thefeloniousdunk-blog

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

The 280 Debate

For my article, I chose a Tech Crunch piece published today titled “Twitter officially expands its character count to 280 starting today.” The article detailed the process that Twitter undertook to test and implement the technology, and the public reaction thereof. The global nature of Twitter has made their 140 character limit kind of unfair. Countries like China or Japan can express in a single calligraphic character ideas that may take a westerner several words worth of characters to express. The solution is to double the character count, from 140 to 280.

Though no one is really protesting the move, most people think it was overhyped and frankly, irrelevant. At least, that is what the author conveyed. There wasn’t exactly a ruckuss happening over the character limit; personally, I found the 140 a bit frustrating but I wasn’t taking to social media to complain.Regardless, many people see the move as unnecessary. Only 9% of all tweets reach the character limit, and in the beta user group of about 30 million, only 1% reached the 280 max. There is a difference, but not a staggering one. And it certainly doesn’t affect the lives of most Twitter users, according to this article.

The author makes the case that people won’t use Twitter differently because the character limit changed, people already tend to wane concise as a point of principle. The change is just a way of inventing and tackling a problem, to boost stock prices as their meteoric growth slows. The author, and the Twitter users that she choses to screenshot, feel that Twitter is putting their energy in the wrong places, avoiding the tougher issues like fake news, hate speech and cyber bullying and making purely cosmetic changes for the sake of their bottomline, not their customers. Overall, this article belies a bit of a bias against Twitter; whether or not the author’s points are true, she is still shaming Twitter for being out of touch with their users.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

The Responsibility of Global Media

Our time, more so than any other, has seen global media connecting more people than ever before. The internet in particular has allowed people to keep up with world news, not just in the sense that news outlets publish constantly, but also because we get the chance to interact with people of all different nationalities. Everyone can approach the world on relatively equal footing, and one’s relative “power” on the internet isn’t tied just to money like it is for other kind of influence. At least, we like to think so.

The reality is that people around the world have unequal access to the internet; like anything else, information is a commodity, and some people are more privileged than others in their access. Countries with a wider access to this technology and a rich enough consumer base to afford high speed internet and devices have a distinct advantage over those who do not. Income inequality is only one of the considerations when looking at the increasingly stratified state of information. Politics also play a role, where a country’s government might deem certain sites unsuitable for mass consumption. In this way, they are able to control the flow of information, and thus the public conversation to an extent.

Though these factors and others may prevent completely equivocable flow of information around the world, it is still the responsibility of global media to do what they can to level the playing field. The first step would be to make cheaper technology available around the globe, and utilize new technologies to get wifi into remote areas. More so than making sure everyone is in the game, global media needs to improve their reporting, to rely less on stereotypes and cheap headlines and to accept the responsibility of global educator.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Media Fragmentation

We’ve done quite a bit of discussion in class as to how the last hundred or so years have seen an evolution of mass media. As the 20th century progressed, each decade seemed to be characterized by different communication technologies. These innovations would ultimately define the culture of the time. The telegraph, telephone, radio, television, the internet, all served to allow people to communicate across spatial and cultural boundaries in a way that wasn’t possible before. People were making connections all over the globe, and accessing information with unparalleled ease. Within and between countries, TV and radio were helping to connect people, much in the sense of Turow’s “society making media” where the access and enjoyment tends to be simultaneous and equally accessible. With the burgeoning internet came a blossom of content; educational and entertainment alike, from all over the world. One might assume that this phenomenon would serve to bring humanity closer together, and from a certain perspective, you’d be right. However, society’s complete immersion in media does more to close us off from different viewpoints that you’d think.

