For me, democracy implies a governing system which is representative of the people which assumes equal representation from all over the demographic spectrum. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen and political power finds itself coupled with money and restricted by institutionalized modes of government. A true democracy considers the best options for a community based on the demands of those existing within that particular area. Ideally, democracy should allocate most of the decision making power to individuals within a community but this requires much more individual participation that we experience in this country.
Public relations has the potential to inform citizens so that political and community decisions can be made with careful attention to implications of an action, alternative modes of accomplishing a goal and to understand the flow of money and information related to this goal/action. However, public relations is a corporately owned industry so it goes without saying that much of the information the general public receives is not motivated in their interest. In a democracy, public opinion is the most important factor in determining who and which issues get voted on.
Concerned citizens would do well to organize or become affiliated with grass roots organizations which employ direct action as well as a re-education of the public. Creating movement among fellow citizens is the best way to get change to occur within the political system. There must be a push for every citizen to want their opinions heard both by fellow citizens and political representatives. Without such a movement, corporate interest will continue to rule legislation and our lives. Citizens must also work with the capitalist system and reclaim competition among smaller businesses that reflect the ideals of the people.
The only thing we can do as individual citizens is keep the hope that this huge shift in power will occur. It is a monumental change in money flow and political sway but it must occur is American society is to remain authentic to its constitution. As a citizen, consumer, prospective educator and future citizen of this country, it is my duty to motivate my peers and keep myself as informed on the inner-workings of the PR industry.
I spent my thirty minutes outside in the garden, slaving over sections of crab grass to save the garlic! My company consisted of a few songbirds who flit around collecting friends and eating dried berries of last summer season. My only distraction was the symphone of activity in the soil- grubs, worms, pill bugs, sow bugs, spiders, ants, the occasional stray jerusalem artichoke, dandelion greens, crab grass and microbes upon microbes that cant help but escape my vision. In such solitude, it is easy for one to recognize the inherent beauty in the earth, all its constituents and myself as one of them.
When the only information input is that which makes no sound, flashes no lights and eats from the soil, one becomes so attuned to the simultaneous simplicity and complexity of natural systems. I tend to think of information overload when I consider television, internet and other such forms of technology, but I had a wonderful realization that even a square patch of garden contains more information than I could hope to consider. The difference is that this sort of information isn’t explicitly stated in plain english, there is no built in cross reference. Intuition, intellect and other sorts of cognitive processing are the only technology available in this sort of seclusion. I never fail to be shocked by my own capacity and how much more personal and telling it can be that the mess of media that keeps such instincts quiet.
I spend another thirty minutes watching a romantic French film. I was surprised by how different the film was from many American films I have seen; very little (if any) product placement, a diverse concept of beauty and barely any reference to consumerism. Nonetheless, there was a huge difference between this experience and my time in the garden. I found it more difficult to pay attention to how comfortable my body was, my posture and even the depth of my breath. My mind was active, yet the nature of each thought was a result of something portrayed in the film. The sort of thoughts entertained throughout the film were much less primitive and personal that those before and led me often to analyze details and frivolities of interpersonal relationships. I expect this experience would have been much different had I watched a true television program complete with commercials and prescribed opinions on such things as beauty, “coolness”, success and citizenship.
Our PSA group is doing just great! While our idea is not quite solidified, ideas continue to flow as we gather information, film and discuss our collective vision. It seems our biggest obstacle is to consider the scope of our message; do we focus on the individual, the UVM community or the greater Burlington community. I’m not too concerned about this falling into place as we progress.
We got together and filmed a segment already but still have two segments to go. Specific goals for class will include finding specific information to use and honing our storyboard.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Culture Jam
“Psycho-rage” and “postmodern cynicism” are modern concepts that reveal so much about our current societal health. Feelings of hopelessness, despair, confusion, anger, skepticism and outrage overwhelm and paralyze many of those who’ve become aware of the “carnival of corporate America.” Not only does this most likely relate to the chronic stress which fuels so many of the common health conditions in this country, it presents a huge obstacle for change. After all, how can things get done if people won’t get off their couches?
People must recognize and channel their rage in a healthy, productive, socially responsible ways. Lasn presents the idea of creating a new vision of self-reliance in which citizens stand up for themselves in the face of corporate schemes, even in the smallest of ways. Creating choices for ourselves, such as where our money will be housed, what we eat, what sorts of products we buy and even deciding what products we actually need are possible first steps. For me, framing such acts as self-reliant hilights why so many people do not view corporate happenings in the way this class idealizes. We aren’t self-reliant... it’s just simpler to let someone else tell us what we need, why we need it and where we can get it in the cheapest way! How does the image of the self-reliant, media-conscious American find its way into the mainstream?
