I already said this in class, but I feel the need to put it down in my blog as well. Besides, everyone wasn't there to hear me say it the first time.
It's been my experience that one of the qualms black people have with the interest white people have in "our" culture is simply a question of sincerity.
Take, for example, the movie "Step Up 2: The Streets." None of the main characters in the movie were black even though it was a movie about hip-hop dancing. As well, even the few characters in the movie who WERE black were as close to villians as this type of movie would allow. They beat up the white kids. They ostracized the white kids. It really made you feel bad that the white kids weren't welcomed into this culture that they seemingly had no reason to be interested in. They attended a prestigious dance academy. They were pretty much guaranteed college scholarships and professional advancement based on their education and dance background, yet their main focus was on being accepted into a subset of a culture that had NOTHING better to look forward to other than competing in this unsanctioned, traditional competition that had no prize other than respect in their communities. And the rich white kids from the beautiful suburban school wouldn't rest until they won. The movie was supposed to be about overcoming adversity. Like the white kids were just being eaten away inside because they were being denied access to something that WASN'T SET UP FOR THEM IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE!
I think THIS is the mentality that bell hooks opposes. Putting the effort under a scholastic umbrella doesn't then give white people free reign over dominating a topic. White people DON'T have a right to conquer EVERYTHING just because they can or just because they want to. Why do you even want to when we can very well handle it ourselves (if given an opportunity to do so)?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
bell hooks' Culture to Culture
“The Danger of Falsely Assuming Familiarity”
hooks uses an analogy of a puppy passed on to her by her grandmother. If you let a dog get close enough, in its eagerness to be close to you, it will lick you in the face. This, to hooks, symbolizes multiple levels for the need for distance. Reading on you will see that, essentially, she is comparing people to dogs. And, not just “people,” but white people. So, what’s her purpose for this analogy? On one hand, if you get too close, the dog will take your closeness as a sign of comfort, openness, and familiarity, which is good on a humanistic level. On the other hand, if you, as a person of color, allow white people to assume this level of intimacy, you have forfeited your own right to personal space. The sanctity of your person is now sullied.
Why have a statement like this at the beginning of her article? Because it effectively encompasses the main point hooks is making: just because you feel you’re in a position to take a liberty (“dogs/white people” in relation to the invasion of personal space) doesn’t mean that your target intended to relinquish such control to you.
This will make more sense later.
After this analogy, hooks goes on to describe her grandmother’s relationship with the white women who attempted to befriend her. hooks’ grandmother felt it was important to keep things in context. Although the white women in her life wanted to be her friend, she remembered that they were still capable of causing her great harm. She always knew to “keep a distance.”
Relating this back to the study of rhetoric, hooks finally begins her critique of the state of cultural studies. Her intent here is to bring to light the trend of white scholars taking it upon themselves to speak on behalf of “colored people.” She disproves of the “position of familiarity” she feels white scholars have adopted as they foray more willingly into ethnography and cultural studies. Her position is that people of color should be allowed to tell their own stories in their own way. It is counter-productive to have white people (with their cloak of supremacy) re-inscribing racial domination by maintaining their limiting standards of western intellectual tradition over the study of other cultures.
Ultimately, I feel that hooks’ is saying that white people can’t speak for people of color. She appears to be saying that things aren’t necessarily changing in academia just because black topics are now being considered. I think she feels that black topics need to be considered by BLACK people. In short, white people still insist on being the “teacher” even though they can’t possibly be authorities on a topic they can never fully understand.
“Academic Legitimacy”
The popularity of cultural studies has opened the door for intellectuals to discuss ethnic and feminist topics. However, hooks argues that Black Studies and women’s studies are more than adequate by themselves for providing a discourse for these complex topics. She argues that integrating then under the umbrella of “cultural studies” diminishes the authority of the black and the female scholars who are the real experts in these fields and re being disregarded by the acceptably traditional (white male) authorities.
“Who is the Audience for this Book?”
When anticipating an audience for your discourse, hooks thinks it’s important to evaluate/reevaluate, consider, and honestly ask yourself, “who am I talking to?” we’re not supposed to stay holed up in the “white tower,” but many writers of cultural studies act like their intended audience is only other intellectuals. This is an ideology that promotes a “falsified structure of domination.” Are you (the dominating culture) actually trying to LEARN about the things you once ignored, or are you just trying to come up with something “new” to talk about? It’s not fair to use the minds, work, and works of blacks and women to create your theories while maintaining that THEIR OWN presentation of the same material is inadequate, inappropriate and/or improper. It makes your “studies” all the more insincere and it alienates the very people you supposedly to have an “interest” in.
Here’s a link to an interview with bell hooks where she discuses many contemporary topics in cultural studies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLM0TAVR8sU
(Interview with Charlie Rose)
hooks uses an analogy of a puppy passed on to her by her grandmother. If you let a dog get close enough, in its eagerness to be close to you, it will lick you in the face. This, to hooks, symbolizes multiple levels for the need for distance. Reading on you will see that, essentially, she is comparing people to dogs. And, not just “people,” but white people. So, what’s her purpose for this analogy? On one hand, if you get too close, the dog will take your closeness as a sign of comfort, openness, and familiarity, which is good on a humanistic level. On the other hand, if you, as a person of color, allow white people to assume this level of intimacy, you have forfeited your own right to personal space. The sanctity of your person is now sullied.