Things weren’t always this way. In fact, this cambrian explosion of media fragmentation began in recent memory. It may have began with the early pay-TV systems of the 50’s and 60’s, where cable TV subscribers could purchase a “premium” service to receive channels that free users could not. This gave consumers a way of getting a “better” experience, separating themselves from the normal schmoes and creating a kind of affiliation with other premium users through shared experience. Another big step would be the burgeoning of fandoms that came in the 70’s and 80’s. Series like Star Wars and Star Trek bred a new type of fan; one that followed a series devotedly and structured their social life and activities based on their fandom. Fan clubs had long been a thing, but this marked a step in group identification through mass media. This phenomena foretold the kind of steps our society would be taking towards segment oriented media, but no one could have foretold what an impact the internet would have on media fragmentation.

With the introduction of the internet to everyday life came a more profound segmentation than had ever existed prior. Individuals with very specific tastes could now have a platform to reach millions of people; if they only reached a few hundred, then that was fine too. If there was a niche to be filled, then a user could and would fill it. This meant uploading content; books, music, movies, reviews, tutorials. People could connect with others who shared their specific interest, and encourage their spread or “gatekeep,” discouraging amateurs. The kernel of this development is that there are two sides to fragmentation; more connections are formed across spatial and cultural divides, but divisions can happen even in proximal settings.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

The "Rock and Roll Lifestyle"

In the music industry and their audiences alike there is this idea that stars are larger than life. This means they might have the biggest personalities, wear the brashest outfits, and act out in ways that "normal" people find shocking. When searchcing for the reasons why, it creates a kind of chicken-or-the-egg kind of situation; does show business attract extreme people, or does it create them? Though this idea of musicians as delirious hedons is persistent today, it isn't exactly new. Though those who practiced sacred music were revered, secular musicians were often rough hewn, traveling from town to town, from revel to revel, eking out a living as little more than a skilled beggar. These days, we see more representative examples of musicians who have "made it" but the myth of musicians as being at the fringes of society still persist. Whether or not the industry encourages extreme behaviors and lavish living, or simply allows it to happen, is circumspect. Regardless, the industry lore around musicians is that the public loves the drama of excess. The attention that their behavior garners in the media, be it their drug or emotional issues, their love lives or consumption habits, adds a whole new dimension to their brand. By representing these extreme affects, they give their music an edge that inspires a strong reaction; be it reverence or revulsion, the publicity is the most important aspect. Even though the music industry may attract more "bohemian" types than other industries, there are still many examples of pragmatic individuals making it, and not in the sense of that meteoric rise and fall that is typified in the industry. Those that stick in our collective imaginations are the beautiful disasters that burn out before they have a chance to age out of relevance, throwing all caution to the wind to stay forever young.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Adult Swim and MF DOOM

No one personifies underground hip hop more better than the mysterious rapper/producer MF DOOM. As an artist, DOOM set himself up in opposition to the music industry at large. He adopted the mantle of super villain, who is never seen without his mask to prove the point that we as a society are too obsessed with artist appearances. He moves as an independent artist from different boutique labels as it suits him based on the project at hand. His guest spots are mythic; like a unicorn, his appearance is seldom. but when he does appear it’s pure magic. 

Before the mask, Daniel Dumile first came up as part of the hip hop group KMD, initially receiving a lot of radio and MTV play in New York. However, after they released their controversial Black Bastards record, and after the death of Dumile’s brother and musical partner DJ Subroc the group was dropped from its record label. Dumile, broke and almost homeless, retreated to Atlanta to lick his wounds and to “plot his revenge on a music industry that had so badly deformed him.”

At this point, Dumile started to perform in New York again at poetry open mics, wearing the mask of his DOOM persona. He released his first full length as DOOM, one Operation Doomsday, on Fondle ‘em, an independent vinyl only label. The next several records came out on Stone’s Throw and Rhymesayers respectively, two labels that have received accolades for bringing up independent artists and basically jump starting the underground hip hop scene of the late 90′s. These releases are quintessential DOOM; he makes use of a mass medium to spread his messages, but his independent records are a great example of non-advertiser supported media because of his lack of corporate influence.

