This is a blog for the ASIAN340 (Asian Pacific American Media), Fall 2009. Students are expected to:
1) Post a 250-word response to each class's set of readings, before the readings are due.
2) Post a 250-word response to one of their classmate's reading responses, after the readings are due.
3) Attach a relevant internet-based cultural production (video clip, photograph, song, etc) to their reading response, and briefly explain how the cultural production relates to the readings.
Race is just another society class created to keep the white supremacy in power. The only differences is status is base on skin color and blood-linage. Which isn't very accurate since there so many different skin color. So many people have relatives that are from different so called races. Almost no one is a pure blooded anymore. Since race is just another society class system culture has a big part in how a certain race lives. The American society have been so called brainwashed into thinking some races are inferior to another. To remove the chains the race society class, we must accept that skin color does not make up who we are. Media should also stop showing hiding message like favoring a certain type of skin color or look. Education about history should be taught with more point of views then just the Europeans or the winners of wars. We should not judge people by appearance but by actions.
There is no genetic proof of race but instead it disproves the existence of race. Someone in the same race will have the same differences genetic makeup as from someone in a different race. Humans being are more similar to each other in genetic makeup then any animals out there even if they look same on the outside.
What is art? Art is different for everyone. It depends how the person view something and how they value it. What art does is it lets someone peer into mind of the artist and get a glimpse of the artists thought at that moment in time. But every viewer will have a different thought or some may have the same. Either way there is no wrong way to interpret art work.
Honestly, I feel pretty lost after reading the four articles. They couldn’t grab my full attention while reading them. Maybe it’s just me, but I really find these four articles boring, unlike the previous two readings we had read.
As I read these four readings I found a common tie and message between each one and that was structure and stability. In Marx and Engels, they talk about the society and the rule of a certain class. In Horkheimer and Adorno, they talked about the classification and organization of customers. In Gramsci's case he states that ideas had to be broken down into their original elements. In Benjamin's, he calls art a traditional form. What I see is a similar pattern of the meaning of structure. It was initially very difficult to understand what each reading meant but as I read them over again I saw a message between all of them where the writer's want to state their ideas of structure and organization.
"..believes that everything it says and imagines about itself is true" (Marx & Engels) shows a difference between realism and idealism. Class is imaginative, made up of illusions and ideas that yield a structural ladder in our minds and set divisions in society. In the Gramsci reading, we get an example of ideology when we consider the supremacy of a social group manifested in 2 ways: "domination and intellectual/moral leadership". The ideological superior see themselves as favorable among the rest.. in terms of how to act, how to think, etc. They become the ideal figure that is dominant over others. Horkheimer & Adorno state that culture has a common denominator. There's nothing new under the sun, everything is controlled by a unified concept.. a sphere of classification and administration. Lastly, Benjamin praises the power of film.. he reasons that film is readily analyzed because it is easily isolated and we get an extention or a precise perception of every action to every fractional "unconscious" second. Film thus takes art to a new level of clarification.
I found all four readings very theoretical so I just tried to highlight upon any thoughts or theories that stuck out to me. I felt the Gramsci/Marx readings complimented each other in terms of the structure of classes, division of labor, etc. Gramsci mentioned "subaltern classes" quite a few times, and although he gave some sort of definition as "not unified and cannot unite until they become a State" or in my interpretation as being identified. I was just wondering how subaltern refers to the asian americans or what he's referring to?
The readings of Horkheimer and Benjamin were personally more interesting to me since they pertained to art. I felt Horkheimer was very technical and systematic regarding imitation of art between cultures. I don't even know if it's imitations but similarities in art for example, the techniques of brush strokes. It seems like he's saying who came up with it had the most authentic art and the others pieces have copied the techniques?? Whether styles have been imitated or transformed, I feel like the emotional response to a certain work of art will always vary.
He also wrote that the details are interchangeable like in music intervals. I feel like the details don't belong separately to each culture but to the genre of music itself. Anyway I'm unexpectedly writing too much so I'll stop now ;D
I agree with nero60 on how American society is "brainwashed" on the idea what race is superior or inferior. We must and should accept each other. We should not just look at the exterior outlook of a one's skin color.
One of the commonalities between the articles, if my understanding is correct, is that the ruling class creates and controls the ideas (and art) of their society. While I think the values of the "upper class" definitely have some impact on the societal values as a whole, there are plenty of examples in history of the lower class postulating their own values and making radical changes as a result: the adoption of Christianity, and the French/American Revolutions spring to mind. He also writes that Philosophers are the voice of the values of the ruling class, but think about Socrates! Look how influential (and impoverished) he was, yet he was put to death by the rulers of the time. This might even have helped his message. You can say the same thing about Jesus Christ, and a lot of people throughout history (not the Buddha, I think he was rich). After reading this article I found myself asking, how does this apply today? Do we really have a ruling class? We definitely have an upper crust, but there is such diversity within that crust: politicians, musicians, actors, business moguls, etc. In fact, it seems as if the most influential people in our society are people in the entertainment industry:: they are the new aristocracy. There is an idea in the Horkheimer piece that art is standardized and mass produced with little room for innovation as a result of economic factors. This is probably true to some extent. “This will do really well in the box office” is probably the logic behind the production of so many bad movies. Yet simultaneously, there are people who are genuinely interested in the art, in creating something enjoyable, even if it departs from social norms/expectations. Often, these works of art resonate with people and achieve success as a rsult, which encourages more genuine art to be produced in turn.
NOTE: I will be writing the following in character as conservative libertarian talk show host Glenn Beck archetype...
Hello again America. I wanted to talk to you about something... no wait let me backtrack just a little bit.
My - my nephew came home from school one day and presented me with some material he was covering Karl Marx. My first reaction, of course, is to search for the agenda behind teaching students; you know an out of date, out of touch thinker from the 19th century. But then I thought about it some more. How about that ruling class controlling the ideas of the population? The central point is not merely that there was a ruling class and that they controlled what the people knew and thought but that these people were made to be unaware.
So America, I ask you, what is it that WE are unaware of? What have WE turned a blind eye to?
As I was first reading these four articles, I was rather confused as to how to tie them together and how to relate them to the study of Asian Americans in the media. I can't say that I'm entirely over that feeling but this is what I got out of the articles:
The Marx and Gramsci theories focused on classical sociological theories. In the Marx article, it is clear that he felt that those who were in control economically and materially, were also the ones in control mentally. Those who were not economically well-off would encounter a great deal of trouble establishing their identity on their own. A similar theme is present in the Gramsci article. A subaltern class is, ultimately, the opposite of a ruling class. Gramsci refers to Marx's works as he focuses on the "solidity of popular beliefs." That,essentially, is the way in which the ruling class controls and organizes the mentality of the society it is a part of.
