As I was reading the chapter “Deviants and the Consensus” in Stuart Hall’s “The rediscovery of ‘ideology’: return of the repressed in media studies,” I realized that many of the things he talks about directly connects to the American Dream. Though the American Dream was not mentioned in this chapter I would argue that The American Dream would be the perfect example of what he talks about. One of the first things I did when I had this realization was looking up the exact definition for the American Dream. None of the sources have an exact definition of the American Dream; most even claim that the American dream probably has a different meaning to every US citizen. So for the sake of my argument I am going to assume that the American Dream is “the dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement,” which I believe is a fair representation (Truslow Adams).
Based on Hall’s argument, I would claim that the American Dream is a result of a “complex process of social construction and legitimation” to benefit the wealthy and the powerful who “had much to gain from the continuous production of popular consent to its structure, to the values which supported and underwrote it, and to its continuity of existence” (Hall 63). Though exists in the democratic society, the American Dream is fundamentally an ideology that actually defend a system of inequality. The idea behind the dream is that the hard working will succeed and get ahead while the lazy will fall behind. Though this idea is perfectly logical and rational, this does not take into account, inheritance, connections, luck, and discrimination. There are countless of examples out there to show that, it does not take hard work to be better and richer.
This idea of meritocracy is therefore a myth created to disguise inequality and to create the illusion of fairness. Throughout history, we witnessed that it is never enough for some to simply have more than others. Therefore, for a system of inequality to exist, those who have more must persuade those who have less that the allocation of who gets what is just, “natural and unchangeable” (Hall 65). Those who have less must “accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they value it as divinely ordained or beneficial” (Hall 65). Another reason that it is so hard for people to see this illusion is because the illusion is rested on the ideology which cannot be proven true or false. One cannot simply conduct an experiment testing whether hard working will make life “better and richer and fuller for every man.” Similar to many aspect of religion, divine right of kings and reincarnation, the idea of American Dream cannot be falsify.
Regardless of what other may think or believe, I do not believe in the American Dream and the idea that you can go as far as the ability can take you. I believe different people face different obstacles and complications and it is not fair to say that everyone has equal opportunity or even any opportunity at all, to achieve greater material prosperity. To a large extent, I believe American Dream to be a modern propaganda that aim not to “modify ideas, but to provoke action” (Ellul 16). This action I am talking about is the act of accepting the idea and to act on it as if it is true. The American Dream is fits perfectly with the ideal characteristic of propaganda claim by Ellul: “It must operate on the individual at the level of the unconscious and… is an activating image: a sort of vision of desirable objectives that have lost their material, practical character and have become strongly colored, overwhelming, all encompassing and which displace from the conscious all that is not related to it” (Ellul 18). And as it is natural for people to attend to and retain information that confirms their beliefs and ideology but to ignore information that contradicts expectation, they immerse themselves in this myth and illusion also known as The American Dream.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
All Historians are Journalists
Throughout this semester, I have been overwhelmed by what I learn in Media Studies class. However, most of the books I have read in this class concentrated on television. McKibben, Gitlin, McChesney and Bourdieu all put emphasis on television and how they alter our perceptions. Though this is the case, I started wondering about what other medium has a large or possibly larger impact on our perception of the world. The Print Media presentation on November 13th 2008 made me realized that although little emphasis has been put in print media, it still is a predominant source of today’s education. Take this Media Studies class for instance; all students are assigned 5 books to read throughout the semester. It is quite clear that although many statistics and researches proved to show how print media receives less and less attention year after year, print media is still the fundamental source of the school educational system.
Print media, similar to other types of media, get updated as time passes by. The books we are reading today will definitely be different from those that our parent read or our grandparents read. This is mainly due to new discoveries, innovations or even evidences that rejected traditional views. However, one of the books that also get updated is history books. This really bothers me because no matter how much I try to make sense of it, I cannot understand what makes one part of history more important than another. What gets written on history books, what get excluded and more importantly, can the past really be known?
Google dictionary define history as “the aggregate of past event,” but I disagree. I would rather define history as “the biased perception of the past through the point of view of journalists in the present.” Some people might call these journalists historians, but I cannot really see the different. I believe that historian is just journalist that writes about history. And as McChesney would argue, “decision making is an inescapable part of the journalism process, and some values have to be promoted when deciding why one story rates front-page treatment while another is ignored” (68). Comparable to journalist, decision making is also an inescapable part of historian. Perhaps one could even argue that historian makes a larger decision of deciding why one event gets to go in the book while another is ignored. Basically what I am asking is what makes Hitler’s life and history more important than mine?
One of the relatively recent events that cause controversy is when China decided to rewrite its history books. “Socialism has been reduced to a single chapter” while “Mao Zedong is only in the etiquette chapter” (Bnet). One of the government spokesmen even claims that “the new history is less ideological, and that suits the political goals of today." The changes “are part of a broader effort by the Chinese government to promote a more stable, less violent view of Chinese history that serves today's economic and political goals” (Bnet). Despite the Chinese government’s intentions, these reasons resemble many characteristic of propaganda presented by Ellul in his book “The Characteristic of Propaganda.”