More recently, DOOM has had a lot of his music featured on the Cartoon Network adult portal, Adult Swim. The station’s on air creative executive, Jason Demarco, has made it his mission to feature as much independent music as possible on the channel. Though this has had the effect of bringing his music to a wider audience, Adult Swim gets to benefit from the underground cred that its music recieves. Artists like DOOM, both visually and musically give the channel a kind of edge that it wouldn’t otherwise have; they make the channel feel grittier, less commercial. Just last month, DOOM began a collaboration with Adult Swim to release his “Missing Notebook Rhymes,” a plot to drop lost tracks once a week for fourteen weeks. 

Despite all the positive aspects of this kind of partnership, the fact remains; Adult Swim is a thoroughly corporate entity. It is a division of Cartoon Network, which is owned by Time Warner. Their involvement is at best a patronage, and at worst it interlopes on authentic underground culture for profit while masquerading as a benevolent promoter. This is a modern “soap opera” in the sense that they know their audience well, and want to form the kinds of emotional associations with their product that artists have worked hard to build for their music. It is important to note that as of yesterday, DOOM just ended his collab with AS. Whether it was he or they that pulled out, or whether the breakup was mutual, we don’t know. Either way, it seems that corporate patronage just isn’t for DOOM.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Walking the Tightrope with NPR

For as long as I can remember, my parents have always listened to NPR in the car. I was homeschooled for most of my school career, but we were rarely home; we’d be riding around in the van, going from activity to activity. Our school day might take us up and down 95 several times, sometimes even into neighboring states. This meant we listened to at least an hour of NPR a day. I got to know all the programs, from Sunday Baroque to Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, from Fresh Air to Car Talk. Since we didn’t have cable, and I had limited internet access, I would keep abreast of world news whether I wanted to or not..

I’ve always been a tad cynical, since I was a kid. My parents raised me to think for myself, and to trust my gut. They were never jaded, just cautious. I never really drank the bipartisan kool-aid; I always had this sense that politics was an act. I realized pretty early on that both sides were playing the same game, and that for the most part news media exists to sell ad time to either side of the political spectrum. I didn’t really know where I fell on that spectrum, exactly. I just knew I didn’t want to be bought and sold like everyone else. Watching partisan news always just brought up a question in my mind; what does the other side of this story look like?

Channels like FOX and MSNBC may purport to bring us fair, balanced news. But that doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. If they came out and said that they had a bias, that would be excusing shoddy journalism. If they just don’t talk about it, however, it lets their particular audience go on believing that their opinions are rational, and that the “other side” are the crazy ones.

I always liked NPR best, because I never got the sense that there was an ulterior motive to their reporting. Their mandate, to paraphrase the NPR site, is to provide the most accurate and fairly represented information and important cultural expressions, for the “benefit and service of our democracy.” This echoes the idea that our government and society function only when citizens are informed, so what NPR does is essentially a public service. The variety of programming allows for better transference, giving the news directly, but also making it more memorable by incorporating entertainment programming that is fun but still educational.

In terms of the actual content, NPR is often accused of having a Liberal slant. They present news that is critical of both sides of the spectrum, but there tends to be more criticism of Republicans than democrats. In a way, this reflects the political reality that surrounds the medium; Republicans generally vote to defund things that use government funding to benefit the public directly, like social programs, education and even public radio. It is difficult, then, to be balanced when one side thinks you’re a waste of resources. Even though the news may seem like it unfairly focuses on Republican blunders, NPR isn’t inventing this stuff. They are just doing their job, letting the public know what is going on so that their interests can be protected.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Netflix Plays it Fast and Loose

According to the chapter, the root of understanding mass media throughout history is to understand the mandates put upon them. The key to doing so is examining the locus of power, I.E. the motivations of decision makers. In a commercial system such as ours, the decision making happens at several interdependent intervals. The chapter uses the television industry primarily for its examples, because it is one of the more direct and exemplary examples of how advertising dictates content, and how media corporations make more money off of negotiating access to viewership to advertisers than they do off of the consumers. This model of mass media is concerned with generating the most mass appeal; the more viewership they have, the more they can directly make in advertising. In this way, the advertisers dictate the tone of mass media discourse; all of our mass media corporations put out content that is guaranteed to be inoffensive, because you don’t bite the hand that feeds.