The Benjamin and Horkheimer readings seem to imply that the media is the new ruling class. This is not necessarily because they are wealthier, but because they are in the position to reach more individuals. Just like the noble families during Marx's time influenced the working class, the media does the same to the modern day working(middle?) class. In essence, the culture industry shapes the art of society. As we are influenced by the media, we, often subconsciously, create ideas and make assumptions about others simply due to what the media says.
I wanna... I wanna show you... something. This - if- if this doesn't- if this doesn’t make you , just- just sick- make you wanna scream at your monitor and call your congressmen and women I-I-I-I I don't know what will.
Just show the tape. [Here I would provide a link of the acorn tapes detailing two workers willingly helping two people get funding from the government in order to buy a house in which they planned to ship 13 illegal immigrants to become be bred as underage prostitutes. Unfortunately hunter is having connection issues - ill delete this though and repost it later with the proper link]
Ok. Ok - there's a lot here. You may not have seen that video before. Why? I mean - I mean why? This, if you don't know is - it's where your tax dollars are going - where...
Just- Just a second - Let me back track a bit.
Acorn - The "Community organizing group" You know the one that Barrack Obama said was gong to 'reshape the nation' - you know that group America? I mean, THIS - THIS is your future?! Is that what you want?
See ACORN is or has been investigated in FIFTY STATES!
Convicted in THIRTY for voter registration fraud. Yeah America, apparently Mickey Mouse just had to have universal health care so bad he registered to vote.
Now this isn't about right or left of course. That-that see that's what the government wants you to believe to DISTRACT you! See they think you're stupid America! They want to deflect the issues from what's really going on.
See, acorn is set to receive 8.5 BILLION Dollars! In the upcoming economic stimulus package. That's YOUR tax dollars america. Your tax dollars are funding an organization which willingly helps 13 year old CHILDREN - they’re children 13 year old little girls from disadvantaged countries come in illegally so they can become PROSTITUTES. And acorn is gonna help them buy a house. Oh isn’t that lovely. Hey mommy hey daddy can't wait to come to the land of opportunity so that I can have sleazy men use me as their sex slaves!
But does the government care? No. THEY are the ruling class - the government! And all that maters to them is power. So that groups like acorn can TRICK YOU into believing they're for you - they're on *your* side. Instead they manipulate people into votes for a government set to provide this criminal organization with 8.5 billion dollars. Look how many zeros that is! Look how- Show them! Show them!
8,500,000,000
This in addition to the 12 trillion dollar debt and it kinda makes you wonder now just where is that money going. Oh lets just who them what 12 trillion looks like.
12,000,000,000 no no - a few more zeros
12,000,000,000,000 THERE you go!
And where - where is the media on this? I've been covering this for WEEKS. There are five video from ACORN - FIVE and all pretty much the same and they’re just now barely catching up. You can look them up. But the media doesn’t want to show you because they get too have economic special interests and social agendas too.
And this is directly linking to Marx and the ruling class. The media controls what you know! The government controls what you know! And they use our lack of knowledge to manipulate you into their own gains of power. The Media! The Government! The Unions!
Oh see, I forgot to tell you - I didn't tell you about... See, the teachers union - they gave several million dollars to Dale Rathky's organization - see that's the guy he's the - he's the brother of DALE Rathky co-founder of ACORN. See, so the teachers union have ties there.
The same teachers, who I don't know, teach your children - who helps to - lets just use obamas words 'shape the agenda of america'. See America, it's all a virus, an interconnected virus of people creating bills thousands of pages long so that we cant read it, filled with ear marks, special interest spending the help those who can help them gain more power and YOUR not part of it. THEY are the ruling class and we have to just take it! WE have to pay the 12 trillion dollars that goes to this organization. Your children, your future grandchildren pay. NOt these slimballs in power.
And I; a self avowed capitalist can turn to karl marx. KARL MARX?! I agree with Karl Marx...
See - See, I've been saying this... for a while now - America. Now, this, this is important. See, it's not about left or Right - cause- cause-cause (laughter) the right they have their own abuse of power and special interests. Rembmer Hallibertan?
So stand up america. Don't get side tracked by petty partisan politics. Those things dont matter until we remove the corruption created by those in power! Pull the wool over your eyes and ask yourself every day - what is it you *know* you really *know* and why do you know it? Who is guiding you? Who is trying to manipulate you into believing what you want to believe? Who is willing to take from you so they can advance their own abuse of power?
I- I I have to pause for a break. When I come back...
OK so in summary, I started writing about how Karl Max didn't apply to today so much so that I coudn't possibly have much to say about it.
The broad conclussion I had was the there is still a ruling class and that it is the people in power and media and even teachers who shape what we know and we should question all information or lack ther of which we recieve.
I find the article, "the Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas" by Marx and Engels. I partuclarly agree with the idea that the "ideas of the ruling class" are in effect, the "ruling intellectual force." It is no secret that a critical factor to Obama's rise to power was the approval he gained from America's elite. That the class that has the means of material production, which will necessarily be few in numbers, paints the general intellectual pallette of the mass is an interesting thought. It seems to sway true in today's America, as the media is grouped into few large corporations. Newscorp, led by Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox Network, The Washington Post, and a whole host of other newspapers and magazines. In such structure, where the few have the most say over the many, it seems very possible that the ideas of the ruling class could indeed become the intellectual force. It is therefore to think whether or not that trend is just, and what we're missing as a result of such power equation. Is the voice of only the strong represented in our society? Are we mistaking the voice of the weak? Can we even adequately hear their voices? If so, how? These are the kind of questions I had after reading the article.
Right off the bat, thank you Terry for the pristine scans of these articles.
