Insert Snappy Title Here:

Dear Self,

So, the world is unfair, but you knew that already. After learning, listening, and observing oppression of all kinds (various kinds anyway) for a semester I do not know exactly how to react. I feel passionate, but I feel very small. I want to speak out, protest, and criticize, but I am not sure how. Maybe, like Andrea Ayvazian and bell hooks, I will have to stay small scale. I know it sounds cheesy but maybe I have to love.

Love will play a significant part in my future role. Love and acceptance open the door for discussion, change, and setting a positive example. I realize how idealistic this sounds, but all I know how to do is live my life, trying to make the little differences I can, staying aware of my role in cycles of oppression, and making a conscious effort to disrupt these cycles.

These seemingly small steps are all that seem practical to me at this point. Anything large scale, for me, is too daunting and soul draining. I appreciate those who are dedicated and organized on large scales, but I do not feel capable of dedicating my life in occupational forms to something like that. I care too much to throw myself into activism in that way. Like changing school systems, or becoming involved in environmental issues, I cannot overly invest myself. Maybe that is a cop out. I feel like half of the classes I have taken in college are asking me to invest my life in an idea… and these ideas are often in conflict. The conclusion I have come to is that small, slow, and steady is how I will proceed; otherwise, I will lose all hope.

PS. Check this out!

Public Opinion: The Break Down

In his work Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann criticizes public opinion and democracy. Lippmann feels that public opinion is too unstable. With each individual filtering a message through his or her personal experiences, the public was too unreliable, as well as too impressionable. Lippmann feels the solution to the problem of a fickle public is to have an elite group of decision makers. Lippmann writes,

And where so much is uncertain, where so many actions have to be carried out on guesses, the demand upon the reserves of mere decency is enormous, and it is necessary to live as if good will would work. We cannot prove in every instance that it will (224)

The above quotation illustrates Lippmann’s hesitation to trust the public. If one must depend on the good of people to secure a future for the world, it requires a lot of faith. This faith becomes all the more difficult (for Lippmann) because of the unstable nature of the general populace. There is no telling what a person will choose, how he or she will interpret, or whether a final and important decision will be made honestly and with integrity if not with intelligence.

A few theories support Lippmann’s pessimistic perspective. Considering Selective Exposure theory, people are likely to choose to expose themselves to ideas and issues they already agree with. In this way, a person is always pursuing and choosing what already fits with his or her ideas. Looking at Uses and Gratification theory, people choose forms of media that best fill their needs or fit their moods, again illustrating the fickle quality of the public. With these two theories, the emphasis is on individual choices. There is no guarantee that what a person chooses will prove beneficial to the world at large. This is why Lippmann feels that an educated elite is needed, because the larger population is uninformed, bumbling, and too busy to be practical in decision making.

While he does make some good points, I feel that Lippmann’s idea of an all-informed elite is terrifying. Although the present system may have issues, and there is no sure way of depending on people, I feel it is much more dangerous to trust such power to such a small group. It seems to me like a more concentrated form of the problems we have already. I prefer bumbling public to dangerous propaganda and brainwashing any day.

COME SEE.....

Confidence a documentary by TECK Productions. The story of Judge George "Tookie" James, Beaver County's FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN JUDGE.
DAY: Thursday May 3
WHEN: Lunch hour, 12:45
WHERE: Mueller Theatre
WHY: Because this man is inspiring.

Judge James is a proud father, grandfather, husband, and Christian. Listening to him tell stories from his life and experiences makes me hope to have a life as full and rich as his. Come see Confidence and judge for yourself

Television: Exaggerating or Expanding

Jean Baudrillard goes a little over the edge with his “hyperreality” theory. Perhaps television creates a false reality, but Baudrillard takes the idea to the extreme. It is commendable to play with a theory and take it to the limit, but his opinion on television and reality is grandiose rather than completely plausible. Conversely, Joshua Meyrowitz does not grab the essence of the situation either. While both theorists make some interesting observations, saying that one or the other is clearly in the right is difficult if not impossible to do.

Meyrowitz is too idealistic and optimistic in his theory on television’s effects on reality. To say that all people are cultured or brought together by a television program is an exaggeration. When I watch the news I do not feel connected to other viewers, I feel like I am seeing a brief and mediated portion of life somewhere else. In this way, I see Baudrillard and Meyrowitz coming together. Baudrillard says that the media creates the event whereas Meyrowitz feels that media brings the event closer to everyone in the world and thus connects the world through a common experience as well as through broadening of horizons. I agree with Baudrillard only to a point. I agree that television sometimes seems real and that it can become extravagant and produce unhealthy concepts of reality, but I do not think that confusion about reality is as widespread as he does.

