Framing Class

Kendall argues that the media fuels an existent problem in our society. It is my belief that this problem is one that has existed for a long time, certainly in American society, and perhaps other cultures as well, although I can't speak to that. Unfortunately however, the problem has gotten worse in recent years as the outpouring of new media outlets has provided us with a particular image of the upper class. They make us believe that wealth is something to be aspired to at the exclusion of all else. I do believe that having this goal as one of many is not in and of itself bad. However, I can still vividly recall numerous career days at my old schools where when asked what they wanted to do when they grow older, many a child would reply "I want to become wealthy". The idea has become so ingrained in the American psyche that people often associate this trait with Americans, something which has been positive and derogatory effects upon us as a nation and a people. On the one hand, it inspires people to aspire to a circumstance better than their own. On the negative side, it causes the media to portray the lower class as "lazy" or "incompetent" for their failure to climb the social ladder - despite the fact that such a climb is quite often just one wrung out of reach for the less fortunate.

Rhetoric on the Town

I took several pictures this weekend which I believe evidenced rhetoric. The first two pictures I shot were of similar but juxtaposing images of signs. The first was a welcome sign for the city of Carmel. The sign imitated gold filament with flowery designs and long oval-like lines. To counterpoint this is a welcome sign from the city of Westfield. This sign is much simpler, feauturing only a green diamond with writing on the inside. There is nothing 3D, as with the Carmel sign. It is made of metal, instead of wood. These signs subtley convey to you meaning as to what each city is about, and ironically, they are located a mere twenty feet from one another on the same north-south road. The Carmel sign conveys the image of high-class affluence, stating in bold gold lettering "WELCOME TO CARMEL". You can gage imediately the caliber of the city you are entering, or at least you can gage what they intend you to believe is the caliber of the city. The Westfield sign features more details in writing, and is aesthetically simpler. It informs you that the town was founded in 1834 and features the slogan "Old Town Charm, New City Style". This is meant to convey that Westfield is a city with a history. When you choose Westfield, you are choosing a place that has proven itself over time, and has, in many ways, more personality than Carmel. Or so we are lead to believe. Whether the truth lies along these lines for either city is hard for us to say, but each sign conveys a message as the stationary welcome beacon to their respective stations, and each would like us to believe in the messages they put across.

Under the Sign of Mickey Mouse & Co.

Gitlin makes the argument that the majority of the worlds media and entertainment can be loosely defined as "American". I think this is a valid point overall. American culture has become something of a standard around the world. This was no more evident to me than when I went on tour with the Indianapolis Children's Choir to China and we stopped in to a McDonald's one day (I refrained from partaking, I found the idea of visiting a foreign country and stopping in to an American chain as rather distasteful). Stores and products like McDonald's enjoy exposure the world over, which supports Gitlin's claim. One point he brought up, and something I had never really considered before, was the fact that the United States serves as something of a giant market survey when it comes to new products. The cultural make-up of America is so highly varied, that if a product is able to succeed in the United States, and if it resonates with various ethnic groups, that tends to be a strong indicator of how the product will do worldwide. Virtually nowhere else in the world does such a culture of variance exist in one nation, and this provides entrepreneurs with the ultimate test in terms of whether or not a product could succeed outside America. Another interesting point Gitlin brought up was the fact that so many people emulate American entertainment and American products is due to the fact that they sell. Stephen Spielberg's directing techniques bear fruit - he is able to convince droves of people to see a movie he has directed simply by having directed it. McDonald's will be able to sell food almost anywhere it goes, it has a versatility in its offerings that appeals to a cross section of people. Given the fact that entrepreneurs are presented with comparable American products which succeed and are popular, why would one chose not to emulate them in an attempt to recreate their success? The world of business is a cut-throat one; starting a business for many is hard enough in its own right. When people are presented with a model that works and is profitable, they would be fiscally remiss to not incorporate at least some portion of the American equivalent in their own model. The problem is that this deters people from being truly innovative, and breeds something akin to complacency when it comes to thinking of new products and ideas. One point of contention I will raise with the article was with Gitlin's description of English as "grammatically simple". English is anything but grammatically simple. It has a far higher number of irregular verbs than most of it's Latinate and Germanic counterparts, to name just one criteria it fails in terms of being "grammatically simple". Perhaps Gitlin meant that English was grammatically simple in comparison to languages like Chinese, which feature their own pictographic symbols for individuals words, resulting in hundreds of thousands of different symbols that must be learned. In these terms, I suppose English is much less complex. However, Gitlin does not elaborate on this point whatsoever, expecting us to take it at face value. Other than this, I thought many of the points that he made were interesting, and worth further thought.

Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt

Kilbourne argues that it is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects due to the fact that it dehumanizes them, and when you view someone as less than human, it is much easier to victimize them. We would be extremely unlikely to injure someone who we saw as an equal, someone we respected and felt empathy for. A prominent historical example can be found with Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime portrayed the Jews as subhuman; this was the only way they could justify the slaughter of millions of Jews to themselves. To admit that Jews were equal to them in their humanity would have introduced doubt into the scenario, and made it impossible for the Nazis to do what they did. Kilbourne views the objectification of women as more troubling than that of men due to the fact that our culture is already highly stilted towards mysoginism even without the latest trends towards objectifying women. I agree with Kilbourne's assertion. Trends in advertising to objectify women tend to be more troubling than the male equivilant in advertising - however, in a sense these ads can be as damaging for men as they are for women. They try and convince men that they need to be dominant at all times, and that to "score" with a woman, they should treat her poorly. In this sense, men are victimized by these advertisements as well. Obviously this is not the same circumstance as it is with women - the objectification of women is much more immediately concering. However, in the end, such mentalities are unhealthy for everyone; men and women alike.

Superbowl Ads

Each year, there has been a perceptible dip in the quality of super bowl advertisements, and this year was no exception. Most of the advertisements I saw were non sequiter, and virtually impossible to gain any sense of. Budweiser built an entire ad campaign based off of their ad tagline "Drinkability" as well as the antics of a horse that manages to get up to all sorts of hi jinx, which relates to beer somehow? In a revelation on par with when we discovered Darth Vader was Luke's father, we finally discover what this "Drinkability" business is all about. "Budweiser has drinkability" a bro chirps in the ad, "it's easy to drink!". Well that was certainly... expected. Regardless, enough about alcohol. There were plenty of other non-beer related ads that caught my eye. Such as a pepsi advertisement that was really quite smashing. It featured Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" being performed by him, as well as a more contemporary artist. The song was dubbed over images of 60s nostalgia: hippies, flower power and the like. These are contrasted with more modern images of youth today doing what they do best - being youthful. The ad ends with the tagline "Each generation refreshes the world". Well isn't that profound. Unfortunately for pepsi, I don't see how this relates to pepsi at all. Am I required to drink a soft drink to refresh the world? If my changing the world is contingent on drinking a pepsi, I think I'll prefer to let the world be. I've never really cared for pepsi. At half time we were treated to a delight, three dimensional advertising! What struck me about these ads was the fact that the ads themselves had virtually no substance whatsoever, aside from the fact that they were in 3D. One featured lizards dancing and trippy visual effects. Aside from the obvious fact that they were in 3D, these ads were even worse than the worst of the other superbowl ads. It was a sad commentary on where advertisements in general are heading if this becomes the norm.

The Bias of Language

This article brought up points that we discussed at the very outset of AP English. Chief among these points was the idea that language is an extremely individual thing. One person may utilize certain words to mean something, but another person may use the same words in a different context. Specifically we looked at the "blue" chair; but what is blue exactly? What one person defines as blue may appear as more of a teal to another person. It is entirely subjective. The article brings up this point with the example of the three people who go to dinner. If the three of them were to write two paragraphs about their experience, it is highly unlikely that you would see the same words and phrases or the same impressions. What they wrote would be very different, despite the fact that they had all been attending the same dinner. These are all discussions that fit in nicely with our original discussions at the beginning of the year - however, The Bias of Language ventures into largely uncharted territory for us when it begins to discuss the bias of pictures. The article challenges the common assertion that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, a word can easily be worth a thousand pictures as well. Without words to ground a picture, there is absolutely no context. It is impossible to display abstract ideas with a picture, you can only create a sampling of the whole. That is why it is vital to use both pictures and words to communicate ones meaning, for pictures alone are unable to communicate ideas that words are.

Progress 12/8

Worked on the paper some more today. I did some research into the opposing views in terms of Separation of Church and State, so that I could make my paper better balanced. It's interesting reading - one side has got a clear constitutional advantage, while the other main support comes from other sources. I'm learning plenty of new stuff - I must admit I didn't know as much as I would have thought I did going into the project. The issue seems quite simple on the exterior, but once you really get into it, it become extremely complex. There are a lot of legal issues that have yet to be resolved. Every time I come across some new info, I'm simply pulling back another layer to this extremely complicated issue. Hopefully I will be able to shed some light on this in my paper, I am already feeling more knowledgeable about it considering my most current research.