that with the ad-promoted body shape and size, it is biologically improbable that such women have big breasts, and if they do, it is most likely a surgical result. Yet ads say that if women buy the right products, they can acheive this goal. And many do pursue this perfect flawlessness - something no human being can achieve.
7)The selection we have within the media may not really have as much variety as we may think. Fashion, music, movies, products. They are all carefully researched and produced by elite corporations. For example, the most skilled band in the world can be ignored if their music is not appealing to "society", because they do not reach the largest audience. Almost all the movies shown in theaters are from Hollywood, following the same plot line: Hero/ine goes through an issue, overcomes it, and has a happy ending. This formlua was so successful that Hollywood adopted it as one of its main guidelines. Evidence of this are everywhere: Rambo, James Bond movies to Sin City, Star Wars, Finding Nemo, to the Pirates of the Carribbean, Juno, and the Bourne series, are just examples of many, many Hollywood movies following the same formula.
*Note that this is an informal, first-draft, closed book entry. I may have grammatical errors or statistical errors that are controversial*
I dare to say that he is one of the best, if not the best, lecturer ever. I could not say this before, for I had never attended any other university lectures. Yes, I am in second semester of my first year now, and I realize that it is nearly impossible to have another lecturer like Prof. McCarron. His lectures are very powerful yet humourous, and livens things up when certain topics seem extremely boring. An example is when one lecture was about privacy and the political aspects of this.
Most first-year students are NOT interested in politics. But Prof. McCarron talked an hour about an incident between the government and one person's debate about how he got caught with a growth-op (I forget the actual term for this). It seemed like ten minutes, but it was time for the mid-lecture break by the time he was finished speaking about that one topic. I downloaded all the mp3 files of his lectures when I was in his course, and I still have them, and when I have time, I will listen to them again.
One of the main themes of CMNS 110 was: "The medium is the message", a famous statement made by one of the most innovative communications theorists of all time, Marshall Mcluhan. It basically means that despite what the content may be - sports, sex, activities, debates, ethics, etc - the medium, that is the technology or method through which communication occurs, is ultimately the message. I find it very interesting that Gary McCarron, in this case, the medium, became the message of CMNS 110, rather than the course material, which in this case, is the content. Had it been a different professor, a boring, vague, and arrogant character, I would not have understood at least half the material. It was also Gary who confirmed my interest in majoring in communications.
I will now attempt informal introductory paragraphs of what I learned from this course (medium is the message, bias of the medium, ideas of our "identity", capitalism, democracy, privacy, gender issues, ethics, morals, psychology, etc), in order to help me with my future cmns courses.
1) When we live in a world full of constantly improving technologies, it is inevitable that society itself will undergo a change. This is not an issue; it has been a proven fact. Television has changed North America so much that our beliefs, our values, and our idea of what is "normal" was based on what we saw and heard on television. This was a couple decades ago. Today, the interminable growth of the internet continues to confirm our beliefs, values, and idea of what is "supposed to be". Again, the change itself is not an issue, but rather, how that change occurs, and how that affects us as participating audiences in the media. This is also proof that society and media are dependent on each other, and therefore undergo a transactional form of communication.
2) The Western idea of Democracy is so simple that sometimes we fail to look at what it really means: everyone is equal, everyone has basic rights, everyone has a chance to succeed, etc. However, if one looks at this crucially, he might ask, what does it mean to be equal? What does it mean to have basic rights? What are the basic rights? Do we, ultimately, treat and be treated equally?
3) North Americans live in a literate culture. The ability to read and write goes beyond what we normally assume. Such skill has led to the revolution of media technologies: the radio and, arguably, television (oral), to the internet (literate).
There are pros and cons for both sides. I think the most important point out of the seven main points of the two cultures is the level of comprehension one experiences in a situation. The oral-biased person is situational, whereas the literate-biased person is abstract.
4) The creation of one's identity has been a debate for many years. George Mead's proposal of the "thought as the internalized conversation" is perhaps the most popular theory of building an identity. Basically, there is a "I" and the "me". The "I" is the personality full of desires and wishes, whereas the "me" is the conscious self, assuming the attitudes of others. So in a quite study hall, if the "I" wants to yell out, 'world peace!', the "me" assumes the role of the 'generalized other' - the term Mead uses for everyone else - and, in simple words, has a conversation with the "I", saying that this is a study hall and that the self should stay quiet and continue to study. I still remember this complicated theory, for this was, and still is, one of my favourite topics in communications. It had a bit to do with psychology as well.
5) Capitalism and democracy: Can capitalism really exist in a democratic country? Marxism and socialism comes into debate. Noam Chomsky is a big promoter in this issue. Marx says that we lose the history of commodities that we acquire, such as the workers involved, the processes that occur with the products, etc. The crucial point is the labor wages, conditions, and terms. If we live in a democratic country with democratic beliefs and values, how can we continue to purchase products that allow its producers to recieve injustice? While the big corporations with elite businessmen recieve all the wealth in a "free, open, capitalist market" and a very tiny percentage, which is handled by the wealthy, goes to its actual workers, is this not fascism? Is this not what America fought against? It is not necessairly political fascism, but it is economic fascism. Is it democratically correct if we see starving kids in third world countries and say, "poor kids", then continue to drive our technologically advanced automobiles to go to fast food restaurants, eat and waste the food, and then spend ten-plus dollars to watch a movie - the same ten dollars that is equal to approximately a month of a person's income in a developing country?
6)Speaking of Capitalism, advertisements provide huge areas of debate in the communications sector. Advertisements do not promote products, but images, beliefs, and "the normal". When it achieves to sell a product, that's not all that ads have done: they have also gained the audience's loyalty. Not just any loyalty, but misinterpreted loyalty. For example, the ads of women always consist of slim, large-breasted, great facial features, etc. Studies have shown that only 8 percent of American women fit into such criteria., and that with the ad-promoted body shape and size, it is biologically improbable that such women have big breasts, and if they do, it is most likely a surgical result. Yet ads say that if women buy the right products, they can acheive this goal. And many do pursue this perfect flawlessness - something no human being can achieve.
7)The selection we have within the media may not really have as much variety as we may think. Fashion, music, movies, products. They are all carefully researched and produced by elite corporations. For example, the most skilled band in the world can be ignored if their music is not appealing to "society", because they do not reach the largest audience. Almost all the movies shown in theaters are from Hollywood, following the same plot line: Hero/ine goes through an issue, overcomes it, and has a happy ending. This formlua was so successful that Hollywood adopted it as one of its main guidelines. Evidence of this are everywhere: Rambo, James Bond movies to Sin City, Star Wars, Finding Nemo, to the Pirates of the Carribbean, Juno, and the Bourne series, are just examples of many, many Hollywood movies following the same formula.
*Note that this is an informal, first-draft, closed book entry. I may have grammatical errors or statistical errors that are controversial*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)