Selective exposure lends some perspective to Meyrowitz’s theories. His theory is plausible, but most people do not watch the television in order to broaden their horizons. Instead, people watch television to be entertained. People watch what they want so, someone watching an informative program on Discovery Channel or PBS may fit the mold that Meyrowitz defines. Some people may choose to watch a program that broadens their horizons and helps enlarge and shape a picture of the world that, otherwise, that person would never experience. When a person chooses to watch things like Real World or Desperate Housewives they are less likely to broaden their horizons and more likely, as Baudrillard suggests, to have a false impression of reality.

Baudrillard discusses his “hyperreality” theory as something freshly developed. However, Lippmann talks about how we all create our own realities and each individual has his own concept of the world around him. A concept of reality is different from confusing reality with imaginary. According to Lippmann, the individual creates meaning through experience and person frame of reference. Baudrillard’s hyperreality involves adopting someone else’s fiction as a reality. While there is interplay, I see a difference between these two ideas. Lippmann emphasizes individual interpretation of the same element to come up with different meanings whereas Baudrillard highlights a conjured dream world passing as reality. I am inclined to agree with Lippmann that as individuals we can see the same movie and each have different reactions because of where we are and where we have been in life.

While watching Brothers & Sisters I was struck by how different yet similar my life is to the lives of the characters. I have experienced my fair share of family conflict and disillusionment. The show takes these experiences to the extreme for the sake of drama and entertainment. I watch because I can relate to the characters. I see the emotion and connect it to my life. I relate the shows content to reality.

On the other hand, the drama of Brothers & Sisters is exaggerated and beyond anything I have ever experienced. In watching the show, one would expect illegitimate children, twenty-year love affairs, noble drug abuse, and extravagant lifestyles as run of the mill. This element of fantasy also lends to it appeal. Baudrillard’s view manifests itself in the surreal side of Brothers and Sisters. However, even though I find amusement in the exaggeration, I recognize that it is not real; I think most people do. I am not convinced, as Baudrillard seems to be, that television creates a false reality. I think elements may find there way into life, but in the end, television is an illusion and usually recognized as such.

This Thing We Call Progress...

Our documentary progresses smoothly. After three meetings and two on camera sessions, TECK productions now have sufficient footage for the documentary. We also have old and new photographs, newspaper clippings, and, because Judge James is a Westminster Alum and sports hall-of-fame-er, plenty of on-campus resources available as needed. I feel we have plenty of material to compose our documentary. I feel satisfied with our progress and feel like we are right on target. However, we are feeling the pressure of time. Although we are in a good place and have set a good pace all semester, as the deadline approaches concern about meeting that deadline increases.

Luckily we have creative input coming from all directions with constructive suggestions for music, layout, and publicity. Judge James has also had significant input on the project. He decided on a title and most of the content. Everything we have in our on camera footage stems from our original meeting with him and the wonderful stories he shared with us. Even stories he did not explicitly ask us to include he in a sense selected. We merely asked him to repeat a few of these stories on camera. Judge James has a message that he wants to send; a message that works well with the point of the assignment. This individual voice is the idea behind the assignment originally, that we are giving voice to another, a member of the (in some way) marginalized population. Because of this concept behind the assignment, I find Judge James’s contribution, suggestion, and guidance of the project’s direction ideal and welcome.

As to the other side of the cluster, I still do not have a clear picture of how the sociology perspectives should be incorporated into the documentary. I see the themes presenting themselves, but due to the nature of the class, I do not know whether we are including these themes correctly or if a more explicit integration is necessary. As it is now, the themes are seen and expressed through content, but never spelled out as themes. Should we make these sociology themes painfully obvious? Or is it appropriate to subtly point to these themes through narrative structure and content? Are we to write some kind of reflection or explanation of how we see themes presented in our documentary project? I hope that as we go these issues will fix themselves. Overall, I feel we are on a good track and feel our group capable of handling the glitches.