Netflix has been upsetting this model, largely because they rely primarily on subscriptions to make money, and don’t rely on advertising revenue. This means Netflix is only beholden to the people who consume their product. They can afford to experiment with less broad appeal and riskier content, because their consumer base is coming into the experience with the expectation of having to tailor their own experience. The ability to customize becomes a selling point, when the customer is doing the work to personalize the service. This has the added benefit of having less risk of any one particular program bombing; people come into the Netflix experience with the expectation that they’ll like certain things and dislike others. It is only when the ratio of like to dislike becomes too high that a person will stop paying for the service. At that point, Netflix can take all the risks that they want, and at worst they might cause some controversy, which as history tells us isn’t entirely a bad thing. 

This business model has allowed them to take some very worthwhile risks. For example, the hit political drama House of Cards was picked up without even testing a pilot. Not only that, it was immediately contracted for two seasons. By being flexible, Netflix was able to take a risk that paid off immensely. There is no way that a network television show would have been allowed to take that sort of risk. There is a lot of process and red tape between a concept and a green light, and in a mass media that abhors risk that has been largely an advantage. The digital era has engendered a multitude of shifts in our age, and Netflix is one of those upsetters that is challenging the dominance of the television and movie industries.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Mass Customization in Streaming

This may be a self indulgent notion, but I don’t like to think of myself as being much of a consumer. Considering the way that our society lives, everyone is a consumer to a degree. But I don’t indulge in many of the consumerist vices that many others do; I generally buy secondhand clothing, furniture, books, electronics and music gear. I’m a yard sale fiend, and I spend a lot of time thrifting. Not just myself, but many millennials are putting less stock into the capitalist ideology of always having new stuff and not fixing things when they break, but I find myself resting those habits.

One thing I can absolutely justify, and I know many others in my generation that feel this way, is using my money to experience things that I care about. For me, that means music. I won’t blink an eye at spending a hundred bucks on concert tickets, but I’ll comparison shop to find the cheapest can of beans at the store. These may be every once in a while purchases, but on the day to day I justify purchasing music and paying for streaming services and I rejoice to live in an era where I can do so.

In terms of the services I pay for, and more largely the individual purchases I make reflect my self image; my perception of self largely lies in my musical knowlege, taste and experiences. As a consumer of the music industry, the companies that provide these services don’t particularly care what music I listen to, so long as I’m paying for their products or services. This reflects the concept of mass customization in action; computer code and server space can be copied and shared theoretically indefinitely. I’m engaged because I get to discover and share new and rare music, it gives my interest a sense of direction. In a sense, we have different formats and genres within the industry to give people a sense of choice and personal or regional identity. Ultimately, we’re all accomplishing the same thing, but what is retained is our ability to feel different.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

The Medium is the Message

For class today, we read the first chapter of Marshall Mcluhan’s seminal work, Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. The crux of the piece is embedded in the chapter name; clear as day but cryptic nonetheless. Topically, he dances between matters of pure science; having to do with energy and the point at which it becomes a vehicle for human expression, and literary allusions to the pervasiveness of media. He takes in a range of influences, ranging from Napoleonic history to the works of Shakespeare, demonstrating how each had an understanding of mass media as a tool in their own time. Mcluhan makes the point that an idea doesn’t exist in a vaccum; that the method of transference makes its own mark on the content of the message. The “medium”, as it were, is entangled with the message, and it is impossible to separate one from the other as it is a symbiotic relationship that allows them to be understood. In the terms of mass media today, this means that when we listen to a song by our favorite artist, we understand that a good chunk of the meaning has to do with our perception of the artist; the genre, the ethos behind it, even the fashion associated with it. The music itself may not even give us enough context to understand what is going on. The message is not only affected by by the medium of the artist, the format of access has a lot to do with how we perceive the music. Is music the same experience when you listen to a vinyl record as when you’re listening to the radio? Some may say yes, but those who have bought into the vinyl ethos would say that they are getting a more full experience sonically and artistically. Mcluhan would say that yes, there is a difference, and it can be as big or as small of a difference as is reflected in the difference between individuals’ ethos.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

https://soundcloud.com/duncan-maxwell-1/mach-america-great-again-machiavellian-politics-in-the-trump-era

