Post Class: Appadurai

In Arjun Appadurai's piece, "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture Economy," he talks about the sustained cultural forces that are occurring on a big scale in the society that we live in. He says talks about how global culture has changed so drastically in the past century (with technological advances making it easier for people to migrate and intermix cultures) that we can no longer understand it "in terms of existing center-periphery models" (514). To understand these complexities, one must "look at the relationship among five dimensions of global cultural flows" (514), including ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finacescapes, and ideoscapes. If we can begin to understand the disjuncture of these five dimensions of global culture, we can better understand that we are living in a contemporary and complex world.

I really grasped Appadurai's idea of ideoscapes, which are images produced and recirculated by institutions. These images often are very political and seek to inculcate the masses with ideologies that promote the views and agendas of institutions, while also demoting ideologies that counter their movements. These images have the power to rewrite history and to affect cultural memory. Appadurai's ideoscapes are closely related to Herman and Chomski's reading on Propaganda. They both state how institutions have control over the media, and therefore can control what the masses are exposed to, effecting their opinions, views and thoughts. We as a society must be critical of the images presented to us through the media, and realize the specific agendas and intentions of the institutions controlling them.

Post Class 12/4, AsToldByGinger

In Appadurai's reading she speaks of globalization as "a fluid and dynamic phenomenon tied to worldwide migrations (both voluntary and involuntary) and the dissemination of images and texts via electronic media" (M 508). I feel that this reading relates so much to our current society and I liked what Ruqayyah had so say about this in the sense of the family; I also notice and somewhat look in disagreement at those families I see in restaurants or other public placed glued to their cell phones instead of making eye contact and conversation with those around them. I also dislike when I see small children glued to an iPad at the table and it seems as though the parents just force it into their hands so they don't have to deal with talking to the children or listening to them whine.

This also brought me back to many of our other previously discussed theorists and what they had to say about this virtual world we currently live in, such as Lyotard and his idea of verisimilitude as well as Baudrillar and simulacra, Žižek and the spectacle, Dorfman and the supernatural bridge, and finally Jenkins and participatory culture. I feel that Appadurai really summed up and tied together so many theorists and the idea of mass globalization in an interesting and enlightening way, and that the other theorists would agree with the thoughts she proposed.

Going back to what Ruqayyah said, I think that our social interactions with one another are extremely valuable and important, and believe that such social skills and connections are dwindling with the ever increasing use of technology that has replaced our physical connections.

Appadurai, post 12/4

Appadurai states, "The new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models (even those that might account for multiple centers and peripheries)" (Appadurai, 514). He is meaning that our contemporary world is multivalent and susceptible to many different meanings and interpretations. Nothing today just has one simple meaning, it can interpreted and critically analyzed differently by many different people. It is a notion of disjuncture that our postmodern society has taken on and that everything is overlapping. He believes that this disjuncture is very unsettling. Dr. Cummings introduced the term "contemporinarity" and the idea of big systems of flow and that we can move beyond the postmodern. The complexity of our global world now is dangerous because of how systematic it is. Things can do very wrong and it affects the whole system, it can be epidemic now. The complexity of the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjunctures between economy, culture, and politics that we have only begun to theorize" (Appadurai 514). This is why Appadurai created frameworks to dissect the relationship between global cultural flows: enthnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideascapes. These frameworks must be looked at critically to see this disjunctness of our world. The idea of America being the dominant culture now is at question. "...the United States is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is only one node of a complex transnational construction of imaginary landscapes" (Appadurai 513).

just some pretty landscapes, enjoy :)