Surely, consumption must be “uncooled.” Simplifying our lives, downshifting, making quiet time to reflect on our choices, our schedules, our society and our realities is surely necessary. The key here is to get what we need from these quieter times and get ourselves back in motion, and this time in a more productive and socially responsible direction.
The “Media Carta” reform must happen. The voice of the media must reflect the opinions of diverse crowds of Americans and their dissatisfaction with the current function of the system. Surely, if all these opinions were broadcast we would think more about the way our food system, school system, government, etc work... we’d realize that more often than not we are being wronged.
I believe that social networking is the way to get these messages heard and to inspire the rebellion. The fire has to be lit throughout all demographics so that when change does become a reality, we are all a part of it and the solutions are sustainable.
I’m reminded of a heartening and inspiring parade/demonstration I attended once, and the lines that continue to echo through me and raise goosebumps: “Ain’t no power like the power of people, cause the power of people don’t stop.”
People must recognize and channel their rage in a healthy, productive, socially responsible ways. Lasn presents the idea of creating a new vision of self-reliance in which citizens stand up for themselves in the face of corporate schemes, even in the smallest of ways. Creating choices for ourselves, such as where our money will be housed, what we eat, what sorts of products we buy and even deciding what products we actually need are possible first steps. For me, framing such acts as self-reliant hilights why so many people do not view corporate happenings in the way this class idealizes. We aren’t self-reliant... it’s just simpler to let someone else tell us what we need, why we need it and where we can get it in the cheapest way! How does the image of the self-reliant, media-conscious American find its way into the mainstream?
Surely, consumption must be “uncooled.” Simplifying our lives, downshifting, making quiet time to reflect on our choices, our schedules, our society and our realities is surely necessary. The key here is to get what we need from these quieter times and get ourselves back in motion, and this time in a more productive and socially responsible direction.
The “Media Carta” reform must happen. The voice of the media must reflect the opinions of diverse crowds of Americans and their dissatisfaction with the current function of the system. Surely, if all these opinions were broadcast we would think more about the way our food system, school system, government, etc work... we’d realize that more often than not we are being wronged.
I believe that social networking is the way to get these messages heard and to inspire the rebellion. The fire has to be lit throughout all demographics so that when change does become a reality, we are all a part of it and the solutions are sustainable.
I’m reminded of a heartening and inspiring parade/demonstration I attended once, and the lines that continue to echo through me and raise goosebumps: “Ain’t no power like the power of people, cause the power of people don’t stop.”
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Corporation
It is arguably insane that this country awards citizenship to corporations. You’d think those in our government and court system would be intelligent enough to realize that the 14th Amendment was intended for human beings, not business interests.
I am further dis-heartened by the sort of person these corporations are. Inconsiderate of others, content with doing harm and all sorts of other psychopathic traits. Who would want to live next to these guys!? And don’t we have laws that protect and alert us to (real) people that fit these same descriptions?
I liked the metaphor which equated maintaining civilization with trying to fly. It is extremely difficult and all-defying thing to do, but it is possible! Humanity is characterized by instances like these where the sheer will and determination of people seems to trump all.
How can AOL own Happy Birthday!? When trademarks of American culture are owned by corporations, or citizens rather, then what sort of country do we live in? A place where our most cherished traditions are owned by our absurdly wealthy countrymen who exploit and deceive us.
I was excited to hear the mention of Paul Hawken. My senior year of high school I read his book Blessed Unrest, which was a checkpoint in my awakening to the world’s problems. Imagine if there were more forums for books such as these and opportunity for conversation. Yes, these authors tour and speak but this often costs money and many cannot afford the entry fee let alone the travel expense. How can we make these sorts of gatherings available to a variety of different people.
I am further dis-heartened by the sort of person these corporations are. Inconsiderate of others, content with doing harm and all sorts of other psychopathic traits. Who would want to live next to these guys!? And don’t we have laws that protect and alert us to (real) people that fit these same descriptions?
I liked the metaphor which equated maintaining civilization with trying to fly. It is extremely difficult and all-defying thing to do, but it is possible! Humanity is characterized by instances like these where the sheer will and determination of people seems to trump all.