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

A Feminist Perspective on the Environment

One of the recurring themes in Klein’s book is the idea that all people rich and poor are equally  entitled to the Earth’s natural resources, However, the average person doesn’t enrich themselves from these resources the same way that, say, an energy corporation, which uses up a vastly disproportionate share on a multinational scale and netting billions of dollars. The decisions made by energy corporations invariably have impacts on the environment, it’s just a matter of how bad.

 Environmental disasters such as the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico are horrendous both in the sense that they kill wildlife and disrupt habitats, but also that they destroy the livelihoods of indigenous people who live off of nature. Those select few at the top of the corporate ladder get to decide what risks are worth taking, when their personal gain is outweighed by negative effects that they don’t have to directly experience. It’s not their own livelihood that they are ruining, so it’s a lot easier to take that risk. Another factor is that more than 95% of all energy providers’ executive boards are all male. The result is that environmental decisions that affect all of us, male and female, are being made by a non representative minority acting very much in their own self interest.

Another key point Klein makes is that global warming will limit resources, cause freak weather conditions and generally make life more difficult. The rich, however, will be better equipped to access what resources are left, and will be able to shore themselves up against the coming changes. Overwhelmingly, it is rich males that will refuse to sacrifice their profit margins for the greater good, and continue to destroy our environment. As much as the corporate male superstructure still has the power to subjugate, this represents a different kind of challenge to females, and to humanity at large.  

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Naomi Klein, Climate Change and  the Corporate Superstructure

In her book This Changes Everything, Klein explores a political and ideological landscape where the issue of climate change has lost its meaning as a crushing eventuality of our unsustainable lifestyle, and is instead conflated with liberal politics. He examines how the bipartisan cooperation on climate issues has been blocked by conservatives that see the necessary politics to curtail carbon emissions and slow global warming as being central to the liberal political agenda. It is in this way that the goals of each party in their political moment are put above their responsibility to future generations. It seems to be as much of a class issue as it is a political one; as Klein points out, the rich can afford to support themselves as resources become scarce and the environment turns unfriendly. It is the poor who will die in the billions if nothing is done, but it is the rich who are affected if their ability to exploit earth’s resources is curtailed by environmental protections.

It is telling, then, that certain industries are affected in a positive way by environmental issues. Business for private security companies is projected to grow, as those with vast financial resources increasingly need to use force to secure their place in a world made more dangerous by drought, food scarcity and displacement brought on by global warming. War profiteers worldwide, or as they are known “defense contractors” are gearing up for more business than ever, as financial institutions of the world centralize their place by investing in firepower. From a cashflow perspective, it makes more sense for these industry giants to make as much as they possibly can while they still can, and invest in an apocalyptic future where they hold dominion of resources over humanity. The alternative is to slow down their economic superstructure now in hopes of a sustainable future, but many believe that this would only slow down the tide of the inevitable. Therefore, the rich of the world want to make themselves as rich as possible before the entire system, and the world, melts down.

This attitude, this sense of entitlement to the world and everything it has to offer without thought for the future, is rooted deeply in the ideology of The West. The central idea of Christian theocracy is that humans alone were made in God’s image, and thus the rest of his dominion is for their enrichment. This, coupled with the Capitalist American idea that the individual’s pursuit of wealth is essential to the “American Dream,” give the uber rich a sense of entitlement over natural resources that not everyone has equal access to. In this era where class lines often denote political priorities, the “1%” won’t give up its position at the top of the superstructure, they would rather watch the rest of the world crumble around them while shoring up their own fortresses against the onslaught of climate change.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Seeing Power in Art

In his book Seeing Power, Nato Thompson delves into the complex relationship between counter-culture and the modes of production that allow for its reproduction. The problem (potentially) of couching art in this way is that it is impossible to entirely separate the overt message of a piece from the fiscal motivations that drive the space, or the sponsorship. Like David Byrne says, art is created with a space in mind, and the effects of that space on the art itself are profound. Thompson posits that art presented in a commercial space, even if the art is anti-commercial, then its intent has been subverted.

