When Karl Marx said something like, 'people are ultimately tied to their economical desires'. I absolutely believe this to be true today. It amazes me how he could foresee the future. We always associate ourselves with commodities to create our "identity". Your average American teenage girl wants to show her "fashion sense" by wearing a tanktop and a pair of tight pants that she bought for 100+ dollars. She makes her eyes more "beautiful" by wearing some kind of eyeliner or whatever. She is holding her Rogers cellphone, listening to her new ipod video, carrying her huge bag that can hold hockey equipment. You get the point.
I think it's really crucial to realize how much of our identities are defined by the stuffwe buy. "This is who I am. I live on 123 street, drive the souped-up subaru, I wear a lot of jeans and skater shoes...". I even heard someone say, "I'm a nice guy because I buy my friends food". 90% of the time, we really didn't need to eat that burger, bag of chips, chocolate, etc.
Too many times, I see people between the ages of 13 to 20, or even older, try to establish their image in public with their clothes. If you need proof, go to the mall, or go on the public bus. Wait. you dont' need to, because you know in the back of your mind that what I am saying is true.
The most disturbing thing about this for me, is how normal this is. This is "how the world works". It's natural. It' supposed to be like this. But then I took a step back and asked, "who's doing the supposing? Who said it was natural?"
Advertisers. Media. Celebrities. They are the core elites of our Western society today. I now understand what Chomsky meant when he said that North America is, in fact, facist in terms of economic and social relations. There are "high-ranked" people who decide what people should like and want. As a side note, I think this is why the United States are so powerful. When historians claimed that Rome was much more powerful during their time than the United States today, they failed to see what kind of power was influential. Rome was its ability to politically influence a huge amount of countries and nations. The fact is, however, that politics only go so far. Opinions will change, the positions will change, and sooner or later, there will be some kind of mistake that ruins the power. As we all know, the Roman empire exists no more.
In contrast, the United States hold a powerful position such that people cannot change its influence. The fact is, every human being that knows the "American dream" really wants at least some of it. Despite one's religious views, moral beliefs, or political side, we want to buy things. America took great advantage of this, and by spreading capitalism, it told what we wanted to hear: "buy, and be happy". Why not? It sounds good.
Moreover, this kind of influence has spread to the East. Almost all of Europe has some type of capitalism established. They have their own celebrities and the media in which they are represented. Daniel Radcliffe, Liam Neeson, Keira Knightley. Asia has much of this influence as well. In China, Jay Chou. In Korea, DBSK. They are usually shown wearing expensive clothes and accesories, in expensive events such as award shows. And we want to look as good as they do. We want to be beautiful, attractive, content, etc. No matter what we say to deny that we don't get influenced by television or the internet, the fact is, this type of influence is subconscious in such a way that we are not aware of our assumptions and our realities become based on the things we see and hear on the media.
Sure, there are variations of this influence. Some girls like to starve themselves to look beautiful and to fit in a certain sized pants or dress. Is there something wrong with that? You're buying less food and clothes, right? But then you're obviously overlooking the fact that you're killing yourself.
Let's move on to a story as an example of what I'm trying to say.
Ben is a 15 year old student. He is underweight for his age, has rumpled hair, large glasses, $15 shoes and usually wears a shirt he got from a charity event. He liked this girl, but according to other kids, she was way too popular for him. People made fun of him. In Gym class, he could never kick the soccer ball far enough or hard enough to score a goal. Other guys bullied him in the change room, laughing at his inability to be phsyically active.
In English class, however, he was an excellent student. He would answer all the teacher's questions about Animal Farm correctly. Some of his classmates, who tried to hide thier one ipod earphone in their ear with their hoods, wearing $200 shoes, armani shirts and American Eagle jeans, snickered and whispered words such as "nerd", or "loser". Ben didnt' understand. All he wanted to do was get a good grade, not be labelled as some kind of a geek. He really was interested in literature, and wanted to be an author some day. Why was he ridiculed for trying to do something he was happy with?
Typical high school story, right? My point is that some people are condemned in society because they don't act the way people are supposed to act. In high school, you can't be accepted as a normal human being if you don't spend enough money on clothes and accesories. If your interests are not the same with the rest of society;s interests, then you are unimportant. Undermined. Ridiculed. My story was a parallel to society today. You will be laughed at if you're not the way people expect you to be. You can be yourself, as long as you follow certain guidelines. Buy this, buy that, then you'll be accepted. Normal. Happy. It's an interesting dichotomy of normality and abnormality. The only ones who are excused from this are those with mental disabilities, religious fundamentalists, or people in third world countries.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Innocently Guilty: The Dichotomy of Feminity
Of course, another topic of communications to help me study, as well as reflect on societal norms and ideologies. Today, I will talk about the portrayals of women, and what women should be and should do, as well as the major issues that revolve around these ideologies.