I first read the essay by Karl Marx, and it seemed to be a good starting off point due to the heavy Marxist undercurrents of the other articles. Marx states that the ideas of the dominant class dominate the intellectual atmosphere. In fact, these ideas are often said to have come from an outside origin, be it a philosopher like Locke or Hobbes, a god who made his will known to the people, or else the ideas are simply self-evident. Whatever the supposed origin of the ideas, once the ruling class accepts them, or the class holding them comes to power, they will be seen as universal for all of society. The ruling class imagines that their ideas serve as the common interest for all members of society, and the history books will be written thusly. This is how the ruling class imposes its beliefs, values, and will onto the subaltern classes. The same phenomenon is seen in art and culture. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno speak of the culture industry as imposing the same concepts and ideas onto all mass-produced art. Because the cultural industries are all in such close contact, the difference in quality of mass-produced art is based on target consumer demographics (divided by income groups) and not on subject matter. The subject matter is actually quite similar, primarily because the ideas of the ruling class, and therefore their art too, dominate society. I’m not going to speak much about the other two articles, mainly because I didn’t understand them as well. But I do not agree with Horkheimer and Adorno’s thesis, at least not in this day and age. In 1944, it is true that music on the radio was not written, but engineered to appeal to certain audiences. And perhaps movies were strikingly similar. But today, not only has art become much more varied, but we’ve also seen the emergence of subcultures. The Internet has brought together people with random, spontaneous interests, and together they enjoy the art that caters to them. On top of that, the cultural industry is shrinking now that anyone can create their own art and publish it to the world. The masses are no longer being spoon-fed culture or being told what to like. There has been a sort of cultural grassroots movement.
excellent point about large corporations controlling the media. I think in television broadcast there are really only 4-5 companies which own stations. Disney runs abc and a whole host of stations such as ESPN. GE with NBC and I believe Turner for several such as TBS TNT etc.
It means that all of the information that we get from television is done with the interests of these few companies.
These four readings were indeed very theorotical. Honestly, I had to read each article twice to comprehend. I'm gonna start with the one that I thought was the least complex, followed by the more difficult ones. My interpretation of the readings is as follows:
The Culture Industry as Mass Deception - Mark Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno The article seemed to be a critique on today’s media and the different mediums of the media, such as newspapers and television. The authors' complain as to how consumers have been reduced to numbers and demographics, which is absolutely true but at the same time, one has to see how the world has changed since silent films and black and white television. It is now a business driven world where money is the main objective and in many cases, what make or break a television show is the advertising, meaning, if a significant number of viewers do not tune into a show, advertisers are not as willing to pay to advertise during that time slot, thus the show gets canceled. Another complaint of the authors' is how everything is very generic now in terms of how art is constructed, this line from the article demonstrates exactly that point, “If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content…” I agree with this statement because these days, all different types of media are mixed, for example, the adaptation of the Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" novels onto the big screen.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - Walter Benjamin This article was somewhat similar in theme to the one written by Horkheimer and Engels. The topic of the article deals with art and the reproduction of it as opposed to the authenticity. Benjamin aurgues for the authenticity of things. Although this article is from 1935, if the author was still alive, I wonder what he would say about movies that attempt to recreate historical events by, such as the Holocaust Era or the JFK shooting. They obviously cannot go back to the past and film the actual event, but would have to rely on actors, props and scenery to depict the time in which the the event happened, thus not having "true authenticity."
The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The term bourgouise is by now well known thanks to Marx and his ideas. I do agree that the ideas of the ruling class are set as the idea for society as a whole because the problems of the ruling class are the problems of society.
History of the Subaltern Classes - Antonio Gramsci Even though this was one of the shorter articles, I found this reading very difficult to grasp. From what I could understand, it focused on the subaltern class, or in other words, a class that is not the ruling class, thus ranking below them. The author states that one of the most important characteristics of the ruling class is the presence of unity, although I didn't understand under what context the word "state" was used, not sure if the author meant country or just society or even something else. Onto the next topic of the article, idealogy, I very much agree with the statement from the reading "...ideologies are historically necessary.." because although ideologies are very rarely followed, they provide a framework for society.
@koimisu I agree with you that everyone is different thats is why it hard to fine people into neat groups. Yet we always do it when we first met someone. We like don't like put people in groups to predicted how they will act.
Art can be anything because it depends on the viewer. Also many people may have created something very similar to other people's work but that doesn't mean they copy them.
Karl Marx had an ideology of what a ruling class was and the ruling class ideas. The concept of ideology is when you have a set of aims and ideas. There is a society involved and more than anything there is an order of things and structure that is set. I think Karl Marx had interesting notes on how things should run within the world. Without order there would be chaos. Our society needs a leader and within these classes we need boundaries and organizational skills that keep us moving towards the right direction. Individuals have their own sense of personality and we choose what shapes us and what kind of environment affects us. I think that these readings are trying to reflect that message of living within a society that needs attention and order for them to survive.
I definitely agree that the people of the entertainment industry are the new aristocracy. That's how I interpreted the idea of the ruling class in the modern times as well. Its easy for those in the entertainment/media industries to reach the eyes and ears of many individuals, thus constructing an idea of "normal" for the average citizen. A viewer sees girls in movies and TV shows depicted in certain outfits with certain body types and, often subconsciously, draws the conclusion that this is the ideal look for any female. That's remarkably similar to the aristocrats thrusting a state of "false consciousness" upon the peasants.
Okay, I'm not going to lie. I did not think of this one on my own. I remember my sociology professor showing this skit of an assembly line from "I Love Lucy" and relating it to Marx's theories. Marx would say that the struggle between the proletariat (working class) and the capitalist (ownership class) is present here on this assembly line. The capitalist wants to speed up the assembly line and the worker wants it to go slower, thus demonstrating the completely different interests of the two parties and the struggle between them.
@ LowFatYogurt I think it’s really interesting that you use the concepts of “strong” and “weak” to describe the rich and the poor. It does seem that we often think about social classes in this way. In fact, we like separating social groups into distinct categories, but is this justified? How different are the classes really, how different are their “voices?” It seems to me like rich and poor all subscribe to the same system. Marx’s idea that the working class should wake up and smell the roses is especially interesting to me, because I think that in a way the “lower class” is every bit as responsible for the state of society as the “upper class.” The upper class is succeeding in a system that is accepted by almost everyone. If the general populace truly wanted something different and took active measures to create it, things would change. It’s happened over and over again in history. Yet the upper class is demonized time and time again for succeeding in a system that everyone participates in.
Anti-consumerism, enlightenment, independence, humility; these are hardly the values you would expect a controlling upper class to allow, much less to produce. Yet, these are some of the themes found in one of the most popular films of all time: Fight Club. Fight Club was written by Chuck Palahniuk, a man who spent a good portion of his childhood living in a mobile home (hardly a member of the "bourgeois"). I think this speaks volumes about art in our society.
@lslavin: the "I Love Lucy" clip is an excellent, concise demonstration of Marx's critique of capitalism--of the ways in which capitalism reduces humans to mere cogs of a machine. I highly recommend that everyone watches this.