Why have a statement like this at the beginning of her article? Because it effectively encompasses the main point hooks is making: just because you feel you’re in a position to take a liberty (“dogs/white people” in relation to the invasion of personal space) doesn’t mean that your target intended to relinquish such control to you.
This will make more sense later.
After this analogy, hooks goes on to describe her grandmother’s relationship with the white women who attempted to befriend her. hooks’ grandmother felt it was important to keep things in context. Although the white women in her life wanted to be her friend, she remembered that they were still capable of causing her great harm. She always knew to “keep a distance.”
Relating this back to the study of rhetoric, hooks finally begins her critique of the state of cultural studies. Her intent here is to bring to light the trend of white scholars taking it upon themselves to speak on behalf of “colored people.” She disproves of the “position of familiarity” she feels white scholars have adopted as they foray more willingly into ethnography and cultural studies. Her position is that people of color should be allowed to tell their own stories in their own way. It is counter-productive to have white people (with their cloak of supremacy) re-inscribing racial domination by maintaining their limiting standards of western intellectual tradition over the study of other cultures.
Ultimately, I feel that hooks’ is saying that white people can’t speak for people of color. She appears to be saying that things aren’t necessarily changing in academia just because black topics are now being considered. I think she feels that black topics need to be considered by BLACK people. In short, white people still insist on being the “teacher” even though they can’t possibly be authorities on a topic they can never fully understand.
“Academic Legitimacy”
The popularity of cultural studies has opened the door for intellectuals to discuss ethnic and feminist topics. However, hooks argues that Black Studies and women’s studies are more than adequate by themselves for providing a discourse for these complex topics. She argues that integrating then under the umbrella of “cultural studies” diminishes the authority of the black and the female scholars who are the real experts in these fields and re being disregarded by the acceptably traditional (white male) authorities.
“Who is the Audience for this Book?”
When anticipating an audience for your discourse, hooks thinks it’s important to evaluate/reevaluate, consider, and honestly ask yourself, “who am I talking to?” we’re not supposed to stay holed up in the “white tower,” but many writers of cultural studies act like their intended audience is only other intellectuals. This is an ideology that promotes a “falsified structure of domination.” Are you (the dominating culture) actually trying to LEARN about the things you once ignored, or are you just trying to come up with something “new” to talk about? It’s not fair to use the minds, work, and works of blacks and women to create your theories while maintaining that THEIR OWN presentation of the same material is inadequate, inappropriate and/or improper. It makes your “studies” all the more insincere and it alienates the very people you supposedly to have an “interest” in.
Here’s a link to an interview with bell hooks where she discuses many contemporary topics in cultural studies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLM0TAVR8sU
(Interview with Charlie Rose)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Being an Informed Citizen
The middle section of Chapter 6 involves the concept of the “informed” citizen and the corresponding technology that allows us to BE informed.
The main controversy presented in the text is the question of whether or not the availability of new technologies that bring more information into our lives is designed to replace, supplement, or criticize traditional forms of information acquisition—particularly in regards to politics—and if these new technologies are validly contributory forms of political expression. In other words, have political spoofs such as Saturday Night Live become more informative than the nightly news, do shows like The Daily Show point out the flaws in how politics are presented (one-sided campaign commercials—Pinnacle provides their high rollers with prostitutes… implying that Tropicana would never do such a thing; and trivialized support tactics—The Governator endorses John McCain), and do photoshopped images of presidential candidates partying with dictators hold the same credence of old-fashioned political cartoons?
Another point raised in the chapter was whether or not the abundance of new information MAKES us more informed or if it is simply more information to be had, period. Are we actually taking advantage of our new resources? Or, are we actually getting overwhelmed by them? As an extention of popular culture (which solely strives to entertain), should we really be looking to these resources for the information that will shape our opinions, or should we just remain yet another thing that amuses us?
Like Jon Stewart said, Crossfire is “on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls” (Jenkins, 227). There does seem to be a lack of credibility, don’t you think?
The main controversy presented in the text is the question of whether or not the availability of new technologies that bring more information into our lives is designed to replace, supplement, or criticize traditional forms of information acquisition—particularly in regards to politics—and if these new technologies are validly contributory forms of political expression. In other words, have political spoofs such as Saturday Night Live become more informative than the nightly news, do shows like The Daily Show point out the flaws in how politics are presented (one-sided campaign commercials—Pinnacle provides their high rollers with prostitutes… implying that Tropicana would never do such a thing; and trivialized support tactics—The Governator endorses John McCain), and do photoshopped images of presidential candidates partying with dictators hold the same credence of old-fashioned political cartoons?
