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.