Gramsci, states that Fascism oppresses the population and controlls it. I never understood how this is. I never understood what methods were used to control a population or even a country. The upper class for many countries are only about 8 to 9% of the population but they still seem to have the biggest effects on the population. I had never known the power of norms that were built up by the upper class. I actually have had many disscusions in many different classes about norms and its effects on others. But i would've never imagined that the power of a norm would be so strong that it can even keep a whole country in line. Even though there are subalterns these do nothing but showcase the power of the norm by trying to break it.
Horkheimer & Adorno they state that nazis had used mass media for their uprising in germany. Although this is true i had never imagined that in america the american people had basically tried to do the same thing.With films such as the Birth of a nation americans were basically portraying the blacks as germans did to the jews.
@8ruce L33 i do think that different classes are seen and portrayed as strong and weak because of the norms that we have. I do agree that upper class people are more accepted almost everywhere and that's because of the norms again. We are all taken in by these norms that have ruled us since the day we were born. If we were born in a upper class family we would be raised to believe that we are "stronger" than other lower or middle class people.
these are people known as yogi's. They are a certain group of people who neglect the life controlled by norms in this world. such as having a job, house, family, and being rich. they believe in finding other happiness such as spiritual enlightenment.
Out of the articles we read, what Benjamin wrote about regarding art in the age of reproduction, struck me the most. It's hard to imagine the significance of it, because we've never experienced a time when copying and cutting out images was impossible. We're able to take close up photographs of paintings throughout the world, edit parts out of it, put words beneath it, put music behind it, put it in artbooks, our bathrooms, or use it as an advertisement for anything we want. This is very different than what art used to be for--symbols of wealth and power for the upper crest of society, mystified relics in grand cathedrals. They were 'authentic,' one of their kind, worshipped. I think it's interesting how anyone can own images, look at them, without cost.
Horkheimer & Adorno It was interesting to me when we talked about in class that these two had actually went against MGM and Warner Bros. I had taken film class last semester and i had learned a great deal about these two major film producing power houses. But i still cant figure out why they had been hated by Horkheimer and Adorno. But i do remeber the black list which had taken out if i can recall correctly alota jews basically taking jews out of the movie making industries because they were believed to had been fixing movies in certain ways to benefit themselves.
Gramsci The articles shows us how powerful the upper class really is. By controlling the norm you can basically control the country or its population. By making people feel that they are doing something wrong we basically take away their own unique characteristics.
Benjamin What i got from this article is that, no matter what you do to copy or remake something. It is never possible for that new copied/remade object to have the same significance as its 1st original. This is due to the timing and the place basically the space and time it was made in had basically marked its own significance such as a copyrighted or something of that idea.
@naruto sherpa 8 to 9% would rather be a harsh guess of a upper class size. I believe different countries would have different percentages of upper class. Maybe 8 to 9% would go for america. But yes i do see what you mean when you point out that people who try breaking the norm only re-enforce it. there are many examples of this even today, such as people who refuse to go to college, while they believe that they have gotten out of the rat race for good, they soon come to find out that working without an education is alot more difficult.
this movie fight club had kept coming to my mind because of the gramsci article. i couldnt stop thinking how the main plot of the whole movie was finding a way out of the norm.
I agree with some of your thoughts, especially that the guiding principals of a society can spring up from the bottom of a society due to civil discontent. French Revolution and the American Revolution are good examples of your thesis, I suppose. As to your question of -- how does this apply today? -- I think the Internet has changed a lot of things. In the past, when print paper was the only method of distant communication, the ruling class had a great control over what was published, and what wasn't. But now, due to the wide availability of the Internet, the ideas of the lower class could easily be spread. Thus, the ideas of the ruling class today may not represent those of the whole society, as the voice of the lower class is much louder today than it was back then when printing (which cost a lot of money) was the only way to spread ideas.
Below is the link of a video of protestors in Korea. Most of the protestors are members of the lower class. They came out to the streets after reading malicious and false rumors on the Internet. Many of these protestors suffer from inferiority complex and a deep hatred against the rich. Check the video out.
http://www.photius.com/countries/korea_south/society/korea_south_society_social_classes_in_co~191.html This link is about the different social classes in Korea. There is a huge gap between the city life and the country. There is a gap between the middle class and lower class. The lower class may consist of people who did not graduate from high school or did not attend at all, it ranges. The government in Korea does not offer the elderly or poor with money (for example, the U.S. has Social Security benefits, Food Stamps, WIC checks,etc.)
This is the link to a trailer. The movie is called The Compound. Shows the life of some working class Phillipinos and the depiction is pretty horrifying. Hopefully, you guys can locate the movie and get a chance to watch it.
With the ruling class making all the decisions, how can there really be change/ everything that the working class thinks about themselves and their place in society has been created for them. If they rise up and bring change they will only be changing who makes the rules and in the end there will allows be the "oppressor" and the "oppressed". There are very few ways to even the playing field in capitalism. All other options seem anti-patriotic in the views of the ruling class and many off the oppressed themselves.
I just wanted to include a link to Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjarLbD9r30
Similarly to the "I Love Lucy" clip, this is great demonstration of the workings of capitalism. He is reduced to a mere cog of a machine, basically becoming "one" with it,
In the reading by Water Benjamin, it seems to me that the author focuses on the downside of over exposure of art works and their reproductibility. Although I agree that many of the reproductions of art, specifically in the realm of painting, lack a great deal of details that its painter must have tried to capture in it. However, I beleive that reproductibility can also influence in the value and appreciation of art in a much larger scale in the sense that works of art can be viewed by a much larger and geographically dispersed audience.
Race is just another society class created to keep the white supremacy in power. The only differences is status is base on skin color and blood-linage. Which isn't very accurate since there so many different skin color. So many people have relatives that are from different so called races. Almost no one is a pure blooded anymore. Since race is just another society class system culture has a big part in how a certain race lives. The American society have been so called brainwashed into thinking some races are inferior to another. To remove the chains the race society class, we must accept that skin color does not make up who we are. Media should also stop showing hiding message like favoring a certain type of skin color or look. Education about history should be taught with more point of views then just the Europeans or the winners of wars. We should not judge people by appearance but by actions.
ReplyDeleteThere is no genetic proof of race but instead it disproves the existence of race. Someone in the same race will have the same differences genetic makeup as from someone in a different race. Humans being are more similar to each other in genetic makeup then any animals out there even if they look same on the outside.