Thompson goes over several luminary examples of artists that work in an intentional way to avoid this couching of their messages. He discusses traveling art exhibits like the Black Factory that bring art directly to the public across the country, inviting them in with an inflatable structure and power tools to deconstruct every day objects to understand “blackness.” This serves to create an art space where the public is invited into the conversation without needing the financial, educational or social capital that alienate some people from traditional art spaces.

He also discusses his own experience regarding collectives as an art space; he posits that when social cooperation and understanding are built into the intent of a space, then the art produced there will do more to further those ends. Places like student collectives, coffee shops and bookstores provide a civic space for social interaction and growth, and if the intent is collectivist and not profit driven, those involved can put their focus on community, not capital.

By providing these examples of art spaces that don’t have a profit motive, Thompson levies a wide critique of the “traditional” art world. Activist art may seem didactic and pedagogic by comparison, but that has to do with people’s preconceptions about the role of art in their lives. Art as most people understand it is intended to entertain and pacify; when it has an overt agenda, people tend to associate it with a liberal, intellectual elite, even if the intent was to empower everyday people. This too has to do with the space; when people go to an art museum, they expect certain things, and may not be happy if they find something different. Bringing art to a public space, however, removes the burden of expectation; everyone is equally welcome to participate, and bring their own genuine understanding to the table.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Art and protest under Trump

In a politically charged climate, art becomes less ambiguous, because it is received in a climate where people are striving for meaning. In a time of upheaval, people are compelled to identify with or to reject a certain message, to reinforce their self image either way. According to Thompson, “Socially engaged art projects that do not receive outright hostile reactions tend to receive this classic dismissal: that they are neither art nor activism.” The author is saying that if protest art too closely balances the didactic and the ambiguous, it becomes difficult for people to understand, either as protest or as art. In a time such as ours where arguments about life and politics seem to pervade everyday discourse, every artistic statement is viewed with a didactic filter by the individual. If an individual project appears too openly didactic, it will be approached with extra intensity by critics or opponents. An example of this happened recently with the “He Will Not Divide Us” movement. It was a protest art piece, originally built as a wall of screens showing people throughout the world mouthing the aforementioned phrase live streamed. However, vandalism, harassment and threats of violence towards the participants forced them to cease. One of the proponents of the movement, actor Shia LeBeouf, set up a livestream of a flag saying “HWNDU”, to fly until the end of the Trump administration. He was careful to not show any hint of where the flag could be in the video frame, to prevent trolls from taking it down. However, 4chan hackerss were able to use the flight patterns of planes in the background and star patterns to estimate the location, and one particular fellow drove around the area honking his horn until someone heard it in the livestream. He then stole the flag, timestamping it and posting it to 4chan. It is interesting that a message that was supposed to evoke unity was received as such; in a combative political climate, art has the effect of inspiring its intended audience and also enraging those that see it as a criticism. 

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Emmett Till and the Cost of Truth