Another Response to Class (soc)

Toward the end of class today, discussion got a little heated. The statement was made (or something to the same effect) that "women and men are inherently different; inherently unequal." I understand that the comment was meant to describe natural/biological differences in men and women, however there are a few issues I have with the declaration. First, I think that writing something off as "biological difference" is something we should examine more closely. Doctors used to tell women that they should not think, write, read, or exert themselves or their minds excessively because it would cause damage to the ovaries and disrupt their "natural" purpose. Things that were once considered obviously biological, we now look at with a more critical eye, and in some cases find the theory so ridiculous that we chuckle.

I also feel that after this class assuming something is biological would be a little more difficult to do. As Miller writes in her article on Domination/Subordination "Subordinates, then, know much more about the dominants than vice versa. The have to. They become highly attuned to the dominants, able to predict their reactions of pleasure and displeasure. Here, I think, is where the long story of 'feminine intuition' and 'feminine wiles' begins. It seems clear that these 'mysterious' gifts are in fact skills, developed through long practice, in reading many small signals, both verbal and nonverbal." (Miller 113). With this quotation in mind, even if you do not buy it, it calls to question just how biological typical feminine attributes are. Like all stereotypes, this is founded in a grain of truth, that women usually have the role of nurturer. However, that does not mean that women are biologically encoded with the "nurture," "wily," or "intuitive," genes. Maybe, as Miller argues, women have developed some of these qualities out of necessity. A woman (not necessarily of today) may need to read her husband well because her survival is based on how well she pleases him. I would argue (as do many) that women have been, and still are to some extent, in positions of inferiority. I would also argue that these differences are more social/cultural/ societal, in essence socially constructed, than biological.

Finally, I want to address the issue of "equality." Biological and "natural" differences were cited as reasons why women and man are inherently unequal. This is the same argument that has been made about women, different races, different classes, and people of different abilities. By treating it as though a position of less importance is natural for these groups, it makes it alright to dehumanize them; to mistreat them. It is a dangerous argument because there is no fixing it. You cannot change biology and nature (in theory), these are things that are established. Also, just because differences exist does not mean that one must be superior and one inferior. For example, hands and feet are different. They are at different points on the body and serve different purposes, but does that mean feet or hands are better? There are societal nuances to each, but I do not think you could call one better. Alright, even if you do not follow this argument, my point is that different does not mean unequal. Just because there are different roles, abilities, tendencies, or assigned jobs does not mean there is a natural hierarchy that cannot be dispelled. I believe that men are important, valuable, and human. I believe that women are important, valuable, and human. In this way, there is natural equality. When you get tangled in the question of "which is better?" trouble arises. The human race consists of different colors, genders, sexes, classes, levels of intelligence, abilities, cultures, and on and on. One person is not more valuable than another. Only through social construction is greater importance created (President of more value than the custodian, for example. The President was not born superior to the custodian, rather gained a position that is respected and treated as superior.).

In value, women and men are the same. Say that men and women are different, I can deal with that statement, but to say that men and women are not equal implies that one is worth more. Do you believe that? I don’t.

Oh Please Just Make A Deal

Grey’s Anatomy has consistently high ratings, which is something I expected. I actually went looking for the ratings for Heroes. Heroes, my current TV addiction has had no new episodes (or old episodes for that matter) since our spring break. Instead, NBC has aired back to back episodes of Deal or No Deal. Apparently people enjoy Deal or No Deal, because it is a top rated show, ranking 11th for the season and 8th for the week. Is this why Heroes has not been on? Is it because Deal or No Deal gets viewers? All I know is that I do not enjoy the program and I want to watch Heroes. It seems to me as though changing a day or time would alter any show’s ratings. For example, if Deal or No Deal aired at the same time as Grey’s Anatomy, Deal or No Deal would likely suffer because it recieves half the number of viewers. Grey's is a hit show in an established time slot, which probably gives it preference to loyal viewers.

On Sociology, Gender, and Self

I consider myself a feminist. Many times, confusion arises about what feminist means. The negative connotation is a male-bashing, bra-burning, hairy-legged, violent female. I explain my own perspective as wanting equality for men and women. Yes, I can get fierce in my arguments, and sometimes sound like I hate men or think women are superior. I think anyone who feels a situation is unjust develops a certain amount of anger, and I have learned that a lot of times, especially in discussion, if I am trying to compromise and another is trying to win, I will always lose. I mention all of this to preface my point. As we read about oppression, I find myself relating it to the situation of women. When we read about dominant groups and discrimination against different races, whether these texts talk about gender or not, I connect the argument to oppression of women.