What is art? Art is different for everyone. It depends how the person view something and how they value it. What art does is it lets someone peer into mind of the artist and get a glimpse of the artists thought at that moment in time. But every viewer will have a different thought or some may have the same. Either way there is no wrong way to interpret art work.
Honestly, I feel pretty lost after reading the four articles. They couldn’t grab my full attention while reading them. Maybe it’s just me, but I really find these four articles boring, unlike the previous two readings we had read.
ReplyDeleteAnyway….here’s what I want to comment on.
Everyone is born to be unique. We all have a unique mind, thinking, taste, feeling and etc. No two people are exactly alike. And to talk about art, there isn't an exact definition. Someone can see a piece of paper as art, and one can view it as garbage. But as time moves on, when we talk about authenticity and originality, I would say it’s really hard to set a line to define. Everything is just a cliché.
We all can guess what will happen next in a movie or the next notes that will play when we hear a melody. Ideas are already here, just that they are recurrent. So does that mean nothing is original in this century, since I would believe that every possible outcome should’ve been tried already by the people from years ago? It doesn’t sound really fair when we say they are the “copycats”. If you study mathematics or statistics, you would know probability and combinations, and that everything is already been pre-planned, just depends on the chance for each.
As I read these four readings I found a common tie and message between each one and that was structure and stability. In Marx and Engels, they talk about the society and the rule of a certain class. In Horkheimer and Adorno, they talked about the classification and organization of customers. In Gramsci's case he states that ideas had to be broken down into their original elements. In Benjamin's, he calls art a traditional form. What I see is a similar pattern of the meaning of structure. It was initially very difficult to understand what each reading meant but as I read them over again I saw a message between all of them where the writer's want to state their ideas of structure and organization.
ReplyDelete"..believes that everything it says and imagines about itself is true" (Marx & Engels) shows a difference between realism and idealism. Class is imaginative, made up of illusions and ideas that yield a structural ladder in our minds and set divisions in society. In the Gramsci reading, we get an example of ideology when we consider the supremacy of a social group manifested in 2 ways: "domination and intellectual/moral leadership". The ideological superior see themselves as favorable among the rest.. in terms of how to act, how to think, etc. They become the ideal figure that is dominant over others. Horkheimer & Adorno state that culture has a common denominator. There's nothing new under the sun, everything is controlled by a unified concept.. a sphere of classification and administration. Lastly, Benjamin praises the power of film.. he reasons that film is readily analyzed because it is easily isolated and we get an extention or a precise perception of every action to every fractional "unconscious" second. Film thus takes art to a new level of clarification.
ReplyDeleteI found all four readings very theoretical so I just tried to highlight upon any thoughts or theories that stuck out to me. I felt the Gramsci/Marx readings complimented each other in terms of the structure of classes, division of labor, etc. Gramsci mentioned "subaltern classes" quite a few times, and although he gave some sort of definition as "not unified and cannot unite until they become a State" or in my interpretation as being identified. I was just wondering how subaltern refers to the asian americans or what he's referring to?
ReplyDeleteThe readings of Horkheimer and Benjamin were personally more interesting to me since they pertained to art. I felt Horkheimer was very technical and systematic regarding imitation of art between cultures. I don't even know if it's imitations but similarities in art for example, the techniques of brush strokes. It seems like he's saying who came up with it had the most authentic art and the others pieces have copied the techniques?? Whether styles have been imitated or transformed, I feel like the emotional response to a certain work of art will always vary.
He also wrote that the details are interchangeable like in music intervals. I feel like the details don't belong separately to each culture but to the genre of music itself. Anyway I'm unexpectedly writing too much so I'll stop now ;D
I agree with nero60 on how American society is "brainwashed" on the idea what race is superior or inferior. We must and should accept each other. We should not just look at the exterior outlook of a one's skin color.
ReplyDeleteOne of the commonalities between the articles, if my understanding is correct, is that the ruling class creates and controls the ideas (and art) of their society. While I think the values of the "upper class" definitely have some impact on the societal values as a whole, there are plenty of examples in history of the lower class postulating their own values and making radical changes as a result: the adoption of Christianity, and the French/American Revolutions spring to mind. He also writes that Philosophers are the voice of the values of the ruling class, but think about Socrates! Look how influential (and impoverished) he was, yet he was put to death by the rulers of the time. This might even have helped his message. You can say the same thing about Jesus Christ, and a lot of people throughout history (not the Buddha, I think he was rich).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I found myself asking, how does this apply today? Do we really have a ruling class? We definitely have an upper crust, but there is such diversity within that crust: politicians, musicians, actors, business moguls, etc. In fact, it seems as if the most influential people in our society are people in the entertainment industry:: they are the new aristocracy. There is an idea in the Horkheimer piece that art is standardized and mass produced with little room for innovation as a result of economic factors. This is probably true to some extent. “This will do really well in the box office” is probably the logic behind the production of so many bad movies. Yet simultaneously, there are people who are genuinely interested in the art, in creating something enjoyable, even if it departs from social norms/expectations. Often, these works of art resonate with people and achieve success as a rsult, which encourages more genuine art to be produced in turn.
On Marx and Engel (p1)
ReplyDeleteNOTE: I will be writing the following in character as conservative libertarian talk show host Glenn Beck archetype...
Hello again America. I wanted to talk to you about something... no wait let me backtrack just a little bit.
My - my nephew came home from school one day and presented me with some material he was covering Karl Marx. My first reaction, of course, is to search for the agenda behind teaching students; you know an out of date, out of touch thinker from the 19th century. But then I thought about it some more. How about that ruling class controlling the ideas of the population? The central point is not merely that there was a ruling class and that they controlled what the people knew and thought but that these people were made to be unaware.
So America, I ask you, what is it that WE are unaware of? What have WE turned a blind eye to?
As I was first reading these four articles, I was rather confused as to how to tie them together and how to relate them to the study of Asian Americans in the media. I can't say that I'm entirely over that feeling but this is what I got out of the articles:
ReplyDeleteThe Marx and Gramsci theories focused on classical sociological theories. In the Marx article, it is clear that he felt that those who were in control economically and materially, were also the ones in control mentally. Those who were not economically well-off would encounter a great deal of trouble establishing their identity on their own. A similar theme is present in the Gramsci article. A subaltern class is, ultimately, the opposite of a ruling class. Gramsci refers to Marx's works as he focuses on the "solidity of popular beliefs." That,essentially, is the way in which the ruling class controls and organizes the mentality of the society it is a part of.