How can AOL own Happy Birthday!? When trademarks of American culture are owned by corporations, or citizens rather, then what sort of country do we live in? A place where our most cherished traditions are owned by our absurdly wealthy countrymen who exploit and deceive us.
I was excited to hear the mention of Paul Hawken. My senior year of high school I read his book Blessed Unrest, which was a checkpoint in my awakening to the world’s problems. Imagine if there were more forums for books such as these and opportunity for conversation. Yes, these authors tour and speak but this often costs money and many cannot afford the entry fee let alone the travel expense. How can we make these sorts of gatherings available to a variety of different people.
Culture Jam
My interests have never leant toward economics and management of money. The reality is that this sector of human development is inherently critical to attaining a state of societal well-being that is capable of lasting. Expansionist, or neoclassical, approaches to economics only fuel the current vision of prosperity, success and growth. These economists argue that there is no cap on what we can consume, extract, market, etc. Enough people realize the flaw in this to support the opposition: ecological economics. According to this paradigm our future is just as dim. Ecological economists claim that we have reached the limits of what the earth can provide and we are heading towards the “age of despair”. Surely a model must exist which allows for careful and controlled human expansion, preservation of our remaining earth and a sustainable future. It is easy to imagine that this model would require a redistribution of wealth that would leave North Americans devoid of their creature comforts and stuck with a standard of living much lower than many never expect to experience. It seems that we are faced with the choice of sacrifice or ignorance.
I greatly enjoyed learning of the Situationists, an international group of revolutionaries who believed that living fully meant “a life of permanent novelty.” They value impassioned moments, spontaneity, free will and acting on primal urges. There philosophy believes that this world is crushed by all the wasted potential. I believe this. If you watched a high percentage of students at UVM, which is loaded with potential energy and resources, most would be doing close to nothing. So much of our youthful energy and rebellious instincts have been squished by all the “stuff” we own, television shows we watch, media we ingest and loads of excess constraints. It is difficult to imagine what would emerge if each student in this University lived to his/her full creative and spontaneous potential. In a way it is almost painful as this seems so far from the reality we inhabit.
Why then don’t we just do it!? This is the question I often ask myself and oftentimes I find myself truly acting on my intuiting and living in my spontaneous form. Lasn introduces the idea of “breaking the syntax”, or discovering a new way of seeing the world. Our language is confining and barely allows for expression of the sentiments related to the necessary paradigm shifts. How then do we overcome this seemingly impassable barrier? Do we try and force our words around intuitive concepts and hopefully strike a chord with the masses or do we investigate other was of communicating which may prove more appropriate.
Lasn has provided us with a positive note amongst all this chaos and detachment; culture jammers are the underdog and thus in a prime position to take risks. The key is to actually take those risks. As Edward Abbey said, “sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.”
I greatly enjoyed learning of the Situationists, an international group of revolutionaries who believed that living fully meant “a life of permanent novelty.” They value impassioned moments, spontaneity, free will and acting on primal urges. There philosophy believes that this world is crushed by all the wasted potential. I believe this. If you watched a high percentage of students at UVM, which is loaded with potential energy and resources, most would be doing close to nothing. So much of our youthful energy and rebellious instincts have been squished by all the “stuff” we own, television shows we watch, media we ingest and loads of excess constraints. It is difficult to imagine what would emerge if each student in this University lived to his/her full creative and spontaneous potential. In a way it is almost painful as this seems so far from the reality we inhabit.
Why then don’t we just do it!? This is the question I often ask myself and oftentimes I find myself truly acting on my intuiting and living in my spontaneous form. Lasn introduces the idea of “breaking the syntax”, or discovering a new way of seeing the world. Our language is confining and barely allows for expression of the sentiments related to the necessary paradigm shifts. How then do we overcome this seemingly impassable barrier? Do we try and force our words around intuitive concepts and hopefully strike a chord with the masses or do we investigate other was of communicating which may prove more appropriate.
Lasn has provided us with a positive note amongst all this chaos and detachment; culture jammers are the underdog and thus in a prime position to take risks. The key is to actually take those risks. As Edward Abbey said, “sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.”
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Culture Jam
I was immediately grabbed by Lasn’s description of the disillusionment and contradictory passion that plagues this generation of activists. Surely feminism, environmentalism and even concepts such as social justice have been used to such excess that they carry little weight anymore. I agree that a realization of the true American consumer driven culture, and proliferation of this awareness, is the task at hand for people who wish to fight the good fight.