This event has really made me wonder whether my perception of the past is the right one. Because if it is true that the main reason we study history is so that we learn from it and stop ourselves from repeating the mistakes, wouldn’t it be wise to learn from the right history? Though this is the case, McChesney would argue that it is impossible to know what the right history is since “it is impossible for [anyone] to detect the actual values at play that determine what makes up history books. Therefore, I believe that the best thing anyone could do to learn about history is to learn it from as much sources as possible. Moreover, I also think that every argument made about good journalist and how it requires a “vigorous public debate” can and should be made about historian also (McChesney 252). Lastly, to answer the question I posted earlier; I believed that the past cannot really be known.
Print media, similar to other types of media, get updated as time passes by. The books we are reading today will definitely be different from those that our parent read or our grandparents read. This is mainly due to new discoveries, innovations or even evidences that rejected traditional views. However, one of the books that also get updated is history books. This really bothers me because no matter how much I try to make sense of it, I cannot understand what makes one part of history more important than another. What gets written on history books, what get excluded and more importantly, can the past really be known?
Google dictionary define history as “the aggregate of past event,” but I disagree. I would rather define history as “the biased perception of the past through the point of view of journalists in the present.” Some people might call these journalists historians, but I cannot really see the different. I believe that historian is just journalist that writes about history. And as McChesney would argue, “decision making is an inescapable part of the journalism process, and some values have to be promoted when deciding why one story rates front-page treatment while another is ignored” (68). Comparable to journalist, decision making is also an inescapable part of historian. Perhaps one could even argue that historian makes a larger decision of deciding why one event gets to go in the book while another is ignored. Basically what I am asking is what makes Hitler’s life and history more important than mine?
One of the relatively recent events that cause controversy is when China decided to rewrite its history books. “Socialism has been reduced to a single chapter” while “Mao Zedong is only in the etiquette chapter” (Bnet). One of the government spokesmen even claims that “the new history is less ideological, and that suits the political goals of today." The changes “are part of a broader effort by the Chinese government to promote a more stable, less violent view of Chinese history that serves today's economic and political goals” (Bnet). Despite the Chinese government’s intentions, these reasons resemble many characteristic of propaganda presented by Ellul in his book “The Characteristic of Propaganda.”
This event has really made me wonder whether my perception of the past is the right one. Because if it is true that the main reason we study history is so that we learn from it and stop ourselves from repeating the mistakes, wouldn’t it be wise to learn from the right history? Though this is the case, McChesney would argue that it is impossible to know what the right history is since “it is impossible for [anyone] to detect the actual values at play that determine what makes up history books. Therefore, I believe that the best thing anyone could do to learn about history is to learn it from as much sources as possible. Moreover, I also think that every argument made about good journalist and how it requires a “vigorous public debate” can and should be made about historian also (McChesney 252). Lastly, to answer the question I posted earlier; I believed that the past cannot really be known.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Totally Random
Human beings have a tendency to favor pattern and order while disliking chaos and randomness. We like to “perceive trends [even when] there are none” to perceive (Levy 184).” This is one of the many reasons why we appreciate the ability of predictability so much. Many aspects of human lives is about predictability; do I need an umbrella for tomorrow, should I sell my stock right now, or whether the river card is going to be an ace of heart and get me a royal flush. Most of the gambling game especially poker based itself off of predictability and order. I remember reading an article about the first time a royal flush appears on TV and how everyone is making a big deal about it. The news article itself claims that the chance of getting a royal flush is 1 out of 650,000 and that he is such a lucky guy. However, if one really thinks about it, one will realize that the chance getting any other random hand is as low as a royal flush. People just like the royal flush because it consisted of pattern and order.
There are many more examples that prove these humans urge of pattern and trends. One of the most obvious examples is the phone numbers and the car license plate. It does not take a genius to guess what the most expensive phone numbers or a car license plate will look like. On 22nd May 2006, a phone number 666-6666 was sold for 1.5 million pounds – equivalent nearly 2 million dollars while the most expensive license plate number 1 is sold for 14.3 million dollars. Regardless of how much money these people have, what makes these numbers more favorable than my phone number 642-8349? One last thing that does not make sense to me about pattern and order is the idea of anniversary. Why don’t people appreciate the 11th years of marriage as much as they do with the 10th? or why is "there no reason anyone even attempts to give you as to why at sixty-five you should change your life (McKibben)." This further proves that Levy is right when he claims that “the human mind is just simply badly with randomness and chaos (Levy 183).”
The IPod takes advantage of this and came out with the “Shuffle.” One interesting thing about the IPod shuffle is that there are many controversies whether the shuffling process is really random. Many people including myself have a hard time believing that it is since the ITunes or IPod like play one album more than other. Some even claim that the IPod plays great song, many that exactly fit their moods. So out of my curiosity I went online and find out the probability of hearing 2 songs consecutively from the same album given 3000 songs and 300 albums. To my surprise, the chance is as high as 90% that I will hear 2 songs consecutively from the same album if I listen to a set of 15 songs 3 times a day. Moreover, I begin to realize that I tend to only notice and point it out to myself when there are two songs playing consecutively from the same album because it does not fit my perception of random. So actually, it is not really the “shuffle [that] is flawed, but the problem is actually in our heads (Levy 183).” Furthermore, chances are that the song one put in to the IPod are the songs one likes and commonly fits one’s mood, so again it is not odd for IPod to play songs that are great and fits the mood.