Appadurai 12/4

In his work, Appadurai discusses the importance of the modernity of nation states and globalization. Appadurai articulated a view of cultural activity known as the social imaginary. For him, the imaginary is composed of five dimensions of global cultural flow: (1)ethnoscapes;(2)mediascapes;(3)technoscapes;(4)financescapes;(5)ideoscapes. Situating globalization in the context of what he views as the transition from an international to a postnational political order, Appadurai argues that the ease and frequency with which media and migrants cross borders is producing new ways of imagining and creating alternatives to the nation-state. He talks about the role of “imagined communities” in the making of the nation-state into his own concept of “diasporic public spheres,” which he believes will bring about its demise. According to his analysis, these “diasporic public spheres” are forged in and through multiple overlapping “scapes”, the parts of global flows which, he contends, facilitate transnational imaginings and make the nation-state insignificant. Appadurai’s scapes offer a user friendly way of thinking about the fluid and smooth nature of goods, images, and human populations in the late-twentieth century, as well as the ways in which they encourage the reimagining of human communities. Part of his argument about the coming decline of the nation-state rests on his analysis of the increasingly transnational nature of cultural groups and the erosion of the connection between nation and state. As populations move across space and across borders, as they reconstruct and reimagine their histories, Appadurai states that cultural groups are becoming less tied to particular geographic places. He calls for a translocal approach to anthropology which can take more fully into account the complexity of human lives in the contemporary world. Although he may underestimate the persisting importance of local spaces for many cultural groups, Appadurai’s point about the need for greater attention to the complicated, translocal, and global processes that affect the lives and imaginations of people worldwide is well taken. I agree that the relationship between the global and the local in the contemporary moment of globalization deserves extensive interrogation. However, whether or not current global processes diminish the importance of the local or the national, they certainly will change the terms by which we understand them.

ruqayyahali, Appadurai

Appadurai says toward the end of the reading: "I have employed a set of terms (ethnoscape, financescape, technoscape, mediascape, and indeoscape) to stress different streams or flows along which cultural material many be seen to be moving across national boundaries." (M 521) These five terms are his descriptions of the various scapes of global culture. Appadurai's main discussion is about global culture and its development in the world today. He talks about how these landscapes are the building blocks of 'imagined worlds' which are created by historical imaginations of groups around the world. (M 514) 

From what I understand, Appadurai's imagined worlds are the ones created by technology. The social media networks that keep us globally connected but not interpersonally connected are a good representation of this. Rather than have connection through physical means, i.e. meeting and having a conversation, we connect through virtual world. A lot of people in today's society do not know their neighbors but they know people they've never met from around the world. This allows us to be more interconnected globally but miss out on benefits of those immediately around them.

One example I can think of is with families. When I was growing up and had just gotten a cell phone, I was not allowed to use it during family time or at the dinner table. Now as an adult, my parents still discourage the use of phones during family time but even more so because they are direct ways to access social media in addition to texting. The reason my parents were always so against this was due to the fact that we were not paying attention to the people, the humans, right around us. We were too busy paying attention to those we were virtually connected to. This is an increasing problem I see today with young people and adults. I rarely see a moment when a family is eating dinner at a restaurant when they don't all have their phones out.

Appadurai says that this is a negative influence of globalization because it takes away from human interactions and only allows us to exist in a virtual world. This is an issue because it makes the world seem interconnected when we really aren't. Real world issues seem to be bridged because we are all connected globally but the issues still exist, we just turn a blind eye because we live in these imaginary worlds. We care more about the global community rather than cherishing our local communities. 

lacansmirror, Appadurai

Appadurai addresses the new conditions of the global cultural economy as they have changed rapidly.  First, Appadurai explains that the two primary forces that sustained cultural interaction were warfare and religion. These interactions or perceptions would either connect directly with people or greatly impact others.  The creation of the internet and other modern technologies has caused a shift in the way our cultural economy functions.  For example, the small world idea of knowing everyone's neighbor and being friendly with others around the world is obviously untrue today.

The It's a Small World ride at Disney may give the impression that we are all connected and friendly, but reality is far from that.  Even though one could argue that social media connects us with others around the world, the world is still large, it is just more accessible.  The increase of access has put an emphasis on online relationships instead of the global villages Appadurai mentions.

Today, local community members are unaware of their immediate community but completely aware of the global community.  This survey found that only 53% of U.S. adults know their neighbors' names.  I would be curious to learn how many U.S. youths know their peers names down the block.  With younger generations spending more time online using social networking sites connecting with friends around the world, I assume the statistics could only be greater for them.  As it becomes more common to use social networking sites, the global culture economy will lose its local uniqueness.  Online we see the pastiche of cultural convergence which diminishes uniqueness but gives us a false sense of connectivity.  A lack of local community and culture will weaken the large scale cultural economy.