The images of feminity in the mass media have, and continue to, help create ideologies to which we accept as the truth, or even natural. It is a questionable display of impossible aims that no woman can plausibly achieve to become "feminine".
Our biological sex, male and female, is unquestionable. It is the truth. However, gender, is an ideology that have been continuosuly shaped and re-shaped by the media. Let's take a look at a recent advertisement of a perfume created by Britney Spears. Though I do not remember the name, I clearly remember the 30 second commercial that was always on. It featured a couple, a conventionally handsome man and a beautiful woman, naked in bed. They were making passionate love to one another. And it ended with an image of a perfume bottle and its name.
Let's take a critical analysis of this commercial.
First, to put it bluntly, the woman has been objectified as a sexual being in this commercial. What does a woman need in order to have a muscular, sexy, good-looking man as her partner? She must have perfect eyebrows. Her lips need to be always shiny and appealing. She must be white. She must have fairly large breasts and a skinny body, no neck lines, wrinkles, etc. All the body parts I mentioned have implications of sexuality. However, the underlying message that is presented is even more disturbing. Women, as shown in my example, are reduced to body parts. The breasts and body figure are the basis of such presentations. There is a strong connection of objectification and sexuality within the media.
The more immediate issue with this is that the consumers, the audience, are recieving this persuasive message subconsciously. This is what Karl Marx meant when he said that the human mind and behaviour is both dependent and based upon the material and economic sectors of society. We receieve these messages, sometimes without even knowing or understanding its portrayals, and accept it as how society is, and how it should be.
I come to one definition of the term, "ideology", which I believe is very strong and persusaive: It is a value or belief system that we accept as the truth, which is composed of attitudes towards various institutions and processes of society. It provides the believer with a picture of the world as it is and as it should be, and in so doing, organizes the massive complexity of reality into a package of simple and recognizable world. (Chunn, n.p., 2008). In other words, women, being objectified as sex objects, as well as being reduced to mere body parts used for pleasure, are the values that we accept. Moreover, it defines our attitudes towards women in general, and it shows us what women are, and are supposed to be. At the same time, such beliefs createa a world in which we can easily identify feminity without the learnings or understandings of the complexity of women as human beings.
However, the ideology of feminity as a social convetion shaped by the media is not as simple. In fact, the media make it realistically impossible for the average woman to achieve such status. There are countless shows and advertisements (not just in television, but in radio, magazines, newspapers, and recently, the internet. As a side note, the internet is an extremely complex medium of communication itself) that convey women to be innocent and pure. The proper woman must talk as if the world is a happy place, and her "lover" is the only person to whom she is loyal. (To be continued).
The images of feminity in the mass media have, and continue to, help create ideologies to which we accept as the truth, or even natural. It is a questionable display of impossible aims that no woman can plausibly achieve to become "feminine".
Our biological sex, male and female, is unquestionable. It is the truth. However, gender, is an ideology that have been continuosuly shaped and re-shaped by the media. Let's take a look at a recent advertisement of a perfume created by Britney Spears. Though I do not remember the name, I clearly remember the 30 second commercial that was always on. It featured a couple, a conventionally handsome man and a beautiful woman, naked in bed. They were making passionate love to one another. And it ended with an image of a perfume bottle and its name.
Let's take a critical analysis of this commercial.
First, to put it bluntly, the woman has been objectified as a sexual being in this commercial. What does a woman need in order to have a muscular, sexy, good-looking man as her partner? She must have perfect eyebrows. Her lips need to be always shiny and appealing. She must be white. She must have fairly large breasts and a skinny body, no neck lines, wrinkles, etc. All the body parts I mentioned have implications of sexuality. However, the underlying message that is presented is even more disturbing. Women, as shown in my example, are reduced to body parts. The breasts and body figure are the basis of such presentations. There is a strong connection of objectification and sexuality within the media.
The more immediate issue with this is that the consumers, the audience, are recieving this persuasive message subconsciously. This is what Karl Marx meant when he said that the human mind and behaviour is both dependent and based upon the material and economic sectors of society. We receieve these messages, sometimes without even knowing or understanding its portrayals, and accept it as how society is, and how it should be.
I come to one definition of the term, "ideology", which I believe is very strong and persusaive: It is a value or belief system that we accept as the truth, which is composed of attitudes towards various institutions and processes of society. It provides the believer with a picture of the world as it is and as it should be, and in so doing, organizes the massive complexity of reality into a package of simple and recognizable world. (Chunn, n.p., 2008). In other words, women, being objectified as sex objects, as well as being reduced to mere body parts used for pleasure, are the values that we accept. Moreover, it defines our attitudes towards women in general, and it shows us what women are, and are supposed to be. At the same time, such beliefs createa a world in which we can easily identify feminity without the learnings or understandings of the complexity of women as human beings.