While the content of this class is not cheery, some of the concepts are cathartic for me. I am sometimes frustrated with how “female” I am. I realize that this is a bit of a contradiction to my feminist tendencies. If I believe women and men are equal, why do I feel that I should be less like a woman/ girl/ female? I am sometimes self-conscious when I cry feeling as though my tears are validating every stereotype about women. I have been called emotional (actually I get that a lot) and I either get angry… emotional… or I try to suppress things I would otherwise express. It’s hard to look at the “place of women,” wanting to be a living contradiction to everything awful that people say, all the while knowing that I only have one lifetime and there are too many variations for one person to embody. Oddly enough, I take some comfort from what Keith Osajima writes about internalized racism. He writes that “The desire to resemble the oppressor, to imitate and follow him implies a degree of self-dissatisfaction among the oppressed a belief that perhaps it is better to be like ‘them’ because who we are is not good enough, or smart enough, or beautiful enough.” (Osajima 140 emphasis added). As I read this I thought, wait, I think like that! Here, Osajima is not talking about the experiences of women, he is talking about the effects of racism on the oppressed. Despite his topic specific address, his argument applies to many different kinds of oppression. I myself make a connection to the oppression of women. I can relate to the internalization that Osajima addresses.

I find Osajima’s discussion comforting because it validates things that I have felt and thought. If you give his argument has weight, then entire cultures feel the same way. This means that I feel at times uncomfortable to associate too much with all that is feminine, not because I am weak or emotional or too much like my “fairer sex,” but because oppresion has this kind of effect. Dominant culture sends the message that men are ideal while women are weak, emotional, in need of protection, dependant, and the list of derogatory associations goes on. I am living in a culture that sends the message that who I am is not okay, is lesser, and that gets to me; that hurts all people.

Are You Down With G-O-D?

Saved is a 2004 film directed by Brian Dannelly, starring Jena Malone, Mandy Moore, Macaulay Culkin, and Patrick Fugit. The film follows a troupe of teenagers into the hallowed halls of American Eagle Christian High School. These less than typical teenagers run into all kinds of hypocrisy when one of their friends confesses he is gay, sparking a chain of incidents that are both humorous and critical of close minded reactions, especially within typical Christianity. Dealing with teen pregnancy, homosexuality, infidelity, physical disabilities, and religion with a sarcastic humor, Saved is not your everyday teen movie.

The purpose of the film is to criticize the hypocrisy, judgmental preaching, and closed mindedness that is often a characteristic of (American) Christianity. Saved accomplishes its goal for the most part. While it falls a little short toward the end with a “preachy” speech from Jena Malone’s character. Malone’s speech seems to do exactly what has been mocked throughout the film; preach. A friend of mine said that the end of the film “takes the easy way out.” Despite this valid criticism, the film is overall enjoyable and critical of presumptions.

While focus on the family says that “the filmmakers are far too busy taking vituperative pot shots at Christ and His followers to care much about creating constructive criticism,” I say that the film is hilarious and worth seeing, especially if you can handle a few jokes at the expense of Christianity. In my opinion much of the criticism is valid as well.

Crash and Burn?

Crash, directed by Paul Haggis, has a stellar cast and a gripping story line. The purpose of the film is to explore and criticize racial (not just black and white) interactions and misunderstandings within the United States. The film begins in the present and then follows the complex events leading up to that point and briefly beyond. Shots stay close up rarely letting the audience sit back and relax. The camera zooms close to the action and emotion, and stays there. Crash is not a film designed to make you comfortable. Pulling you into the sometimes violent, passionate, desperate, but always vivid emotions, the film urges you to examine your own prejudices while almost experiencing the prejudices taking place on screen.

As I mentioned, the emotion is high in this film and there I would argue is much of the films power. While the film is powerful, it is also a little contrived. The dense interrelation of characters, intense situations, and the way almost every character can be seen as both good and evil are extreme. I think the over-the-top element serves to make a point and is necessary for the spirit of the film, especially given the time constraint. However, the harsh reality of the issues discussed may strike some as sentimental because of the contrived elements of the plot.

Thinking of this film in light of cultivation theory, I would be curious what kind of reaction this film would elicit from a person determined to be unaffected by it. Overall, I think Crash is a film worth anyone’s time because of the issues it deals with, the performances given and finally because of its emotional pull, although sometimes despite it. The intensity makes the characters relatable and detestable in turn; in essence, human.