An observation I made as an RA last year was that students knew their roommates names, but they often didn't know their peers' names next door or down the hall.  We used events and other programs to help residents meet, but they would often not attend.  It is a lot easier to sit on Facebook and "meet" or "stalk" others than it is to actually meet them.  I typically do not accept friend requests from people I haven't met, but when I came to Rollins, that quickly changed for the worse.  I felt like people didn't need to meet me because they already "knew" me online. I still made friends and have a good social life, but it was still a little disturbing to think about.  People use Facebook to learn about others and make assumptions even if their profile doesn't represent who their true identity.  In fact, no matter how many posts, photos, comments, etc. a person has, their true identity will only be found by talking with them.

At the beginning of last year, my hall did a "speed friending" event where we had residents pair up in groups of two and answer a couple basic questions.  Since it was an early event, people actually attended.  The feedback we received was incredible.  Residents felt like they understood more things about their neighbors and made some "real friends". The most fascinating aspect to me wasn't that they made friends (even though that was rewarding), but the idea that this type of offline socializing was new or different.  When an entire generation is living online, communicating in person is challenging and abnormal.

After reading Appadurai, I became a little worried about the next generation.  If our social mentality is focused so heavily on online interactions, and our global culture economy weakens as a result, will it eventually collapse? Will it be easier and popular to Trick or Treat online? Appadurai explains the importance of larger global forces being built on the idea of the global village, but advancements in capitalism and technology seem to be working in the opposite direction.  Services like Facebook argue that they help us connect, but by spending our time connecting online limits our framework of traditional communication.  I understand the benefits of social media, but balancing them with offline reality is essential for maintaining a stable and diverse global cultural economy.

Post-Class: Foucault

Michel Foucault was very interested in the notion of surveillance. In his piece, "Discipline and Punish," he says that "the gaze is everywhere" (94), meaning that the society that we live in is a voyueristic one. We feel a sense of safety and piece of mind knowing that we, and everyone else around us is being watched and surveyed. Foucault talks about the idea of the Panopticon, which is an architectural figure that can be used as a metaphor for voyeurism. The building is composed of cells lining the outer ring of the building, with a tall tower in the center. Prisoners in the cells are unable to see into the tower, so they never know if there is a guard watching them at that precise moment. Foucault extends this by stating, "All that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a school boy" (97) . By having the tower in place, we do as we are supposed to because we have fear that there is a person in the tower watching, and if we do something wrong, they will punish us.





As I traveled home for Thanksgiving, I couldn't help but notice the insane amounts of cameras in each of the airports I passed through. In the security checkpoints alone, I probably saw around 150-200 dark domes lining the ceilings. We can assume that there are cameras underneath each of those domes, but we don't know for sure. The fact that they are there, though, gives us a sense of safety because we know (or think that we know) if someone is doing something wrong, they will get caught. These domes almost deter people from doing wrong and keep them in line. As we discussed in class, the airport is a great example of a Panopticon, in part due to the fear surrounding what happened on 9/11.

Higgins-Pre class

In the reading last night Butler displayed an ideology on the male figure as well as gender roles in general for that matter. Cixiou's comes from a more feminist perspective on the debate between which gender is superior, ultimately siding with the female side. Believing that men tend to lose momentum and begin to go backwards in some areas while woman seem to stay at a constant pace of moving forward throughout their lives. First of all I do not believe that and feel that this is stated in her piece last night as more of a fact when there is no concrete evidence that it's true, meaning it should be labeled to be more of her opinion than anything.
 
Also being said frequently throughout the readings, which includes all theorists beliefs is how woman are just overall more complex than men. The actions of the female gender seem to more difficult pin-pointing the origin of why than the men who act more sporadically in their daily lives. Once again, I understand the theorists logic, majority of men probably do act more on impulse than woman but once again I feel like a complete labeling is going on here. Not all men do this, I certainly do not. I try and think of consequences before I make a move on anything, which goes to show that these theorists are providing us with what I feel is a biased opinion.