The scariest and most motivating aspect of media culture is how unethically invasive it is. The book referred to the mass media as the “largest psychological experiment ever undertaken by mankind” and the results are startling. The paradoxical disease of plentitude, which robs citizens of that hard-earned, self-motivated deeply personal reward, has led to startling statistics of psychological illness in this country. Seventy percent of adults experiences some sort of psychological dysfunction. Compare this with developing countries who are constantly failing to provide safe drinking water, food and a safe life to their citizens and our sources of “pain” seem quite insignificant.
I’m nauseated by the way the media blunts our capacity for empathy and makes social issues, such as objectification and sexualization of women and violence, trivial or commonplace. Our perceptions of the world are corporately controlled and even once we recognize this cloudy lens we are force fed, it is a continual emotional struggle to live on the fringe.
Lasn introduced a concept that truly shook up my personal paradigm: the death of the American dream. We are no longer free individuals who can expect reward for dedicated hard work and fair treatment from the government. It all began to slide down the tubes once private corporations were elevated to the status of “natural citizens” and awarded the same constitutional rights as you and our neighbor. Corporations become a new sort of citizen that has excessive wealth and resources, which by this countries standards, means the can manipulate power and essentially the shape values and functioning of our government.
My hope is that since Lasn has put forth the issues so eloquently and comprehensibly, he will provide inspiration and fuel the activists fire with ways we can muster ourselves against these absurdities.
The scariest and most motivating aspect of media culture is how unethically invasive it is. The book referred to the mass media as the “largest psychological experiment ever undertaken by mankind” and the results are startling. The paradoxical disease of plentitude, which robs citizens of that hard-earned, self-motivated deeply personal reward, has led to startling statistics of psychological illness in this country. Seventy percent of adults experiences some sort of psychological dysfunction. Compare this with developing countries who are constantly failing to provide safe drinking water, food and a safe life to their citizens and our sources of “pain” seem quite insignificant.
I’m nauseated by the way the media blunts our capacity for empathy and makes social issues, such as objectification and sexualization of women and violence, trivial or commonplace. Our perceptions of the world are corporately controlled and even once we recognize this cloudy lens we are force fed, it is a continual emotional struggle to live on the fringe.
Lasn introduced a concept that truly shook up my personal paradigm: the death of the American dream. We are no longer free individuals who can expect reward for dedicated hard work and fair treatment from the government. It all began to slide down the tubes once private corporations were elevated to the status of “natural citizens” and awarded the same constitutional rights as you and our neighbor. Corporations become a new sort of citizen that has excessive wealth and resources, which by this countries standards, means the can manipulate power and essentially the shape values and functioning of our government.
My hope is that since Lasn has put forth the issues so eloquently and comprehensibly, he will provide inspiration and fuel the activists fire with ways we can muster ourselves against these absurdities.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Killing Us Softly 3
After watching the third version of Killing Us Softly, my disdain for any entity that objectifies and disrespects women only grew. However much the most empowered women claim to rise above the negative imagery this culture constantly hurls at them, I still believe every woman is affected. Its surprising to me that they aren’t any laws or regulations in place to bring the era of hyper-sexualization and objectification to its end.
I also feel that the talk could have been more effective had she touched more on the harming effects toward men. While Kilbourne mentioned that men are treated similarly, the talk quickly resolved that women have it much, much worse. I think if she had given issue the same amount of potency, in defense of men, there would be a much wider crowd against these advertising agencies and the possibility of movement more possible.
There were so many specific instances in the film where the information was just so spot on to the reality we inhabit. I think one of the most important ideas was that the women’s body type we see on the television is a genetic inheritance to less than 10% of the population. As this body type is all we see, it is no wonder that 1 in 5 girls and women have an eating disorder and surely 4 out 5 women and girls are particularly careful with their diet for the sake of looks. Over-sexualization of advertising is so unhealthy for our cultural beliefs regarding individual sexuality and relationships. As mentioned in the film, relationships are rarely emphasized and when there is often an image of violence. Women are often portrayed as vulnerable, submissive and seductive, a deadly combination.
What struck me the most was how gender stereotypes are marketed to children at an extremely young age. Aggressive, dominating males and passive, beautiful females clutter toy packaging, commercials and children’s clothing magazines. Not is this extremely effective in enforcing these archetypal images of man and woman but includes the idea of sex as well. The narrow and insensitive image is rarely accepting of same-sex or ethnic couples.