Who Tube?

Philo T. Farnsworth: the man the myth the legend. Wait a second who? Have I heard this legend? The truth is, no, you have probably not heard anything at all about this man. Why? It seems to me like another case of “the winners write the history.” RCA, having won patent battles, would not be likely to publicize Philo T. Farnsworth’s true role in the invention of the television. Why should they? It would be bad for business to draw attention to such a seedy underbelly.

In light of our sociology class, RCA was the dominant group due to sheer volume and economic reasons. A majority in the sense of numbers, RCA with its deep pockets and established status had the power over Farnsworth. As the “Domination and Subordination” reading states “a dominant group, inevitably, has the greatest influence in determining a culture’s overall outlook—its philosophy, morality, social theory, and even its science.” RCA meets the aforementioned criteria of dominant. The fact that Farnsworth remains little known is evidence of the power exercised. Class and economic status can cause discrimination as well as race, gender, etc. Not having the resources to go toe to toe with RCA, is an example of economic disability in the case of Farnsworth.

Prize Winning Fiction

Toni Morrison’s novel The Bluest Eye is beautifully written. This work of fiction is written for African American women. It speaks to particular issues and gets inside the lives of African American women. The novel tells the story of eleven year old Pecola Breedlove. However, by jumping between various points of view the novel gains a sense of the community rather than simply one girl’s tale. Pecola’s tragic story is supplemented with glimpses of other lives that flesh out the community in which she lives. The characters jump off the page with spice and texture. Morrison paints the picture of a living breathing town with tangible issues. There is not a two dimensional character amid these pages. The closeness of the subject to the author is evident within the text. Rich in language, color, and content, the novel is a triumph.

The use of color and imagery is particularly fascinating in this work. Some passages even have a distinct smell. The novel actively engages the senses. Packed with self-hatred and concepts of what it means to be black and the levels within that construct The Bluest Eye is powerful, thought provoking, and challenging.

Documentary?

From my cursory knowledge, a documentary is a nonfiction film often with a specific message. A documentary may have music, a narrator, or captions, but most often uses special effects sparingly if at all. In a documentary the camera is held level, with little cinematic flair, in order to “document” life and reality, or at least to lend that feel to the work.

The academy defines an award eligible documentary as “a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.” If we eliminate the theatrically released element this definition fits nicely with our class projects, most of the programs we have viewed for class, and other documentaries we have discussed. However the definition of documentary makes it all the more clear why 30 days was termed a “quasi-documentary” show. As with most reality television, the show seems to edit and manipulate the actual events often to alter the reality drastically. Because reality television is focused on ratings it fictionalizes the subject matter more that a documentary should.

The projects for this class should be held to a similar definition. We are aiming to create a true and accurate documentary. Our projects will highlight a true, rather than fictional, story. While there is a wide variety of elements that can be used in our documentaries, there is also a kind of balance that needs to be present. This balance consists of using technology (editing etcetera) without altering the truth. In the end, it is necessary to look at how the work is a complete project as well as how honest it is. Is the documentary well put together? Is it coherent? Is there a clear stance or message presented? Is this documentary true and fair to the participant? I believe these are the things that should be looked for in our projects.

Aliens: Not The Little Green Kind

Every form of media has a certain slant and 30 Days is no exception. In fact Morgan Spurlock’s quasi-documentary reality show 30 Days is arguably more biased than others. The premiere episode entitled appropriately “Immigration” is full of emotional pulls that push an agenda. Spurlock is known for this style of project having been the director and producer of Super Size Me, a film that examined and experimented U.S. fast food tendencies. 30 Days, like most reality television shows puts “ordinary people” in unusual positions. Frankly, the people in this show fit the purpose of pushing a sympathetic attitude toward illegal immigration and immigrants.

The viewer is first introduced to Frank, a Latino minuteman who patrols the U.S.-Mexico border and informs border patrol when illegal crossers are spotted. Frank is loud, somewhat offensive, extremely patriotic, and at least at first comes off as almost combatant. He believes firmly in his volunteer work as a minuteman (which began after the infamous attacks on September 11, 2001). After a brief introduction to Frank, he moves in for 30 days the Gonzales family. The Gonzales family consists of two parents and 5 children. While the two youngest children are legal aliens, the rest of the family is residing in the United States illegally.