However, these gender readings showed more biased than I believe neutral theorists should give, they nonetheless were easier to read in general. Which I feel can help generate a more solid debate than the other articles like the social class or race one's. All in all, I still believe the superior gender is still unknown and it should remain that way due to argument sake.

Pre Class

In this reading Helene focused on the ideas behind the ideas of opposites the ways of "activity and passivity, sun moon, culture nature, and day night. She believes that everywhere "where a law organizes what is thinkable by oppositions all these pairs of oppositions are couples? She talked about the idea behind a father and a son. They both need eachother to describe themselves. A father is a figure to provide love and support to a son, and a son receives this, and without the son, a father is a man. She focuses on the ideas that words like sun and moon, and day and night are balanced on each other.
She then goes into talking about the masculine figure. She talks about the ideas of the bisexual figure. That is a hard topic to talk about in todays society. Back in the 1970's and previously, it was something that was almost non-existanst, and people looked at them strangely. Today in our society we can gain a understanding that bisexuality and the modified human figure are that of somebodies choice. There is a hard representation issue of what that figure should represent. Should they become the stereotypical mom if it was a bisexual man to woman. She would always have the ways of a man, and would her feelings be real and true to that of a real mother.
Men today "fear being a woman" This is a understandable trait as women are looked as the week in society, and are dependent on society. Women today are becoming more femist and independent, and i personally like the ways of the 1950's, where women were stay at home, and men made the money. Growing up with just my father working, when my mom said how she used to work, my whole family laughs and says good one, when in reality she had a great finance job. It is the idea that the woman should not be working, they are to stay home and work on the house, and maintaing it.

AsToldByGinger, Cixous and Butler

In these feminist readings Cixous and Butler take different approaches in attempts to explain the roots of societal views on women and feminism.

Cixous discusses the inherent "dual, hierarchal oppositions" that we as a society and human race have used since the beginning of time. - "Activity/Passivity, Sun/Moon, Culture/Nature, Day/Night" (C 157). She says that through these comparisons breeds one victor, which always is subject to man. Although I'm not exactly sure what she means by this, I know what she means by saying that hierarchies usually lead to men.

Cixous then goes on to explain bisexuality which she believes to be something that empowers woman, because it disrupts man. "A man is always proving something; he has to 'show off,' show up the others. masculine profit is almost always mixed up with a success that is socially defined" (C 161).

Butler then goes over how woman has become oppressed culturally and states, "The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the possession of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination"(C 193). This statement reminded me of the different extremes of how women are treated in different societies, from terrible in the Middle East, to very well in matriarchal societies in Latin America. I think this quote highlights the importance of recognizing these differences, in order to correctly address them - it cannot be assumed that all societies are the same, or that we treat women the same either.

fang- cixious and butler and irragay

The readings on feminist theory were much different than that of race theory as race theory strongly urged people to avoid othering and not see racial problems as white v. black problems but people problems.  The feminist theorists see distinct differences (or for Cixious differances) between men and women and a binary opposition in the two genders.

Irigaray’s piece notes the misconceptions between men and female sexual organs and the skewed view of sexuality but does not explain the similarities in the two, but the differences and how those differences cause many to view sex as a dominating act. She others women saying “woman finds pleasure more in touch than in sight and her entrance into a dominant scopic economy signifies once again, her relegation to passivity: she will be the beautiful object...” (handout 255) fleshing out the misconceptions about female sexuality.  While on some level, there is certainly a lack of understanding in the inner workings of women, Irigaray focuses more on female superiority than the overall goal of fostering understanding and complete equality and empathy across genders.

Cixious’s piece further develops Derrida and Irigaray’s ideas about different thoughts of sexuality. She focuses on how the writing of women features more passion and a “privilege of voice” (C 162) and that women move forward compared to men who revert back to a previous state prescribed by society. Women, however, “steal language to make it fly” (166) demonstrating a superiority of women over men.

Lastly, Butler, the most logical of the theorists, takes feminism from a political standpoint hoping for a “universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination” (C 193). Butler desires female representation in the political world and that when that is achieved, it is more likely people understand the differences between men and women.