However, the ideology of feminity as a social convetion shaped by the media is not as simple. In fact, the media make it realistically impossible for the average woman to achieve such status. There are countless shows and advertisements (not just in television, but in radio, magazines, newspapers, and recently, the internet. As a side note, the internet is an extremely complex medium of communication itself) that convey women to be innocent and pure. The proper woman must talk as if the world is a happy place, and her "lover" is the only person to whom she is loyal. (To be continued).
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
CMNS 130 Review: "Alternative Media"
The mainstream media are rarely challenged by the mass audience. It is not necessairly a "bad" thing. The heart of democracy and liberalism allow free market claims: anyone can say what they want, and thus they have free expression. John Locke stated that the clash of various ideas and expressions will eventually lead to the results of "good" ideas becoming established as the dominant beliefs within a culture. The media support the mainstream views becuase it attracts the widest audience possible, which leads to advertisers' financial and economical support. It is their expression of ideas in a free market.
However, it is difficult for free ideas to "flow" when the costs of market entry overwhelms the views of alternative media. There are only a limited number of owners of the larger mass media organs, and it is simply difficult for other media companies to compete in this free space. They will eventually be bought out or joined with a larger media business. It is even more difficult when advertisers do not agree with the alternate views; the costs of production and distribution of such views are too high for alternate media to compete. Thus, the alternate views of society continue to be diminished, as mainstream beliefs and values continue to be reinforced.
The 3 public service alternatives
There are three publicly serviced alternatives that allows room for minority views to be expressed in the media.
The first one is called Franchised pluralism, which mirrors the plurality of society. Air-time and technical facilities are dependent on the size of membership and/or sale of the TV magazines, and thus organizations develop their own package of programs. They are financed through public funding, advertising, and membership dues. The disadvantages of this media is that these organizations and views cannot guarantee some kind of establishment when there are constant cultural and social changes in a society.
The second one is known as the Liberal Corporatist model. This type of media exist in most of western Europe, such as Germany.
The leading social interests are brought in which are regulated by appointed or elected broadcast councils. They guarantee pluralism of social opinion and the audience's right to participate in the expressions.
Obviously, the disadvantages of this model is that it can, and probably will, over-represent dominant social opinions at the expense of the unorganized and the weak social movements. The positions of the broadcast council can be biased and be filled on the basis of party support. It can also lead to decentralized management and even be opposed to federal government regulation of the media.
The third model is known as the Civil Service model. It occurs in Britain, where broadcasting allows a neutral zone above politics. Appointed authorities have overall control of public broadcasting, which funds by license fees. This way, alternative views can be financially backed and be allowed to express different social and cultural views.
The negative aspects of this model is that it still cannot sufficiently reflect the diversity of society, and the producers and authorities undermine government and flak criticisms of the media that may be biased.
However, it is difficult for free ideas to "flow" when the costs of market entry overwhelms the views of alternative media. There are only a limited number of owners of the larger mass media organs, and it is simply difficult for other media companies to compete in this free space. They will eventually be bought out or joined with a larger media business. It is even more difficult when advertisers do not agree with the alternate views; the costs of production and distribution of such views are too high for alternate media to compete. Thus, the alternate views of society continue to be diminished, as mainstream beliefs and values continue to be reinforced.
The 3 public service alternatives
There are three publicly serviced alternatives that allows room for minority views to be expressed in the media.
The first one is called Franchised pluralism, which mirrors the plurality of society. Air-time and technical facilities are dependent on the size of membership and/or sale of the TV magazines, and thus organizations develop their own package of programs. They are financed through public funding, advertising, and membership dues. The disadvantages of this media is that these organizations and views cannot guarantee some kind of establishment when there are constant cultural and social changes in a society.
The second one is known as the Liberal Corporatist model. This type of media exist in most of western Europe, such as Germany.
The leading social interests are brought in which are regulated by appointed or elected broadcast councils. They guarantee pluralism of social opinion and the audience's right to participate in the expressions.
Obviously, the disadvantages of this model is that it can, and probably will, over-represent dominant social opinions at the expense of the unorganized and the weak social movements. The positions of the broadcast council can be biased and be filled on the basis of party support. It can also lead to decentralized management and even be opposed to federal government regulation of the media.
The third model is known as the Civil Service model. It occurs in Britain, where broadcasting allows a neutral zone above politics. Appointed authorities have overall control of public broadcasting, which funds by license fees. This way, alternative views can be financially backed and be allowed to express different social and cultural views.
The negative aspects of this model is that it still cannot sufficiently reflect the diversity of society, and the producers and authorities undermine government and flak criticisms of the media that may be biased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)