Kilbourne used a number of rhetorical and persuasive techniques in her talk. She certainly appealed to the plain folks in the audience by distinguishing them from the women on the screen. Repetition of the words like “trivialization”, “sexualization” and “objectification” made them further resonate and strengthened the argument. Kilbourne’s biggest accomplishment was to set the audience against the advertising industry and, in turn, empower them.
I also feel that the talk could have been more effective had she touched more on the harming effects toward men. While Kilbourne mentioned that men are treated similarly, the talk quickly resolved that women have it much, much worse. I think if she had given issue the same amount of potency, in defense of men, there would be a much wider crowd against these advertising agencies and the possibility of movement more possible.
There were so many specific instances in the film where the information was just so spot on to the reality we inhabit. I think one of the most important ideas was that the women’s body type we see on the television is a genetic inheritance to less than 10% of the population. As this body type is all we see, it is no wonder that 1 in 5 girls and women have an eating disorder and surely 4 out 5 women and girls are particularly careful with their diet for the sake of looks. Over-sexualization of advertising is so unhealthy for our cultural beliefs regarding individual sexuality and relationships. As mentioned in the film, relationships are rarely emphasized and when there is often an image of violence. Women are often portrayed as vulnerable, submissive and seductive, a deadly combination.
What struck me the most was how gender stereotypes are marketed to children at an extremely young age. Aggressive, dominating males and passive, beautiful females clutter toy packaging, commercials and children’s clothing magazines. Not is this extremely effective in enforcing these archetypal images of man and woman but includes the idea of sex as well. The narrow and insensitive image is rarely accepting of same-sex or ethnic couples.
Kilbourne used a number of rhetorical and persuasive techniques in her talk. She certainly appealed to the plain folks in the audience by distinguishing them from the women on the screen. Repetition of the words like “trivialization”, “sexualization” and “objectification” made them further resonate and strengthened the argument. Kilbourne’s biggest accomplishment was to set the audience against the advertising industry and, in turn, empower them.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Hodgkinson’s thesis: Facebook is sly function of corporations which exploits pre-existing friendships for capitalist gain and should be boycotted.
Agree: Facebook certainly plays into each individuals tendency towards vanity and need to feel important. Many perceive social competition as an important aspect of their lives and Facebook caters to these populations by providing the perfect resource. While users are distracted by news feeds, comments, messages, new photos and wall posts they are being snagged on a subconscious level. The information provided by each individual and created through cyber interaction is collected so custom advertisements can be displayed; surely, this greatly increases the probability for excess consumption. I feel that Hodgkinson depicts this relationship well and treats it with the severity it deserves.
Disagree: Hodgkinson’s highly opinionated piece assumes that any connection between online social networking and capitalist inner workings is a negative thing. However, as citizens of a capitalist country and citizens of the online world, we must shy away from negative responses and channel our disapproval toward positive change. Capitalism is highly dependent on the desires and demands of the consumers so why not use the current system to instigate some fundamental changes? I don’t think complete rejection is the answer. We should first explore and consider how we can use Facebook to our advantage and demand that it evolve to promote a more desirable capitalist society. Of course, this is an extremely vague and idealistic approach. Grassroots organization and widespread, critical conversations must take place to determine what future is both desirable and realistic.
Agree: Facebook certainly plays into each individuals tendency towards vanity and need to feel important. Many perceive social competition as an important aspect of their lives and Facebook caters to these populations by providing the perfect resource. While users are distracted by news feeds, comments, messages, new photos and wall posts they are being snagged on a subconscious level. The information provided by each individual and created through cyber interaction is collected so custom advertisements can be displayed; surely, this greatly increases the probability for excess consumption. I feel that Hodgkinson depicts this relationship well and treats it with the severity it deserves.
Disagree: Hodgkinson’s highly opinionated piece assumes that any connection between online social networking and capitalist inner workings is a negative thing. However, as citizens of a capitalist country and citizens of the online world, we must shy away from negative responses and channel our disapproval toward positive change. Capitalism is highly dependent on the desires and demands of the consumers so why not use the current system to instigate some fundamental changes? I don’t think complete rejection is the answer. We should first explore and consider how we can use Facebook to our advantage and demand that it evolve to promote a more desirable capitalist society. Of course, this is an extremely vague and idealistic approach. Grassroots organization and widespread, critical conversations must take place to determine what future is both desirable and realistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)