It is quite possible I didn’t dig as deep into the readings as they merit but it just seemed like the readings did not get at the same solutions and rational thought as the other theorists this semester.

ruqayyahali, Cixous & Butler

Helene Cixous speaks about the body and the way that women are supposed to succumb to passivity due to cultural ideology of the world we live in. Women have always been seen as the weaker sex, the ones to be passive while the men are active. We exist in these binaries of hierarchy: there are always two oppositions and one is better than the other.

She says: "We see that 'victory' always comes down to the same thing: things get hierarchal. Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man. Male privilege, shown in the opposition between activity and passivity, which he uses to sustain himself. Traditionally, the question of sexual difference is treated by coupling it with the opposition: activity/passivity" (C 158).

One way Cixous says that women have 'messed up' this hierarchy, however, is through bisexuality. Being bisexual blurs the lines of binary and hierarchy because one is not required to like the other sex (in this case, a woman is not required to like a man). Bisexuality replaces sexual differences between the two sexes and creates a "a fantasy of unity" (C 159).

She goes further to say that women benefit from this bisexuality because if they embrace their bodies and their sexuality, it is not necessarily for the pleasure or appeal of men. It is for themselves.

Judith Butler, another feminist theorist, goes back a couple steps to say that gender is a social construct. This active/passive binary ideology that Cixous is talking about exists because society fails to recognize that 'woman' is not an overarching term for all females.

Butler says: "Apart from the foundationalist fictions that support the notion of the subject, however, there is the political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whim it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest a cause for anxiety" (C 193).

Both of these authors delve into what has caused women to be the inferior gender. They discuss binaries, ideology, and terms as a way to see how women became the oppressed of the sexes and why all females are even classified as 'women'. Is it simply because they are alike? Or has their oppression bonded them into being alike and thus being constructed as their own gender?

These readings are a breakdown of feminism and what has led to it. Through Cixous and Butler we can explore the ideology behind gender specification that has cause the issue of man vs. woman, masculinity vs. femininity to this day. I look forward to discussing this more in class next week!

AsToldByGinger, Post Class 11/20

Apparently this is what
I've searched this week

When thinking more about Foucault and the panopticon, I started paying more close attention to the advertisements I am exposed to while on the web, and the relation they have to anything I search for or visit frequently. Just how John talked about the role Google plays as a panopticon in his post as with Google maps, or Street View, Google also does this in another way in which we are often unaware of, and show no rejection towards - targeted advertisement. Isn't it ironic how the advertisements presented to us seem to know exactly when we want something or have been shopping around for it? It's not ironic at all because Google, Facebook, and other companies keep track of things you search either on their engine, or through amazon, E-bay, independent stores, etc. and then show them back to you when you are away from that site. This tactic works in a very successful way, and I nearly always find myself clicking on the ads targeted to me on Facebook etc. thinking "ah yes I love this dress, how did they know" (sarcasm) but it still gets me. If you notice Facebook also brings your "friends" into the picture by telling you that they like these sorts of things too - as seen in the bottom of the picture to the right. This whole concept is absurd though, what else are they watching that I'm doing on my own private computer they I'm not aware of? How can you be sure that any site is truly "secure"? I'm no computer whiz so I would have no idea, and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of internet users are the same way. Going back to John's post, I agree that it is crazy how people (including myself) will accept this odd sort of spying that companies conduct on us on a regular basis, but yet would most definitely not accept a person from the NSA taking pictures of us walking down the street. I think we as a society need to align our thoughts on digital privacy and set guidelines for what we will and will not accept as being legal.

lacansmirror, a retrospective

A retrospective of Macherey from 9/15/13

After looking back at some past blogs, I realized that the ideas in my post about the significance of the unspoken have been seen in other theorists works as well.  The importance of Macherey's theory gives enhanced meaning for concepts like the panopticon, Zizek's views on terrorism in America, or Eco's perception of the passivity of guests at Disney.  For the panopticon, the unknown presence of someone in the tower of a prison restrains inmates even if it is empty.  This emptiness is a physical reference to the importance of "what is not said".