The main conflict in the episode is the differing opinions on immigration. Frank disagrees with illegal immigration and is quite passionate in his arguments. The Gonzales family is for the allowance of immigration. Their daughter, Armida, seems the most articulate and passionate about the issue and sparks discussions with Frank on the issue. Frank and Armida go toe to toe in discussions, but seem to say the same things. Armida cannot understand why Frank is so unforgiving of illegal aliens.

The purpose of the episode seems to be to persuade its audience to be pro-immigration or at least more lenient in the area of illegal immigrants. The episode used particular devices in trying to get the “immigration sympathetic” response. There was a strategic use of music and shots of empty streets that added to the emotional pull of certain scenes. These flashes of poignant music and deserted lonely reality were consistently seen after a tearful moment or a moving discussion of Armida’s college dreams.

Another convenient aspect of the show was Frank’s personality in contrast with the Gonzales clan. He is a rather obnoxious guy while the family is inviting and easily liked. The comparable softness of the Gonzales family made them easier to relate to. In effect, Frank was easier to demonize because he often came off as harsh.

It was also a bit contrived when, in the early scenes, the family and Frank went out to a Mexican restaurant with Armida’s white male teacher. The dinner was to celebrate Armida’s scholastic achievement, but it digressed into a heated debate about illegal immigration between Frank and the teacher. This scene seemed to extend the cultural line and emphasize the (apparently) ironic stance of the attendees due to the cultural and racial backgrounds of each. The restaurant scene is a prime example of how the show plays with the pictures in your head in an effort to persuade. The ethnicity of the dinner party and its location were not coincidence.

It is interesting that the episode never really persuades for a specific policy, rather plays on an emotional response to the situation of illegal immigrants, the Gonzales family, and especially Armida’s college aspirations. A poster toward the end of the episode encompasses the argument made by the show. The poster simply reads: “no human being is illegal.” Frank brings this together by saying “there comes a time when you love people for who they are… all politics aside.” Ironically the show does not put politics aside, but makes it the focal point. Although there is not a specific policy stated in the episode, pushing the illegal immigrant issue is an obvious agenda, and is approached with an obvious slant.

While the episode attempted to emotionally pull the viewer to a certain view on the immigration issue, in the end I believe it failed. It failed because the same issue that is at work within the episode is at work in its audience. As Walter Lippman writes “the systems of stereotypes may be the core of our personal tradition, the defenses of our position in society.” The positions of Frank, Armida, and the audience members were ultimately preserved. Frank resumed his position as a minuteman, Armida continued her pursuit of education and her support of the immigration cause, and the audience went back to their lives. Who am I to say that no single viewer changed their mind or broadened their view, but in all likelihood individuals left with the same attitudes that came with.

Trusty Liberal Arts Education

Lippman's discussion of stereotypes repeatedly reminded me of the literary critical approach of semiotics. Semiotics maintains that one can never know the signified (the actual thing) but only the signs (representations) for it. The classic example is apple. The word "apple" is a sign that brings to mind the taste, smell, color, of apples perhaps along with personal anecdotes of making apple sauce as a child, or stealing crab apples from the neighbor's yard, or bobbing for apples. All of these things are signs for the actual thing. They are what is associated the apple, they represent the apple, but they are not in fact the apple. This theory is a little dense, but the following quote from Lippman seemed to me as though it could just as easily have been talking about semiotic theory. "Thus there can be little doubt that the moving picture is steadily building up imagery which is then evoked by the words people read in their newspapers." (Walter Lippman p. 50).
I wanted to make this connection because the reason for cluster courses (or at least the most basic reasons that I have heard) is that students were not making the connections between their classes. I feel as though I usually do make connections among my classes, and a lot of times a concept from, say English class, will help me understand another theory in Communications, Sociology, etcetera.