Since chaos is such a predominant part of reality, human beings tend to create order out of chaos. Using the IPod example, one way Apple create order out of chaos is by introducing the “Smart Shuffle” to the IPod enabling users to “control how likely [they] are to hear multiple songs in a row by the same album or artists (Levy 186).” Apple is basically patronizing the users and creating the illusion that fits the users’ perspective of random – which is the perception of dissimilarities. Creating order out of chaos has become so predominant that we now accept it as our nature and did not see the peculiarities behind it. Because when one really thinks about it, isn’t labeling, stereotyping and generalizing all of creating order out of chaos? Whether or not you admit it, we all live in chaos.
There are many more examples that prove these humans urge of pattern and trends. One of the most obvious examples is the phone numbers and the car license plate. It does not take a genius to guess what the most expensive phone numbers or a car license plate will look like. On 22nd May 2006, a phone number 666-6666 was sold for 1.5 million pounds – equivalent nearly 2 million dollars while the most expensive license plate number 1 is sold for 14.3 million dollars. Regardless of how much money these people have, what makes these numbers more favorable than my phone number 642-8349? One last thing that does not make sense to me about pattern and order is the idea of anniversary. Why don’t people appreciate the 11th years of marriage as much as they do with the 10th? or why is "there no reason anyone even attempts to give you as to why at sixty-five you should change your life (McKibben)." This further proves that Levy is right when he claims that “the human mind is just simply badly with randomness and chaos (Levy 183).”
The IPod takes advantage of this and came out with the “Shuffle.” One interesting thing about the IPod shuffle is that there are many controversies whether the shuffling process is really random. Many people including myself have a hard time believing that it is since the ITunes or IPod like play one album more than other. Some even claim that the IPod plays great song, many that exactly fit their moods. So out of my curiosity I went online and find out the probability of hearing 2 songs consecutively from the same album given 3000 songs and 300 albums. To my surprise, the chance is as high as 90% that I will hear 2 songs consecutively from the same album if I listen to a set of 15 songs 3 times a day. Moreover, I begin to realize that I tend to only notice and point it out to myself when there are two songs playing consecutively from the same album because it does not fit my perception of random. So actually, it is not really the “shuffle [that] is flawed, but the problem is actually in our heads (Levy 183).” Furthermore, chances are that the song one put in to the IPod are the songs one likes and commonly fits one’s mood, so again it is not odd for IPod to play songs that are great and fits the mood.
Since chaos is such a predominant part of reality, human beings tend to create order out of chaos. Using the IPod example, one way Apple create order out of chaos is by introducing the “Smart Shuffle” to the IPod enabling users to “control how likely [they] are to hear multiple songs in a row by the same album or artists (Levy 186).” Apple is basically patronizing the users and creating the illusion that fits the users’ perspective of random – which is the perception of dissimilarities. Creating order out of chaos has become so predominant that we now accept it as our nature and did not see the peculiarities behind it. Because when one really thinks about it, isn’t labeling, stereotyping and generalizing all of creating order out of chaos? Whether or not you admit it, we all live in chaos.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Presidential Election 2008 - Who's Responsible?
It should not come as a surprise for anyone to see bias at work in the media throughout this coming 2008 presidential election between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. Since I am not a United State citizen, I am not eligible to vote and therefore less incline to pay any attention to the coming presidential election (even though I realized that I will definitely be affected by whoever becomes president, either directly or indirectly). However, even though I did not follow the election as well as I could, I was still able to detect many forms of media biased that fits flawlessly well with many of Pierre Bourdieu’s arguments presented in “On Television.”
One of Bourdieu’s strongest arguments concerning today’s media is that, one principle that determines the selection “is the search for the sensational and the spectacular.” This search Bourdiue talks about can be clearly seen in the election as media try to focus more on the politicians’ characteristic and personalities rather than the very policies that put them in the place that they are. One of the stories that receive a lot of the attention is about Obama’s pastor; Jeremiah Wright. Although it is inarguable that Jeremiah Wright have said some controversial things using inflammatory rhetoric such as “God dammed America” or by claiming that America has brought 9/11 attack with its own terrorism; this does not at all mean that Obama agrees with all his ideologies and principles. The visiting author Pollitts, even raised the question “what happen to religion being a personal issue?” and mention that if one was to really investigate into another person’s religion, one can usually find something to criticize.
While Obama received a lot of attention on this pastor, McCain, regardless of how his pastor is, received a rather little to no attention. But if one was to dig into his pastor, one will find out that his pastor; John Hagee is rather controversial as well is not more. Some of many controversial views John Hagee has includes how “Hurrican Katrina is God punishment against New Orleans for hosting a homosexual parade” or that “Jew brought the Holocausts upon themselves for turning away from God.” Why then did one receive so much attention while another received as little if not at all? Is this simply media bias or what Bourdieu was talking about as he claims how “paradoxically television can hide by showing?” Furthermore, given all this, does it make sense to even consider comparing Jeremiah Wright with John Hagee, to uses something else other than the candidates themselves and their policies in improving this country to be the basis of one’s decision? I personally do not think so.