Zizek believes that we produce and glorify in media what we received on 9/11.  The notion that we simply accept and encourage violence in movies, and then are shocked when that violence becomes reality, is the unspoken quality that Macherey defines.  Our culture does not speak about the effects of our media, but then we are surprised when these events occur.




Finally, at Disney World, guests must comply with the Disney rules while experiencing a prefabricated fantasy, those who actively rebel against those rules are asked to leave.  The only way to experience Disney is to remain passive or else they will force silence.  Whether it is forced silence or voluntary passivity and acceptance, the notion of remaining voiceless contains the power.

West - Pre Class Blog

In the reading by West, he focused heavily on the issue of racial inequality and injustice in our society. We tend to "other" African Americans due to the color of their skin and thus use them as scapegoats for problems within this country the reading pointed out. This piece highlighted the politics of racism and the different views of liberals and conservatives on this pretty large issue that has been going on for years. West stated that the liberal view is that we need to stop "othering" the poor individuals and integrate them into our society. The conservative views on this issue tend to differ. West believes that we need to rid ourselves of racist thoughts, or the individualistic perspective as I have learned about in my State of Black American course, and accept people of color and realize how important they are to to our world today; he basically would like us all to embrace equality and practice it. This reading directly relates to everything I am learning in one of my CMC electives, State of Black America taught by Dr. Royce. In this class we have outlined the causes of racism and what it means, discrimination in the workplace, residential segregation, education segregation, economic differences, the White Middle Class versus the Black Middle Class, and many other sub topics to these general topics. I really liked this reading because I finally felt like I knew what the author was trying to convey to me as a reader and I liked relating it back to studies I have talked about in Royce's class and in class readings we have done. I think a big part of West's reading is the constant war between people who believe the individual perspective versus those who believe in the structural perspective. It was a really cool connection to make between two of my classes!

Higgins- Pre class

In class we talked about Foucault and his concept of the Panopticon, which is a device to used for power that instills fear in those around it. Order is kept in the country by one main thing, fear. When one does a crime the thing they are most concerned about is the punishment to come. The punishment is designed to strike fear in people contemplating any crimes, hence the reason we have jail, fines, etc. Foucault goes into depth about how we are always being watched at all times, that you are never alone and can be found always. Panopticon is designed to give the impression to prisoners that they are under surveillance which strays them away from causing chaos.

I was thinking about this idea of being watched all the time and immediately thought of two things: the movie V for Vendetta and the book 1984. Both pieces circle around the aspect of a higher power suppressing another one for the sole purpose to maintain order/ keep power. It was interesting to watch and read about what life would be like if the government we live in enhanced their control over its people and practically destroy our democracy.

Pictures from  1984:

                                            

ruqayyahali, West

Fitting in. At some point in our lives, we have all tried fitting in. Perhaps even now we try to fit in. Or maybe we say "screw it" and assume a pseudo-indivudality that is not necessarily the overwhelming norm so we feel like we're outside of ideology, that we don't need to fit in.

Racism is very much the simple notion of not fitting in. Whites and Blacks have had their differences all through time which has been dealt with in minor ways such as rude comments and major ways such as slavery, persecution, and murder. Most often, Blacks are on the lesser half of this scale and are submitted to much hardship because their skin does not fit the appropriate color palette that America's founders and ancestors deemed worthy of being equal to them.

This not about hating on Whites. That's not what Cornel West is doing in his piece. He's say, much more eloquently than I, that racism is a profound issue to this day in America while it should have been dealt with far in the past. Dealt with not in the way of purging our society of those who are not of a certain skin color but dealt with in the sense that we need integration in order to survive.

"One essential step is some form of large-scale public intervention to ensure access to basic social goods--housing, food, health care, education, child care, and jobs. We must invigorate the common good with a mixture of government, business, and labor that does not follow any existing blueprint." (West 630)

West believes that we must do away with all other notions of racism in our minds in order to change the way our society is. We need to understand that Blacks and colored people are an asset and an integral part of the world we live in. None of us are different; we are all the same.