A Comfortable Expectation

"Our stereotyped world is not necessarily the world we should like it to be. It is simply the kind of world we expect it to be." (Walter Lippman p. 57)
I love this passage from Lippman. It makes sense to me and speaks to the world I live in and percieve. It reminds me of that old idea that going into something with a negative attitude probably lends to having a negative experience. I think this basic idea is there, but something deeper as well. What we have seen, experienced, or been told dictate (in part) what we expect from the future. For example if a toddler throws his spoon on the floor and his mom picks it up, he throws it again to see if she will do it again (I am stereotyping right now assuming that it would be the mother feeding this child instead of its father, brother, grandfather, grandmother, social worker etc.). It becomes a game. He knows his mom will go to pick up the spoon. If she keeps the spoon instead of giving it back as before, the toddler may make a fuss. Okay, so that is a bit of a stretch, but things that are unexpected often throw us for loops and we try to rationalize and fit these events into the formula of past experience. We get fussy when things do not fit in that box of expectation; when things do not fit into the pictures in our mind. To me, Lippman's idea of stereotype is the same idea. It is comfortable to fit people and events into a rubric. Like when you are reading and you see the first few letters of a word and assume that you know what that word is and continue reading, sometimes needing to return to that word and realize that instead of "whole" it said "whore" changing the meaning drastically.

Once Upon a Time Warner

AOL instant messenger is a part of Time Warner's internet department and as we read in the chapter is a company that has been revolutionary in the areas of concentration of ownership and synergy. After the AOL and Time Warner merger, (now called just "Time Warner") the company grew in power and breadth of influence. How does this influence me? Well considering AOL instant messenger is a communication form and I usually ignore the obnoxious pop ups and format my settings in such a way that aim today does not assail my screen every time I sign on, I would say that the influence in this particular case may be less than in others. However for the sake of argument if I had the immediate appearance of aim.com set, I would daily be subject to the advertisements of films etc that Time Warner is producing at the time. This is the idea of synergy; that all components of this company work together in promoting itself. It makes sense. It also makes me think of Marx and the means of production. The privileged own the means of production, and whether we are aware or not, sometimes what seems like an outside endorsement of a product or film is really not neutral and objective in the least, but connected to the company in a deeply rooted way.

media and the pictures in my mind

I think that some media influence the pictures in our minds more than others. Television is powerful in creating and perpetuating these pictures because it affects multiple senses at once and can present ideas through visual images that one might not pick up on consciously. I guess most things are subtle in this area, but my thoughts are lingering on television. Sitcoms, for example perpetuate typical/stereotypical roles of gender, race, age etc. through dialogue and situation. I think the more media engaged the more messages one ingests.
I heard somewhere that when a ship landed for the first time, the people on the shore did not see it because it was foreign to them. In other words it was invisible because in the minds of the viewers it did not exist. They were looking at the ocean expecting to see just ocean and this is what they saw. I am not sure where I heard this, what the context was, or if it is at all true, but the point speaks to our class discussion. We see what we expect to see and are often blind to things that are out of the norm. We interpret the world every day and create our own reality. I was thinking the other day about how I react to things. I found out last week that my grandmother in all likelihood has only a few months to live. I cried, I was upset, most would be, but my life has not changed. Later that day (after I was told "the news") I was talking and laughing and having fun. It seems like I should have been more affected for a longer period of time. I guess what I am thinking here is that, like with other things, I create a reality. I am not explaining my thought well, probably because I do not want to expose my soul or anything like that. Have you ever had something terrible happen and then wonder at how unaffected you are? Or wonder at how you could be so "normal" so fast? I think that this "pictures in your head" idea connects to many things. I think that the stereotypes and expectations of the world that each of us have are safe. They are what we perceive as normal. When something shocks us or jumps outside of that box we strive like mad to get back to that picture because it is what we understand. I only understand a world that my grandmother is in, existing and living. It's not real to me that she will not be there/here.
I think this links to the media and our interpretations because we do the same thing there. I think that we absorb from the media things that alter the reality we perceive. I think that it is easier to alter and change your reality unconsciously rather than consciously. I think that analyzing the messages we see and hear everyday can help the process become a little more conscious. I also think that we compartmentalize things that do not fit with our picture (sometimes).