Another one of Bourdiue’s argument that clearly links to and supports the previous argument is that media tend to prefer to confront “individual instead of confronting their arguments.” Many who follow Howard Stern may have come across a video clip (at the bottom of the text) where he went around asking people why they support Barack Obama; responding to the view that people vote Obama simply because he is African American. So what he did was asking why these people support Obama while giving them a choice between two of McCain policies. Surprisingly, many did not even notice that the choices given were McCain policies and just plainly picked one or the other. He even asks whether they agree with Obama in selecting Sarah Palin as his Vice President. Again, everyone just simply say they agree with Obama and support Palin as Vice President. This raises many questions. First is whether this is a scripted questionnaire and that Howard Stern makes all this up. But if all of this is legitimate, this situation can be very concerning. One of the many things I wondered is whether this problem is caused by the media or simply just humans’ ignorance and foolishness.
Whatever it is, this incident further proves that people seem to care much more about the candidates’ personalities and the way they hold themselves rather than their policies and the strategies for improving the country. Did this happen because of how the media is trying to be sensational and dramatic and therefore totally skipped out on the politic it should originally be focused on? Though I would say I believe this is partly the individual’s foolishness, I have to agree that media did an excellent job of swaying individual to one way or another by just simply shinning a positive light or negative light on a candidate. I say this because, though I do not follow this election that closely, I am sway to support Obama, clearly not because I agree with anyone of his policies (I don’t even know them) but simply because he is a good talker. I fully realize that this is very superficial but I know there are more people like me out there and I guess this is something we as a society need to improve.
One of Bourdieu’s strongest arguments concerning today’s media is that, one principle that determines the selection “is the search for the sensational and the spectacular.” This search Bourdiue talks about can be clearly seen in the election as media try to focus more on the politicians’ characteristic and personalities rather than the very policies that put them in the place that they are. One of the stories that receive a lot of the attention is about Obama’s pastor; Jeremiah Wright. Although it is inarguable that Jeremiah Wright have said some controversial things using inflammatory rhetoric such as “God dammed America” or by claiming that America has brought 9/11 attack with its own terrorism; this does not at all mean that Obama agrees with all his ideologies and principles. The visiting author Pollitts, even raised the question “what happen to religion being a personal issue?” and mention that if one was to really investigate into another person’s religion, one can usually find something to criticize.
While Obama received a lot of attention on this pastor, McCain, regardless of how his pastor is, received a rather little to no attention. But if one was to dig into his pastor, one will find out that his pastor; John Hagee is rather controversial as well is not more. Some of many controversial views John Hagee has includes how “Hurrican Katrina is God punishment against New Orleans for hosting a homosexual parade” or that “Jew brought the Holocausts upon themselves for turning away from God.” Why then did one receive so much attention while another received as little if not at all? Is this simply media bias or what Bourdieu was talking about as he claims how “paradoxically television can hide by showing?” Furthermore, given all this, does it make sense to even consider comparing Jeremiah Wright with John Hagee, to uses something else other than the candidates themselves and their policies in improving this country to be the basis of one’s decision? I personally do not think so.
Another one of Bourdiue’s argument that clearly links to and supports the previous argument is that media tend to prefer to confront “individual instead of confronting their arguments.” Many who follow Howard Stern may have come across a video clip (at the bottom of the text) where he went around asking people why they support Barack Obama; responding to the view that people vote Obama simply because he is African American. So what he did was asking why these people support Obama while giving them a choice between two of McCain policies. Surprisingly, many did not even notice that the choices given were McCain policies and just plainly picked one or the other. He even asks whether they agree with Obama in selecting Sarah Palin as his Vice President. Again, everyone just simply say they agree with Obama and support Palin as Vice President. This raises many questions. First is whether this is a scripted questionnaire and that Howard Stern makes all this up. But if all of this is legitimate, this situation can be very concerning. One of the many things I wondered is whether this problem is caused by the media or simply just humans’ ignorance and foolishness.
Whatever it is, this incident further proves that people seem to care much more about the candidates’ personalities and the way they hold themselves rather than their policies and the strategies for improving the country. Did this happen because of how the media is trying to be sensational and dramatic and therefore totally skipped out on the politic it should originally be focused on? Though I would say I believe this is partly the individual’s foolishness, I have to agree that media did an excellent job of swaying individual to one way or another by just simply shinning a positive light or negative light on a candidate. I say this because, though I do not follow this election that closely, I am sway to support Obama, clearly not because I agree with anyone of his policies (I don’t even know them) but simply because he is a good talker. I fully realize that this is very superficial but I know there are more people like me out there and I guess this is something we as a society need to improve.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
To the Max [Katha Pollitt]
On October 21, 2008 I got a chance to listen to Ms. Katha Pollitt talked about her newest book of essays, Learning to Drive and Other Life Stories and share her perspective about the upcoming election. One of the essays in her book that she read to the audience was “Memoir of a Shy Pornographer.” I actually ended up buying her book and getting her signature on it. This essay is very interesting not only because it is about pornography (which nobody really write about) but also because it provide a rather unique and original perspective of looking at porn. What is even more remarkable is that, this perspective is arguable perfectly analogous with how McKibbin view the media. Though this is hard to believe, Politt and McKibbin, through their own way of looking at such medium, are able to show why one can only learns very little from watching today’s media.