West says: "There is no escape from our interracial interdependence, yet enforced racial hierarchy dooms us as a nation to collective paranoia and hysteria--the unmaking of any democratic order." If we realize that we are one and ideology is the only reason keeping us all apart because we've been taught by millennia of history that skin color is a separation of class and status and riddled with stereotype, we will continue to crush the democracy we are so proud of.

We must use our intelligence and independence as Americans to learn integration rather than tolerance and to understand that if we wish to succeed as a people in the future, we must make the incredibly massive move to influence and change ideology for the better.

Fang pre class other

While many point to the election of Barack Obama as a sign racism is done, the theorists (although writing before the election or thought that a black person could be elected) for Wednesday's class clearly demonstrate that there is more at play in our society than just simple ideas about black people. There is a "commodification of Otherness" (M 308) and flaw in American contemporary society that "viewing black people reveals" (handout 627).
In Cornell West's piece, the more interesting of the two I felt, he analyzes the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots or Rodney King riots which if he called them Rodney King riots, I would not have felt so stupid not knowing what he was referencing until after I looked them up. Californians were angry, and rightfully so, over how LAPD officers beat Rodney King and the riots began the day of the verdict causing the National Guard (shown below in LA) to be called in.

West illustrates that the solution is not as simple as "reliev[ing] guilty consciences by supporting public funds directed at 'the problems'" (627) but that there is a problem bigger than simply black people. Seeing black people, or any non-white faction in America, as something that needs to be adapted or morphed to fit into a certain social construct is fundamentally wrong and doesn't put "white anxieties and fears at the center of discussion" (628). Many don't view black people as people but black people which is a huge flaw in the framework of our society. West's plans for the future of America demonstrate a fundamental realization that people are people and regardless of race, there will be problems amongst people but they should be addressed as people problems not black people problems. Hook echoes this in the piece about the "other" and how many view the "other" as something simply different whereas those thoughts are what cause the problems.
Both theorists argue for a change in framework as seeing differences appear to be a bigger problem than seeing sameness.

Pre Class

In the reading on West and Inigarary it focused on the ideas of race in society. It mentioned the problems and how we view blacks as" problem people." The conservative ideas of our nation is that we need to dive deep into the poor parts of the nation, where unfortunately there are high numbers of African Americans who live in poverty. I watch a National Geographic episode on the Drug Problems in North Philadelphia. As a child, i was told by my parents to stay away. It was a place of abandoned houses, and mostly african american families who lost everything. Philadelphia was known to be a city filled with big factories, and as the factories shut down, the lower class was left to go nowhere, and they ended up in places like Kensington, there is some of the highest amounts of Drugs, as they are sold on every corner. This is what they do to survive, and it is because society has placed them and offered them no other alternative. When there were factories the lower class was given a place to work, now they are depended on the illicit activities to survive. We need to create a new strucure of society, to allow everyone to gain wealth, to at least survive on, without having to do things such as the Drug game to risk their life and families. The reading talked about how liberals believe that we need to look at the poor and make them fit in to society, and "act and dress" like the middle class and up. We need to understand the flaws that our society provides, rather than look at the black people and blame them. It is wrong to do that. They are just caught in the flawed system of the United States. It gives them and the poor class nowhere to gain, nothing to reach or achieve, so they are merely forced into the negative aspects that society offers, such as Drugs and violence. We talked about "sketchy people" last class, and we all thought about how much safer we felt when there was authority nearby. I think most of Rollins College can say that they were raised relatively sheltered in a Suburban neighborhood, and for us it is only scary because it is what we are not used to. When i travel from the Burbs to the City of Philly, i at times do feel uncomfortable, because i am not used to seeing homeless people, and such a vast array of people. It in reality is something that grows on you. My father and many others alike work in the city and live in the suburbs, and they understand the different parts of the city that are completely safe, even without seeing authority, and by just restricting ourself to those areas, we can feel comfortable, but if i was to travel to Kensington in North Philadelphia, i would be scared to death, just from the news and myself feeling like a minority in the heavily black location. My family friends own a factory in Kensington, and they employ all local workers, and they say that they are all very nice people. It is this negative viewpoint that we have on people before we meet them, and it causing there to be many problems in the country. This is not to say that everyone in the area is friendly, but i believe that they are pleased to have a stable job in a area where there is less amounts of steady work. There are 20,000 abandoned homes in Philly, and unfortunately, they house many homeless who live in poor conditions.