Reaction to Lost Medium

My favorite media are probably aim (aol instant messaging), my cell phone, and letters. For this contemplation I will deal with aim. Aim is my favorite medium of communication because it is fast, informal, and so easy to multi-task with. As we have discussed in class, the multi-tasking element speaks to the world today and what communication has become. One of the reasons that I like instant messaging is because I can do my homework, surf the internet, and talk to multiple people all at the same time, sometimes throwing a television show in the mix. I can also use aim as much as I want without the concern of going over my cell phone minutes, and unlike letters it is instant. When I send letters it takes a month maybe more to have a dialogue, sometimes making the information insignificant. That slower pace is refreshing and my friends and I enjoy the novelty of writing letters by hand, but it is still just a novelty and I like it because it is out of the ordinary routine.
As for what I would do if aim was taken away forever? That depends upon whether everyone else had it, and if something better would take its place. If the scenario was something like I alone was blocked from the aim network due to some kind of infraction (or more realistically because I could not afford the internet on because I was paying for food and health insurance instead) I would be devastated. It would be a serious loss. Not only is aim my main means of communication with friends and family around the country, but it is also a convenient tool on campus. Instead of hazarding a phone call or a door knock that could wake someone up, I can just send them an im. It would be as though someone had taken away a friend. Like when you were a kid and your mom or dad or grandma said "you are not to play with that boy anymore." All of a sudden something and someone who was a part of your life has been taken away, even though they are still around. Granted I would still have my friends, but a lack of aim would diminish the contact I have with people that I would not hear from otherwise. I would get over the loss, but for a while it would be greatly missed.

A Response to Class

I had a thought today in class that I didn't have completely worked out and so I decided to take advantage of the blog and try to articulate my thoughts here.
My thought spring board was the experience of dealing with my friend after she returned from Europe this summer. My friend and her mother went on a six-seven week long "vacation" this summer. They stayed in hostiles and saw the tourist sights. They visited London, Poland, and Italy in their travels. My friend came back basking in the glow of travel (I have yet to travel out of the country I admit). Something I found a little irritating was that she would generalize about the places she went. For example "Oh no! I will never buy flats. EVERYONE in Europe wears those shoes. I think they are ugly." or the generic "well in (insert European country here) they do things like..." It frustrated me. She visited tourist sights in limited towns in limited time in three different countries and she came back knowing everything about everywhere in Europe. The people are this the people are that. She didn't even spend those six weeks in one place which I think may have given a little more validity to statements because she would have spent more than just a day or two here and their on tours the whole time and would have had a chance to (maybe) experience the place rather than rush through an itinerary.
I could rant about this for pages and pages but I will try to bring it back to class discussion by saying that she has a picture in her mind now. Sure that picture is based on things that she saw and experienced, but she now feels certain that an entire continent is a certain way because three cities were such a way. I am trying to protect my friend by leaving out certain generalizations... I just realized that that makes this commentary tricky. Okay so point number 1. she had a limited, although meaningful, experience of these places and of Europe as a continent and decided that the rest of the place must follow the same rubric if you will.
Point number 2. is that she returned and spouted her thoughts and comments and experience as the "the whole picture of europe" thereby acting as the media in a sense. She relayed her picture to dozens (if not more) of people who did not have any European experience and so created (I speculate) stereotypes and passed on her picture and interpretation
I shall conclude with an admission that maybe this was a rant, and a disclaimer that I really do love my friend.

Fifteen Answers

1. I use the telephone (my cell) on a daily or semi-daily basis. I call home and two of my best friends the most.
2. I don't recall listening to a public speaker without being required. Does church count?
3. I IM every day multiple times a day, it is my communication tool of choice. Eilis (yes my roommate) and Lynn. I talk to both of them frequently.
4. Ugh. I use email spurratically. I TRY to check it daily, but usually if i check it once a week I am doing well.
5. I went to my friend's concert in the early days of January, but come to think of it he gave me the tickets. I probably bought a cd a few years ago, but I couldn't tell you what it was with confidence.
6. I watched What Not To Wear yesterday afternoon because it was on and it was a Friday.
7. Thursday. I recorded Grey's Anatomy because there is usually someone who misses it so i record it every week.
8. I watched Running With Scissors last night on campus and before that The Holiday with my friends at home about 2 weeks ago. The last DVD I watched was Animal House.
9. I think I listened to country and mix stations over break because my friend's ipod was low on batteries.
10. Goodbye Lemon. Just because. I love to read and I feel like I never have time to.
11. I did the crossword puzzle, or at least tried to, at the end of December. It was probably in The regional home paper.
12. I bought an issue of Allure magazine (and never read it) in November/December.
13. I love sending letters! I sent a few in November. I write to my friends at home monthly. We are pen pals. I'm pretty enthusiastic about it.
14. Facebook and I checked it about 5 minutes ago... why? Habit I think
15. I have a myspace, facebook, and now a blog but did not have one prior to this assignment. Myspace I use to keep contact with 4 people in particular who don't have facebook, at least that is how it started. Facebook I was encouraged by friends to join and now like it for the picture album option and how easy and informal it makes contacting people.