The Benjamin and Horkheimer readings seem to imply that the media is the new ruling class. This is not necessarily because they are wealthier, but because they are in the position to reach more individuals. Just like the noble families during Marx's time influenced the working class, the media does the same to the modern day working(middle?) class. In essence, the culture industry shapes the art of society. As we are influenced by the media, we, often subconsciously, create ideas and make assumptions about others simply due to what the media says.
On Marx and Engel (p2)
ReplyDeleteI wanna... I wanna show you... something. This - if- if this doesn't- if this doesn’t make you , just- just sick- make you wanna scream at your monitor and call your congressmen and women I-I-I-I I don't know what will.
Just show the tape. [Here I would provide a link of the acorn tapes detailing two workers willingly helping two people get funding from the government in order to buy a house in which they planned to ship 13 illegal immigrants to become be bred as underage prostitutes. Unfortunately hunter is having connection issues - ill delete this though and repost it later with the proper link]
Ok. Ok - there's a lot here. You may not have seen that video before. Why? I mean - I mean why? This, if you don't know is - it's where your tax dollars are going - where...
Just- Just a second - Let me back track a bit.
Acorn - The "Community organizing group" You know the one that Barrack Obama said was gong to 'reshape the nation' - you know that group America? I mean, THIS - THIS is your future?! Is that what you want?
See ACORN is or has been investigated in FIFTY STATES!
Convicted in THIRTY for voter registration fraud. Yeah America, apparently Mickey Mouse just had to have universal health care so bad he registered to vote.
Now this isn't about right or left of course. That-that see that's what the government wants you to believe to DISTRACT you! See they think you're stupid America! They want to deflect the issues from what's really going on.
See, acorn is set to receive 8.5 BILLION Dollars! In the upcoming economic stimulus package. That's YOUR tax dollars america. Your tax dollars are funding an organization which willingly helps 13 year old CHILDREN - they’re children 13 year old little girls from disadvantaged countries come in illegally so they can become PROSTITUTES. And acorn is gonna help them buy a house. Oh isn’t that lovely. Hey mommy hey daddy can't wait to come to the land of opportunity so that I can have sleazy men use me as their sex slaves!
On Marx and Engel (p3)
ReplyDeleteBut does the government care? No. THEY are the ruling class - the government! And all that maters to them is power. So that groups like acorn can TRICK YOU into believing they're for you - they're on *your* side. Instead they manipulate people into votes for a government set to provide this criminal organization with 8.5 billion dollars. Look how many zeros that is! Look how- Show them! Show them!
8,500,000,000
This in addition to the 12 trillion dollar debt and it kinda makes you wonder now just where is that money going. Oh lets just who them what 12 trillion looks like.
12,000,000,000 no no - a few more zeros
12,000,000,000,000 THERE you go!
And where - where is the media on this? I've been covering this for WEEKS. There are five video from ACORN - FIVE and all pretty much the same and they’re just now barely catching up. You can look them up. But the media doesn’t want to show you because they get too have economic special interests and social agendas too.
And this is directly linking to Marx and the ruling class. The media controls what you know! The government controls what you know! And they use our lack of knowledge to manipulate you into their own gains of power. The Media! The Government! The Unions!
On Marx and Engel (p4)
ReplyDeleteOh see, I forgot to tell you - I didn't tell you about... See, the teachers union - they gave several million dollars to Dale Rathky's organization - see that's the guy he's the - he's the brother of DALE Rathky co-founder of ACORN. See, so the teachers union have ties there.
The same teachers, who I don't know, teach your children - who helps to - lets just use obamas words 'shape the agenda of america'. See America, it's all a virus, an interconnected virus of people creating bills thousands of pages long so that we cant read it, filled with ear marks, special interest spending the help those who can help them gain more power and YOUR not part of it. THEY are the ruling class and we have to just take it! WE have to pay the 12 trillion dollars that goes to this organization. Your children, your future grandchildren pay. NOt these slimballs in power.
And I; a self avowed capitalist can turn to karl marx. KARL MARX?! I agree with Karl Marx...
See - See, I've been saying this... for a while now - America. Now, this, this is important. See, it's not about left or Right - cause- cause-cause (laughter) the right they have their own abuse of power and special interests. Rembmer Hallibertan?
So stand up america. Don't get side tracked by petty partisan politics. Those things dont matter until we remove the corruption created by those in power! Pull the wool over your eyes and ask yourself every day - what is it you *know* you really *know* and why do you know it? Who is guiding you? Who is trying to manipulate you into believing what you want to believe? Who is willing to take from you so they can advance their own abuse of power?
I- I I have to pause for a break. When I come back...
On Marx and Engel (summary)
ReplyDeleteOK so in summary, I started writing about how Karl Max didn't apply to today so much so that I coudn't possibly have much to say about it.
The broad conclussion I had was the there is still a ruling class and that it is the people in power and media and even teachers who shape what we know and we should question all information or lack ther of which we recieve.
I find the article, "the Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas" by Marx and Engels. I partuclarly agree with the idea that the "ideas of the ruling class" are in effect, the "ruling intellectual force." It is no secret that a critical factor to Obama's rise to power was the approval he gained from America's elite. That the class that has the means of material production, which will necessarily be few in numbers, paints the general intellectual pallette of the mass is an interesting thought. It seems to sway true in today's America, as the media is grouped into few large corporations. Newscorp, led by Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox Network, The Washington Post, and a whole host of other newspapers and magazines. In such structure, where the few have the most say over the many, it seems very possible that the ideas of the ruling class could indeed become the intellectual force. It is therefore to think whether or not that trend is just, and what we're missing as a result of such power equation. Is the voice of only the strong represented in our society? Are we mistaking the voice of the weak? Can we even adequately hear their voices? If so, how? These are the kind of questions I had after reading the article.
ReplyDeleteRight off the bat, thank you Terry for the pristine scans of these articles.
ReplyDeleteI first read the essay by Karl Marx, and it seemed to be a good starting off point due to the heavy Marxist undercurrents of the other articles. Marx states that the ideas of the dominant class dominate the intellectual atmosphere. In fact, these ideas are often said to have come from an outside origin, be it a philosopher like Locke or Hobbes, a god who made his will known to the people, or else the ideas are simply self-evident. Whatever the supposed origin of the ideas, once the ruling class accepts them, or the class holding them comes to power, they will be seen as universal for all of society. The ruling class imagines that their ideas serve as the common interest for all members of society, and the history books will be written thusly. This is how the ruling class imposes its beliefs, values, and will onto the subaltern classes.