Both McKibben and Pollitts agrees that one of the dangers of television is that it alters perception of reality since it only presents what society deem to be fun and exciting. Accompanied by the speeding up today’s society, when one only watches television, one expected it to be full of fun and excitement. Even when one watches sport, one expect to see something extraordinary; this is why highlight receives such enormous attention from sport viewer. This however, as McKibben argues, alters the perception of reality. Because of this mindset, when one actually go to a stadium to watch such and such sport, one might claim that game to be “boring” or “dull,” not realizing that what one watched on television is just a selection of reality. One example McKibben uses is the nature film. Similar to sport highlights, nature documentaries “are as absurdly action-packed as the soap operas, where a life’s worth of divorce, adultery, and sudden death are crammed into a week’s worth of watching.” (McKibben 77)
Correspondingly Pollitts argues that pornography is basically a fantasy, something taken to the extreme. One of the main thing Pollits mentions is that “a man could read porn his whole life and never learn a thing about real women: how to talk to them, what they linked, where, if the clitoris was not actually located in their throat, the damn thing was.” (Pollitts 96) This, analogous to McKibben’s argument, proves that media show viewers the extreme of things and viewer actually believe that to be the reality. Therefore this makes viewer raises the norm, and what used to be considered as normal is now considered as less than normal or boring. What is even more concerning is that for many individual pornography is where they are first exposed to sex, some even regard pornography as their sexual education. But as Pollits mentions, pornography is “clearly a fantasy, something some odd duck of a writer dreamed up out of his head.” (Pollitts 94)
As much as it is hard to believe, one cannot learn reality from watching television. As it is proven by both authors, what television show is simply a selection of reality, attempt not to show reality but to attract viewer; the main point of pornography is to keep people reading (or watching). Knowing this, it is questionable how much of the upcoming presidential election will be entertainment rather than actual political issues. No matter how it turns out, the best the individual viewer could do is to be aware of such illusions.
Both McKibben and Pollitts agrees that one of the dangers of television is that it alters perception of reality since it only presents what society deem to be fun and exciting. Accompanied by the speeding up today’s society, when one only watches television, one expected it to be full of fun and excitement. Even when one watches sport, one expect to see something extraordinary; this is why highlight receives such enormous attention from sport viewer. This however, as McKibben argues, alters the perception of reality. Because of this mindset, when one actually go to a stadium to watch such and such sport, one might claim that game to be “boring” or “dull,” not realizing that what one watched on television is just a selection of reality. One example McKibben uses is the nature film. Similar to sport highlights, nature documentaries “are as absurdly action-packed as the soap operas, where a life’s worth of divorce, adultery, and sudden death are crammed into a week’s worth of watching.” (McKibben 77)
Correspondingly Pollitts argues that pornography is basically a fantasy, something taken to the extreme. One of the main thing Pollits mentions is that “a man could read porn his whole life and never learn a thing about real women: how to talk to them, what they linked, where, if the clitoris was not actually located in their throat, the damn thing was.” (Pollitts 96) This, analogous to McKibben’s argument, proves that media show viewers the extreme of things and viewer actually believe that to be the reality. Therefore this makes viewer raises the norm, and what used to be considered as normal is now considered as less than normal or boring. What is even more concerning is that for many individual pornography is where they are first exposed to sex, some even regard pornography as their sexual education. But as Pollits mentions, pornography is “clearly a fantasy, something some odd duck of a writer dreamed up out of his head.” (Pollitts 94)
As much as it is hard to believe, one cannot learn reality from watching television. As it is proven by both authors, what television show is simply a selection of reality, attempt not to show reality but to attract viewer; the main point of pornography is to keep people reading (or watching). Knowing this, it is questionable how much of the upcoming presidential election will be entertainment rather than actual political issues. No matter how it turns out, the best the individual viewer could do is to be aware of such illusions.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Ills are of Our Own Making
Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said that “ills are of our own making” (Rousseau 84). By this he means that most of the illnesses we come to know today are the results of our extreme inequality: “excessive idleness and labor, overly refined food, overwhelming indigestion, bad food, mental exhaustion, sorrow and infliction” (Rousseau 84). He further substantiates this claim by raising the question why then are there no solid observation that shows that countries “where the art of medicine is most neglected, the mean duration of man’s life is less than in those where it is most cultivated?” (Rousseau 84). Take the United State for instance, despite the fact that it is one of the most advance medical countries in the world, it is also the origin of the various newest illness known to man.