Sheila Weller’s HIVE article, entitled “HOW AUTHOR TIMOTHY TYSON FOUND THE WOMAN AT THE CENTER OF THE EMMETT TILL CASE” explores a historical event that proved very telling as to the nature of race relations in the United States at the time. The fact that two white men could literally get away with murder served to show the world that a white, male jury could let their own racism enable a complete perversion of justice and get away with it. The facts of the situation were obscured by the testimony of the “victimized” white woman, who characterized Till as predatory and threatening, seemingly justifying the act of her murderous “defenders”. The implication here is that in the minds of the jury, Till’s willingness to violate the terms of racial privilege, I.E. his access to white women as a commodity, was an offense punishable by death. It also illustrated the power that martyrdom can afford an individual, if their experience resonates with the marginalized. Emmett Till became a figurehead for the oppressed; a young black male innocent of any crime is murdered and the white man walks free? His name became a rallying cry for the civil rights movement of the 60’s, inspiring some real cultural change. This all happened half a century ago, but the original “victim” whose testimony was central to the murderers’ acquittal retracted her initial statement, admitting to her lie. In the annals of history, her retraction becomes a footnote, compared to the effects of her falsehood in the time that it was relevant. The value of this revelation loses its meaning when it no longer is difficult to tell the truth. When the expectations of other involved parties (I.E. her late husband and the other murderer) cease to matter, and so do the consequences, the truth becomes very cheap. This woman sets an example for those who are involved in falsehood or ideological manipulation; there is a time when moral action can make an enormous difference, and that time is not fifty years after those implicated could be held accountable.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

Foucault’s Panopticon in Modern Life

Foucault’s concept of the Panopticon, much like the subject of its discussion, has permeated our characterization of culture. He asserts that the very structure of modern society enacts a normalizing influence on individuals by creating a life where everyone feels scrutinized all of the time. The edifices most crucial to society’s function seem to be the most affected; he discusses how institutions that require a measure of control to function such as schools, hospitals and prisons, and the assurance of control is embedded in their very architecture. Most of these institutions function under a system of making people feel like they have no privacy or necessary control over their larger destiny. Each of these institutions to varying extents require that the individual relinquish their individual ideals, preferences and even identity to a more knowledgeable and trustworthy figure of authority, and that they follow a specific code of behavior. Individuals who fail to conform are visibly corrected, and this only needs to happen so often for the majority to learn the lesson and maintain order. Even the physical appearance of such institutions usually minimizes the privacy of the individual, and places the figure of authority in a position of all-seeing. Foucault says that there is a reason that classrooms are designed to have the students face a teacher, for prison cells to face the watchtower; this ideology permeates every aspect of our experience, creating a condition of such widespread dominance that people don’t know anything else. One cannot rebel against an enemy that one cannot identify, and by keeping the mechanisms of control largely subconscious, those in power can maintain their position without any real challenge.

[thefeloniousdunk-blog]

What the Annenberg Report can Teach Us

The Annenberg Report manifested many of the theoretical ideas that we’ve discussed thus far and their effects in practice. It uses hard data to illustrate the influence that hegemony has on representation in culture, and shows specifically the extent to which individual companies engage in cultural whitewashing. Its findings reify critical theoretic perspectives that make claims about culture and hegemony, but allow them to be understood in terms that are more concrete and less nebulous. It is hard to convince someone that their entire worldview is shaped by an intangible influence, but if you offer evidence of that influence that gives more weight to the initial argument. The assertion being explored in this report is that representations of race, gender and sexuality in the movie industry are not representative of reality, and that they instead reflect the normative values of dominant groups. The systematic analysis that it performs serves to illustrate the severe discrepancies therein. The result is that a majority of film narrative and casting serves to explore the experience of dominant groups, with the inclusion of non-dominant groups for the purpose of illustrating differences between the two. An example of this comes in film’s representation of gay couples; there were instances of gay couples being represented to various ends, but out of all the media texts examines there were no examples of gay couples acting in parental roles. The message that this gives is that society allows for men to marry, but when it comes down to the all-important task of child rearing, that two men cannot perform their task as well as a heterosexual couple could, perhaps not at all. In the rare films that actually put gay couples at the center of the plot, such as I Love You Phillip Morris, the protagonists are represented as being thrill seekers, shirking expectations and responsibility in the pursuit of pleasure and self-identity. Their homosexuality is presented as being a symptom of their need to escape domesticity, and is thus characterized as being morally deficit, and not suitable for a child to be raised around. Boiling down the gay experience to these kind of representations serves to include them in the experience of mainstream culture, but only through a narrow set of circumstances that allow them to be written off as one thing or another and not be taken seriously on the same plane as “normal” people.