The same phenomenon is seen in art and culture. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno speak of the culture industry as imposing the same concepts and ideas onto all mass-produced art. Because the cultural industries are all in such close contact, the difference in quality of mass-produced art is based on target consumer demographics (divided by income groups) and not on subject matter. The subject matter is actually quite similar, primarily because the ideas of the ruling class, and therefore their art too, dominate society.
I’m not going to speak much about the other two articles, mainly because I didn’t understand them as well. But I do not agree with Horkheimer and Adorno’s thesis, at least not in this day and age. In 1944, it is true that music on the radio was not written, but engineered to appeal to certain audiences. And perhaps movies were strikingly similar. But today, not only has art become much more varied, but we’ve also seen the emergence of subcultures. The Internet has brought together people with random, spontaneous interests, and together they enjoy the art that caters to them. On top of that, the cultural industry is shrinking now that anyone can create their own art and publish it to the world. The masses are no longer being spoon-fed culture or being told what to like. There has been a sort of cultural grassroots movement.
@LowFatYogurt
ReplyDeleteexcellent point about large corporations controlling the media. I think in television broadcast there are really only 4-5 companies which own stations. Disney runs abc and a whole host of stations such as ESPN. GE with NBC and I believe Turner for several such as TBS TNT etc.
It means that all of the information that we get from television is done with the interests of these few companies.
These four readings were indeed very theorotical. Honestly, I had to read each article twice to comprehend. I'm gonna start with the one that I thought was the least complex, followed by the more difficult ones. My interpretation of the readings is as follows:
ReplyDeleteThe Culture Industry as Mass Deception - Mark Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno
The article seemed to be a critique on today’s media and the different mediums of the media, such as newspapers and television. The authors' complain as to how consumers have been reduced to numbers and demographics, which is absolutely true but at the same time, one has to see how the world has changed since silent films and black and white television. It is now a business driven world where money is the main objective and in many cases, what make or break a television show is the advertising, meaning, if a significant number of viewers do not tune into a show, advertisers are not as willing to pay to advertise during that time slot, thus the show gets canceled. Another complaint of the authors' is how everything is very generic now in terms of how art is constructed, this line from the article demonstrates exactly that point, “If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content…” I agree with this statement because these days, all different types of media are mixed, for example, the adaptation of the Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" novels onto the big screen.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - Walter Benjamin
This article was somewhat similar in theme to the one written by Horkheimer and Engels. The topic of the article deals with art and the reproduction of it as opposed to the authenticity. Benjamin aurgues for the authenticity of things. Although this article is from 1935, if the author was still alive, I wonder what he would say about movies that attempt to recreate historical events by, such as the Holocaust Era or the JFK shooting. They obviously cannot go back to the past and film the actual event, but would have to rely on actors, props and scenery to depict the time in which the the event happened, thus not having "true authenticity."
The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
The term bourgouise is by now well known thanks to Marx and his ideas. I do agree that the ideas of the ruling class are set as the idea for society as a whole because the problems of the ruling class are the problems of society.
History of the Subaltern Classes - Antonio Gramsci
Even though this was one of the shorter articles, I found this reading very difficult to grasp. From what I could understand, it focused on the subaltern class, or in other words, a class that is not the ruling class, thus ranking below them. The author states that one of the most important characteristics of the ruling class is the presence of unity, although I didn't understand under what context the word "state" was used, not sure if the author meant country or just society or even something else. Onto the next topic of the article, idealogy, I very much agree with the statement from the reading "...ideologies are historically necessary.." because although ideologies are very rarely followed, they provide a framework for society.
@koimisu
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that everyone is different thats is why it hard to fine people into neat groups. Yet we always do it when we first met someone. We like don't like put people in groups to predicted how they will act.
Art can be anything because it depends on the viewer. Also many people may have created something very similar to other people's work but that doesn't mean they copy them.
Karl Marx had an ideology of what a ruling class was and the ruling class ideas. The concept of ideology is when you have a set of aims and ideas. There is a society involved and more than anything there is an order of things and structure that is set. I think Karl Marx had interesting notes on how things should run within the world. Without order there would be chaos. Our society needs a leader and within these classes we need boundaries and organizational skills that keep us moving towards the right direction. Individuals have their own sense of personality and we choose what shapes us and what kind of environment affects us. I think that these readings are trying to reflect that message of living within a society that needs attention and order for them to survive.
ReplyDelete@ 8ruceL33
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the people of the entertainment industry are the new aristocracy. That's how I interpreted the idea of the ruling class in the modern times as well. Its easy for those in the entertainment/media industries to reach the eyes and ears of many individuals, thus constructing an idea of "normal" for the average citizen. A viewer sees girls in movies and TV shows depicted in certain outfits with certain body types and, often subconsciously, draws the conclusion that this is the ideal look for any female. That's remarkably similar to the aristocrats thrusting a state of "false consciousness" upon the peasants.
Cultural Production: A skit from "I love Lucy"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wp3m1vg06Q
Okay, I'm not going to lie. I did not think of this one on my own. I remember my sociology professor showing this skit of an assembly line from "I Love Lucy" and relating it to Marx's theories. Marx would say that the struggle between the proletariat (working class) and the capitalist (ownership class) is present here on this assembly line. The capitalist wants to speed up the assembly line and the worker wants it to go slower, thus demonstrating the completely different interests of the two parties and the struggle between them.
@ LowFatYogurt
ReplyDeleteI think it’s really interesting that you use the concepts of “strong” and “weak” to describe the rich and the poor. It does seem that we often think about social classes in this way. In fact, we like separating social groups into distinct categories, but is this justified? How different are the classes really, how different are their “voices?” It seems to me like rich and poor all subscribe to the same system. Marx’s idea that the working class should wake up and smell the roses is especially interesting to me, because I think that in a way the “lower class” is every bit as responsible for the state of society as the “upper class.” The upper class is succeeding in a system that is accepted by almost everyone. If the general populace truly wanted something different and took active measures to create it, things would change. It’s happened over and over again in history. Yet the upper class is demonized time and time again for succeeding in a system that everyone participates in.
Relevant Media:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_TSSj27k1A&feature=related
Anti-consumerism, enlightenment, independence, humility; these are hardly the values you would expect a controlling upper class to allow, much less to produce. Yet, these are some of the themes found in one of the most popular films of all time: Fight Club.