Though I agree with Rousseau that “ills are of our own making” resulting from extreme inequality, I would also add that today, illness can also come from insecurity and dissatisfaction the media fictitiously created. One of many fictitious illness that causes the most stir in the media is Motivational Deficiency Disorder and Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder. This illness and its advertised drug, Havidol (Have it All) that supposedly cure it are created by artist Justine Cooper in attempt to create a campaign to mock the drug industry tactic in promoting prescribe drugs. The illness consisted of “slight reluctance to get out of bed on Monday morning” or even “unmotivated to breath.” Despite how ridiculous and absurd these symptom sounds many people thought it was real. This parody does not only depict the immense influential power of the media but also our desire to constantly doubt ourselves and persistently believe that there is always room for improvement.
This parody makes me question whether the illnesses I have come to know are the result of the illness I feel in my body or the insecurity and dissatisfaction the media created. I wonder if I did not learn that there are such thing as depression would I still perceive it the same way. In a way, I think that what I learned from the media and what I feel as a result of my senses are inseparable. Therefore though many may argue that the people who believe these fictitious illnesses are absurd, the reasoning they use in believing that these illnesses are not that much different from ours. Take headache for instance, I believe that headache is real for simply three reasons: I can feel the pain in the head, other can also feel it and that when I go to the hospital, the doctor believes that I have a headache. Therefore I prove to myself that an illness is real on my senses, the people around me and some sort of authority or expert. Unless someone can tell me the difference between the reasoning of having the fictitious illness and a “real” illness, I cannot really distinguish them. Because I can definitely say that I do have a “slight reluctance to get out of bed on Monday morning” and that other around me shares the same feeling. And since this fictitious illness is backed up by a fake doctor dressed in a white coat with a tie similar to all the medical advertisement, I have my reasons to believe. Despite what other might say, I believe that fictitious illness and “real” illness is barely indistinguishable.
Though government and agencies are trying to control drugs advertisement, I believe they have to enforce rather stricter rules. As it has been illustrated over and over again how truly terrifying it is to create a new disease and how very little effort it takes to generate a whole new area of anxiety and the possibility of people convincing them that they are ill. My Theory of Knowledge professor in high school once asked us whether we realize that all human beings are born with at least one disease that is still incurable --- that disease is age, that once we are born, we are dying. Therefore I believe that what is illness is, is rather a matter of how we perceive them.
Though I agree with Rousseau that “ills are of our own making” resulting from extreme inequality, I would also add that today, illness can also come from insecurity and dissatisfaction the media fictitiously created. One of many fictitious illness that causes the most stir in the media is Motivational Deficiency Disorder and Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder. This illness and its advertised drug, Havidol (Have it All) that supposedly cure it are created by artist Justine Cooper in attempt to create a campaign to mock the drug industry tactic in promoting prescribe drugs. The illness consisted of “slight reluctance to get out of bed on Monday morning” or even “unmotivated to breath.” Despite how ridiculous and absurd these symptom sounds many people thought it was real. This parody does not only depict the immense influential power of the media but also our desire to constantly doubt ourselves and persistently believe that there is always room for improvement.
This parody makes me question whether the illnesses I have come to know are the result of the illness I feel in my body or the insecurity and dissatisfaction the media created. I wonder if I did not learn that there are such thing as depression would I still perceive it the same way. In a way, I think that what I learned from the media and what I feel as a result of my senses are inseparable. Therefore though many may argue that the people who believe these fictitious illnesses are absurd, the reasoning they use in believing that these illnesses are not that much different from ours. Take headache for instance, I believe that headache is real for simply three reasons: I can feel the pain in the head, other can also feel it and that when I go to the hospital, the doctor believes that I have a headache. Therefore I prove to myself that an illness is real on my senses, the people around me and some sort of authority or expert. Unless someone can tell me the difference between the reasoning of having the fictitious illness and a “real” illness, I cannot really distinguish them. Because I can definitely say that I do have a “slight reluctance to get out of bed on Monday morning” and that other around me shares the same feeling. And since this fictitious illness is backed up by a fake doctor dressed in a white coat with a tie similar to all the medical advertisement, I have my reasons to believe. Despite what other might say, I believe that fictitious illness and “real” illness is barely indistinguishable.
Though government and agencies are trying to control drugs advertisement, I believe they have to enforce rather stricter rules. As it has been illustrated over and over again how truly terrifying it is to create a new disease and how very little effort it takes to generate a whole new area of anxiety and the possibility of people convincing them that they are ill. My Theory of Knowledge professor in high school once asked us whether we realize that all human beings are born with at least one disease that is still incurable --- that disease is age, that once we are born, we are dying. Therefore I believe that what is illness is, is rather a matter of how we perceive them.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Game and Violece
Since I am Thai, I figure it would be interesting to write a thing or two about the Thai media. Similar to other teenagers, one of my favorite activities that I do in my spare time is playing video games, whether it would be in Play Station III or in the computer. I have been playing various types of game for as long as I remember whether it would be First Person Shooting, Role Playing Game, Intense Real Time Strategy and etc. One of my favorite games is Grand Thief Auto (GTA). For those readers who are unfamiliar with the game, GTA is a Third-Person Action Adventure published by RockStar Games. According to Wikipedia, the GTA series “focuses around many different protagonists who attempt to rise through the criminal underworld, although their motives for doing so vary in each game.” (1) In addition, GTA was also the only game to receive a 10/10 from IGN Entertainment in this past 10 years.