lacansmirror, Foucault

After discussing the Panopticon, I thought about other ways we are being watched.  Online, tools like Google Street View allow us to visually see roads and buildings to better understand directions.  In order for Google to collect these images, they have street view cars that drive around snapping photos in all directions.  I have been photographed by Google when walking out of Publix and walking down a street in Chicago.  Even though this tool is helpful for directions, isn't it intrusive to our privacy?  They blurred out faces, but the pictures are all taken without consent.  Even though it is legal for them to do this, why isn't there more controversy.  There is a lot of news and disagreement from the public about the NSA spying on us, but do people overlook the fact that Google is too?

If I walked down park ave with my camera and started taking pictures of people without their permission, I believe I would be told to stop, or people would cover their face.  However, with Google, people seem to overlook that problem and just focus on the benefits of the tool.  In addition, if I walked down the street taking pictures of people wearing a shirt that says NSA, I can guarantee most people would get upset.  Even though companies like Google are fighting against the NSA to provide privacy for the public, there seems to be hypocrisy with their services and the actions necessary for establishing those services.

AsToldByGinger, Foucault

In both of Michel Foucault's readings he discusses the notion of power. In the first reading, as related to disciplinary government actions, as well as in his second the notion of sex and power and their origins. The first reading gives a detailed description of what would happen to a plague stricken town sometime near the end of the seventeenth century, and the way in which the government would react and take strict control of the people and their livelihood in the name of the "common good." Foucault states "the plague-stricken town, traversed throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in a distinct way over all individual bodies - this is the utopia of the perfectly governed city" (96). Foucault then compares this mobilization of power to designs created by Jeremy Bentham in his Panopticon writings that redefines power in incarceration - of criminals, mad men, etc. It is designed so that the captive "is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication" (98). I thought this was particularly interesting because he stresses the importance of visibility and the way people act differently because of it, just how I believe Baudrillard said that nothing is actual reality that we see because the camera immediately changes the actions of people; as soon as those know they are being watched - they act differently.

Foucault then addresses how sexuality came to be constituted in scientific terms, and lays out five different steps that led to the evolvement of sexuality, and the power that was associated with the subject's taboo. At the end of his work he states "as far as sexuality is concerned, we shall attempt to constitute the 'political economy' of a will to knowledge" (107). I would like to discuss this quote more in class and come to a deeper understanding of what his overarching point is in the second reading.

27Percent, Foucault

In Michel Foucault’s piece, “The History of Sexuality” he is talking about the power that sex and sexuality play in our culture (though the piece was written in 1978).  Specifically, he is getting at the notion of the secretness that our culture has put on sex, and how that urges the study, question and great suspicion of sex—thus giving the object power over us.

            Foucault states about the hush-hush of sex through our history that, “Thus sex gradually became an object of great suspicion; the general and disquieting meaning that pervades our conduct and our existence, in spite of ourselves; the point of weakness where evil portents reach through to us; the fragment of darkness that we each carry within us: a general signification, a universal secret, an omnipresent cause, a fear that never ends” (Foucault, 105). The nineteenth century society began to acknowledge sex to reveal its secrets and truths. Sex then acquired power (like capitalist power) to the point that the secretness is what intrigued people to partake and discover what it is all about. Foucault then begins to talk about how finding the truth in sex is pleasure in itself. “Pleasure in the truth of pleasure—of discovering and exposing it, the fascination of seeing it and telling it, of captivating and capturing others by it, of confiding it in secret, of luring it out in the open – the specific pleasure of the true discourse on pleasure” (Foucault, 105-106). This reminds me of Barthes and the pleasure of the text because once you make connections to something and give it your own meaning and understanding, there are no longer any secrets, only things to talk about. It is the pleasure of knowing the underlying truth of sex that also contributes to its power.