Fight Club was written by Chuck Palahniuk, a man who spent a good portion of his childhood living in a mobile home (hardly a member of the "bourgeois"). I think this speaks volumes about art in our society.
@lslavin: the "I Love Lucy" clip is an excellent, concise demonstration of Marx's critique of capitalism--of the ways in which capitalism reduces humans to mere cogs of a machine. I highly recommend that everyone watches this.
ReplyDelete"I think we're fighting a losing game!" --Lucy
ReplyDeleteGramsci, states that Fascism oppresses the population and controlls it. I never understood how this is. I never understood what methods were used to control a population or even a country. The upper class for many countries are only about 8 to 9% of the population but they still seem to have the biggest effects on the population. I had never known the power of norms that were built up by the upper class. I actually have had many disscusions in many different classes about norms and its effects on others. But i would've never imagined that the power of a norm would be so strong that it can even keep a whole country in line. Even though there are subalterns these do nothing but showcase the power of the norm by trying to break it.
ReplyDeleteHorkheimer & Adorno
they state that nazis had used mass media for their uprising in germany. Although this is true i had never imagined that in america the american people had basically tried to do the same thing.With films such as the Birth of a nation americans were basically portraying the blacks as germans did to the jews.
@8ruce L33
ReplyDeletei do think that different classes are seen and portrayed as strong and weak because of the norms that we have. I do agree that upper class people are more accepted almost everywhere and that's because of the norms again. We are all taken in by these norms that have ruled us since the day we were born. If we were born in a upper class family we would be raised to believe that we are "stronger" than other lower or middle class people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLpDcWxBDQ
ReplyDeletethese are people known as yogi's. They are a certain group of people who neglect the life controlled by norms in this world. such as having a job, house, family, and being rich. they believe in finding other happiness such as spiritual enlightenment.
Out of the articles we read, what Benjamin wrote about regarding art in the age of reproduction, struck me the most. It's hard to imagine the significance of it, because we've never experienced a time when copying and cutting out images was impossible. We're able to take close up photographs of paintings throughout the world, edit parts out of it, put words beneath it, put music behind it, put it in artbooks, our bathrooms, or use it as an advertisement for anything we want. This is very different than what art used to be for--symbols of wealth and power for the upper crest of society, mystified relics in grand cathedrals. They were 'authentic,' one of their kind, worshipped. I think it's interesting how anyone can own images, look at them, without cost.
ReplyDeleteHorkheimer & Adorno
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to me when we talked about in class that these two had actually went against MGM and Warner Bros. I had taken film class last semester and i had learned a great deal about these two major film producing power houses. But i still cant figure out why they had been hated by Horkheimer and Adorno. But i do remeber the black list which had taken out if i can recall correctly alota jews basically taking jews out of the movie making industries because they were believed to had been fixing movies in certain ways to benefit themselves.
Gramsci
The articles shows us how powerful the upper class really is. By controlling the norm you can basically control the country or its population. By making people feel that they are doing something wrong we basically take away their own unique characteristics.
Benjamin
What i got from this article is that, no matter what you do to copy or remake something. It is never possible for that new copied/remade object to have the same significance as its 1st original. This is due to the timing and the place basically the space and time it was made in had basically marked its own significance such as a copyrighted or something of that idea.
@naruto sherpa
ReplyDelete8 to 9% would rather be a harsh guess of a upper class size. I believe different countries would have different percentages of upper class. Maybe 8 to 9% would go for america. But yes i do see what you mean when you point out that people who try breaking the norm only re-enforce it. there are many examples of this even today, such as people who refuse to go to college, while they believe that they have gotten out of the rat race for good, they soon come to find out that working without an education is alot more difficult.
http://www.thomasmultimedia.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/fight-club.jpg
ReplyDeletethis movie fight club had kept coming to my mind because of the gramsci article. i couldnt stop thinking how the main plot of the whole movie was finding a way out of the norm.
@8ruce L33,
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your thoughts, especially that the guiding principals of a society can spring up from the bottom of a society due to civil discontent. French Revolution and the American Revolution are good examples of your thesis, I suppose. As to your question of -- how does this apply today? -- I think the Internet has changed a lot of things. In the past, when print paper was the only method of distant communication, the ruling class had a great control over what was published, and what wasn't. But now, due to the wide availability of the Internet, the ideas of the lower class could easily be spread. Thus, the ideas of the ruling class today may not represent those of the whole society, as the voice of the lower class is much louder today than it was back then when printing (which cost a lot of money) was the only way to spread ideas.
Below is the link of a video of protestors in Korea. Most of the protestors are members of the lower class. They came out to the streets after reading malicious and false rumors on the Internet. Many of these protestors suffer from inferiority complex and a deep hatred against the rich. Check the video out.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knn0sUz1JuI&feature=related
http://www.photius.com/countries/korea_south/society/korea_south_society_social_classes_in_co~191.html
ReplyDeleteThis link is about the different social classes in Korea. There is a huge gap between the city life and the country. There is a gap between the middle class and lower class. The lower class may consist of people who did not graduate from high school or did not attend at all, it ranges. The government in Korea does not offer the elderly or poor with money (for example, the U.S. has Social Security benefits, Food Stamps, WIC checks,etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFzKjGNq6Ys
ReplyDeleteThis is the link to a trailer. The movie is called The Compound. Shows the life of some working class Phillipinos and the depiction is pretty horrifying. Hopefully, you guys can locate the movie and get a chance to watch it.
With the ruling class making all the decisions, how can there really be change/ everything that the working class thinks about themselves and their place in society has been created for them. If they rise up and bring change they will only be changing who makes the rules and in the end there will allows be the "oppressor" and the "oppressed". There are very few ways to even the playing field in capitalism. All other options seem anti-patriotic in the views of the ruling class and many off the oppressed themselves.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to include a link to Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjarLbD9r30
Similarly to the "I Love Lucy" clip, this is great demonstration of the workings of capitalism. He is reduced to a mere cog of a machine, basically becoming "one" with it,
Marx&Engels, Gramsci, Adorno&Horkheimer, Benjamin
ReplyDeleteIn the reading by Water Benjamin, it seems to me that the author focuses on the downside of over exposure of art works and their reproductibility. Although I agree that many of the reproductions of art, specifically in the realm of painting, lack a great deal of details that its painter must have tried to capture in it. However, I beleive that reproductibility can also influence in the value and appreciation of art in a much larger scale in the sense that works of art can be viewed by a much larger and geographically dispersed audience.
Posted by melvi at 9/21/2009 09:33:00 PM