Therefore, given that it is one of my favorite games of all time, one incident that happened only a month back (August 2008) that did not pleased me and a lot of gamers in Thailand was when the Thai Government decided to ban the entire Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series after the fatal stabbing of a taxi driver. “Police claim the 18-year-old confessed to stealing the taxi and said he killed the 54-year-old driver after he fought back. The teenager could face the death penalty if he is found guilty.” What makes this more interesting and distinct from other cases is when the 18-year-old continues to confess that “He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game.”(Reed) The question that I am raising here is, “Is this action by the government justifiable?”
Despite what the Thai government thinks, I believe this to be about personal responsibility in society. I think that in this case it is acceptable to blame the individual instead of the game itself because "to blame human wickedness on images is the moralistic recourse of a society that is unwilling to condemn trash on aesthetic ground." (Gitlin 120) I understand that some people might wonder whether if something was as easy in real life as it was in the game, but most of these people will hold themselves back because of things such as laws, moral or even religion. Moreover, this reasoning is called hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is when a single example or instance is used as a basis for a broader generalization. Using this logic, the Thai government should not use this incident as a basis for believing that other teens will rob and kill as a result of playing GTA too. After reading this story from many sources, I could not find any of them looking into this 18-year-old teen education, family, socio-economic background and etc at all. Banning this game does not fix any problem at all since there are many more games that are similar and even more violence than GTA.
Another argument that gamers make in favor of the gaming industry is that, violence causes games. It suggests that the game we see today is merely a product of our society and therefore the main cause of the violence in game is the pre-existing social conditions. If there were not all this problems and violence, the gaming industry might be reluctant in making them. I also believe that if the social conditions were great, kids could play violence game all day and not be inclined to rob and kill some random person. Moreover, I think that games are sources of entertainment, and one could make an argument that without these sources of entertainment, many could get more stressful. Games also allow individual to experience many things second-handed --- without hurting and affecting anyone. Therefore it might be possible that gamers tried to do stuff in game in order to experience it secondhand, and not do it in real life.
Despite the disappointment of the game being banned, I find it funny how many Thai gamers wrote blogs making fun this incident. One of the blog talks about how Mario should be banned since it promotes teen jumping on things and killing turtles. Other put up a banner clamming that, “I play Grand Thief Auto and I am still fine.”
Therefore, given that it is one of my favorite games of all time, one incident that happened only a month back (August 2008) that did not pleased me and a lot of gamers in Thailand was when the Thai Government decided to ban the entire Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series after the fatal stabbing of a taxi driver. “Police claim the 18-year-old confessed to stealing the taxi and said he killed the 54-year-old driver after he fought back. The teenager could face the death penalty if he is found guilty.” What makes this more interesting and distinct from other cases is when the 18-year-old continues to confess that “He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game.”(Reed) The question that I am raising here is, “Is this action by the government justifiable?”
Despite what the Thai government thinks, I believe this to be about personal responsibility in society. I think that in this case it is acceptable to blame the individual instead of the game itself because "to blame human wickedness on images is the moralistic recourse of a society that is unwilling to condemn trash on aesthetic ground." (Gitlin 120) I understand that some people might wonder whether if something was as easy in real life as it was in the game, but most of these people will hold themselves back because of things such as laws, moral or even religion. Moreover, this reasoning is called hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is when a single example or instance is used as a basis for a broader generalization. Using this logic, the Thai government should not use this incident as a basis for believing that other teens will rob and kill as a result of playing GTA too. After reading this story from many sources, I could not find any of them looking into this 18-year-old teen education, family, socio-economic background and etc at all. Banning this game does not fix any problem at all since there are many more games that are similar and even more violence than GTA.
Another argument that gamers make in favor of the gaming industry is that, violence causes games. It suggests that the game we see today is merely a product of our society and therefore the main cause of the violence in game is the pre-existing social conditions. If there were not all this problems and violence, the gaming industry might be reluctant in making them. I also believe that if the social conditions were great, kids could play violence game all day and not be inclined to rob and kill some random person. Moreover, I think that games are sources of entertainment, and one could make an argument that without these sources of entertainment, many could get more stressful. Games also allow individual to experience many things second-handed --- without hurting and affecting anyone. Therefore it might be possible that gamers tried to do stuff in game in order to experience it secondhand, and not do it in real life.
Despite the disappointment of the game being banned, I find it funny how many Thai gamers wrote blogs making fun this incident. One of the blog talks about how Mario should be banned since it promotes teen jumping on things and killing turtles. Other put up a banner clamming that, “I play Grand Thief Auto and I am still fine.”