Another point raised in the chapter was whether or not the abundance of new information MAKES us more informed or if it is simply more information to be had, period. Are we actually taking advantage of our new resources? Or, are we actually getting overwhelmed by them? As an extention of popular culture (which solely strives to entertain), should we really be looking to these resources for the information that will shape our opinions, or should we just remain yet another thing that amuses us?
Like Jon Stewart said, Crossfire is “on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls” (Jenkins, 227). There does seem to be a lack of credibility, don’t you think?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Justifying Such Large-Scale Efforts
“We might also describe it as a cultural activator, setting into motion their decipherment, speculation and elaboration. The challenge, he says, is to create works with enough depth that they can justify such large-scale efforts” (Jenkins, 95).
By saying this, it sounds as if Jenkins is promoting spoiler communities. It’s as if the goal is to create these communities for the purpose of expanding the potential possibilities for the show/movie. At least within this realm of consideration there is also a standard of merit to be upheld. The theory is to keep some kind of focus on the show by any means necessary, and as long as the show/movie is “worth it,” it should never die. At least, not until the general public has had the opportunity to become sick of it.
By saying this, it sounds as if Jenkins is promoting spoiler communities. It’s as if the goal is to create these communities for the purpose of expanding the potential possibilities for the show/movie. At least within this realm of consideration there is also a standard of merit to be upheld. The theory is to keep some kind of focus on the show by any means necessary, and as long as the show/movie is “worth it,” it should never die. At least, not until the general public has had the opportunity to become sick of it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
A Matrix of Consumerism
The idea of the “cultural attractor” is both interesting and sad to me. On one hand, it is the nature of business to be successful on as many fronts as possible. That means writers, producers, creators, promoters, etc want to make money, and in order to do that they have to attract an audience of consumers. I understand and appreciate that just fine, and that’s why I’m not completely opposed to cultural attractors; everyone has to get paid, right? Sure.
On the other hand, what happened to the days when art was art for the sake of beauty? What happened to the days when the primary goal was to express thoughts, feelings, and a burning, passionate desire to show the world something amazing? When did everything get commercialized? Sanctity has been removed from just about all the things that used to be revered by a society. In ancient times, a civilization’s “greatness” was determined by the quality of its art. Now, the greatness of a film is measured by how much it makes at the box office opening weekend. Are movies even art? I think they are. When the effort, vision, direction, etc of the film-making process is taken into account, I don’t think anyone can deny that movies are art. And it’s for this reason that I think the regulations for their appropriation should not be as lax as they are. Then again, who am I to say the arts are being misused? I can always choose not to participate.
On the other hand, what happened to the days when art was art for the sake of beauty? What happened to the days when the primary goal was to express thoughts, feelings, and a burning, passionate desire to show the world something amazing? When did everything get commercialized? Sanctity has been removed from just about all the things that used to be revered by a society. In ancient times, a civilization’s “greatness” was determined by the quality of its art. Now, the greatness of a film is measured by how much it makes at the box office opening weekend. Are movies even art? I think they are. When the effort, vision, direction, etc of the film-making process is taken into account, I don’t think anyone can deny that movies are art. And it’s for this reason that I think the regulations for their appropriation should not be as lax as they are. Then again, who am I to say the arts are being misused? I can always choose not to participate.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Capitalizing on Our Convergence Culture
At some point, our culture has changed to one that thrives on obsession. The general public has a generalized taste in all of its forms of entertainment, and the marketers as well as the media have figured out a way to capitalize on those obsessive generalizations. Our modern convergence culture is the perfect environment for a free enterprise. Chapter 2 of the text, Convergence Culture, breaks down the American Idol phenomenon in its first few pages, pointing out how record ratings and popularity led to an explosion of network marketing opportunities. The initial success of the show led to a tour, DVD’s, chart-topping music singles, and a theater-released motion picture. All of these things were/are designed to thrive on America’s obsession with a reality TV show. It’s an obsession that benefits so many forms of media that people are/started exploring and utilizing technology that they had previously neglected, such as text messaging. The entertainment-starved nature of the American public has created the perfect environment media businesses to substantially profit from the simplest of concepts. Assuming it’s marketed properly. ;-)
The Truth About "Spoilers" (as seen by Monica)
In the example given by the authors of Convergence Culture, “ChillOne” was examined as an example of what’s called a “spoiler.” He had stumbled upon information about who was next to be voted off of the current season of the reality show Survivor. What I find interesting about this is how ChillOne was seen as a hero in his endeavors to a portion of his audience, and as a villain to others. A key aspect to “spoiling” is that it’s a collaborative effort among a community of “spoilers,” yet when one out spoiled the rest, many of his peers viewed him negatively. It’s as if they’re participating in an unsaid competition with one another to gain prominence over each other. I think this may be because although they participate in a group atmosphere in order to be in the action, they actually secretly desire to maintain, manipulate, and captivate their own audience (one another) with their perceived savvy, dedication and ingenuity. Why else would people put forth as much effort as they do to analyze and dissect something as trivial as reality TV if they aren’t secretly jealous the power writers, directors, producers, etc have over the general public with their broadcasts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