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Meaning of Media
Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world,” by this he meant that one could only think and understand the world through language and meanings we put on to words and concepts because; even though some words are quite simple and clearly define, other words are repeatedly misused and challenging. For instance, we take the term “media” for granted --- but what are media anyway? Although Oxford Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary and Princeton Dictionary have different definitions on what “media” means, all seems to come to a consensus that media have something to do with forms of expression and communication. Nevertheless, most sources listed “media” as mainly in the form of mass media such as: television, internet, radio, newspaper, and billboard, hardly ever depicts any other forms of media. Though mass media plays a huge role in today’s society, it is often the subliminal and unspoken form of media that we are often unconsciously exposed to, whether it would be through our Poland Spring water bottles, our Gucci bags or even through stuff that comes up in class discussion. Since we are so immerse in media, talking about it for most people is the equivalent of fish talking about water. Media is so much the routine ground of everyday activities that questioning is taken-for-granted, assumptions and presuppositions is like thinking whether the earth will keep spinning. Besides, it is arguably impossible to be perfectly objective in assessing something we are so accustomed to and so immerged in. This might simply be one of the reasons why it is so hard to precisely and accurately analyze and define media for exactly what it is.
The second manner in which people take media for granted is when they assume that their perception of the media is objective and reflects the reality. Since we are human beings, there are various limitations in our perception and logic. When talks of perception, one normally thinks of only sight but really, perception means all sense of knowing whether it would be sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. One limitation of perception is that perception is a selective and interpretative process. Since perception is selective and interpretative, it is often biased and contains many filters such as personal perception filter, socio-economic filters and cultural filters. These filters are the very thing that makes the same thing different to each individual perceiver. Age, gender, race and past experiences are examples of personal perceptions filters that make young children, teenagers, and adult “see” things differently. Socio-economic filters include occupation, level of education, environmental factors, and family upbringing. These socio-economic filters are what advertisers are specifically specialized in. Cultural filters include language, for example, a concept or idea might not be available in one language when it is available in another. After the “selective” process, one continues on to interpret. The limitations of interpretation are the fallacies of reasoning. There are various fallacies of reasoning but some of the most common fallacies are false dilemma and popularity. False dilemma is when two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options. Popularity or bandwagon is another form of fallacies where a statement is deemed to be true because it is widely held to be true. These fallacies often take place while we are watching advertisements.
The third way people take media for granted is when they relate media directly with information and ultimately relating it (media & information) to knowledge. We tend to belief that the more information we have, the better. Yet, one has to realize that at this Age of Information, information often dominates our attention and overwhelm our capability to digest it. In fact, "excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener they drown him." (Ellul 30)This leads us to adapt and "learned to fill in the gaps" and "merely draw a general picture from them." (Gitlin 89) (Ellul 30) Moreover, we also have a tendency to treat media and information as powerful representation of the truth and act as if they are factual and incontrovertible since they come from sources we may never get to see or comprehend. The common substantiation phrase one usually hears is “of course it is true, I saw it on TV” or “I’ve read it in an article!” not realizing that these media we take for granted could be erroneous as well.
Given that there are countless limitations to our perception of the media and the world, I think it is pointless to precisely define what media really is. Rather, I think it would be more beneficial to stop taking the media for granted and seek to recognize its limitations, flaws and our interaction with them.
The second manner in which people take media for granted is when they assume that their perception of the media is objective and reflects the reality. Since we are human beings, there are various limitations in our perception and logic. When talks of perception, one normally thinks of only sight but really, perception means all sense of knowing whether it would be sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. One limitation of perception is that perception is a selective and interpretative process. Since perception is selective and interpretative, it is often biased and contains many filters such as personal perception filter, socio-economic filters and cultural filters. These filters are the very thing that makes the same thing different to each individual perceiver. Age, gender, race and past experiences are examples of personal perceptions filters that make young children, teenagers, and adult “see” things differently. Socio-economic filters include occupation, level of education, environmental factors, and family upbringing. These socio-economic filters are what advertisers are specifically specialized in. Cultural filters include language, for example, a concept or idea might not be available in one language when it is available in another. After the “selective” process, one continues on to interpret. The limitations of interpretation are the fallacies of reasoning. There are various fallacies of reasoning but some of the most common fallacies are false dilemma and popularity. False dilemma is when two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options. Popularity or bandwagon is another form of fallacies where a statement is deemed to be true because it is widely held to be true. These fallacies often take place while we are watching advertisements.
The third way people take media for granted is when they relate media directly with information and ultimately relating it (media & information) to knowledge. We tend to belief that the more information we have, the better. Yet, one has to realize that at this Age of Information, information often dominates our attention and overwhelm our capability to digest it. In fact, "excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener they drown him." (Ellul 30)This leads us to adapt and "learned to fill in the gaps" and "merely draw a general picture from them." (Gitlin 89) (Ellul 30) Moreover, we also have a tendency to treat media and information as powerful representation of the truth and act as if they are factual and incontrovertible since they come from sources we may never get to see or comprehend. The common substantiation phrase one usually hears is “of course it is true, I saw it on TV” or “I’ve read it in an article!” not realizing that these media we take for granted could be erroneous as well.
Given that there are countless limitations to our perception of the media and the world, I think it is pointless to precisely define what media really is. Rather, I think it would be more beneficial to stop taking the media for granted and seek to recognize its limitations, flaws and our interaction with them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
