We don't exactly have a Ministry of Truth, but the entertainment and advertisement industries of our world, combined with the language of today's politicians, seem to be doing a pretty decent job of what Syme describes as the purpose of Newspeak (pgs 53-53): narrowing the range of consciousness until the need/opportunity to think for oneself is eliminated altogether.
The entertainment and advertisement industries seem to have merged into one big thought-killing/controlling machine. In movies, TV shows, and music videos, actor and actresses with unrealistically flawless bodies swig cans of Pepsi or Coke, wear insanely expensive designer clothes, possess all the latest technological gadgets. If you drive to SF airport or flip open a magazine, check your email or turn on the TV - you'll see those same celebrities (or other equally flawless models) hawking those same products on billboards, ads, animated banners, and commercials.
This stuff is everywhere, but we're so used to it that we don't see it. Even when we find ourselves fat from the cases and cases of soda we drink, clothed in last year's ridiculous trends, surrounded by piles of obsolete gadgets, and drowning in debt from buying them - we still think our thoughts are our own.
But they are your own, say the politicians. Spending money boosts our economy. The rate at which gadgets become obsolete testify to the fact that America is the home of the best and the brightest of minds, always at the cutting edge of technology. And don't let anyone call you fat. You're not fat - you're simply a horizontally-challenged person of substance.
Pretty soon we're all going to be like the duckman, quack quack quacking.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
ads take away our freedom
Q: Is this something we, as a society that claims to stand for freedom, justice, and equality, can tolerate?
A: It is really hard to answer that question because not everyone is able to see what you saw in and ad. I was unable to see it until you told us because I'm really bad in history so it was harder for me to make connections of all the elements and be able to come up with the conclusion that you came to even though you gave us time to analyze it. Also when we are looking at an ad we often just glance at it only to notice what is being sold and making it really hard to go deep. So since many of us are blinded to this, we don't really ask ourselves the question of whether we can tolerate having our freedom taken away or not.
A: It is really hard to answer that question because not everyone is able to see what you saw in and ad. I was unable to see it until you told us because I'm really bad in history so it was harder for me to make connections of all the elements and be able to come up with the conclusion that you came to even though you gave us time to analyze it. Also when we are looking at an ad we often just glance at it only to notice what is being sold and making it really hard to go deep. So since many of us are blinded to this, we don't really ask ourselves the question of whether we can tolerate having our freedom taken away or not.
government
Our government I find to be very interesting, although I don't think that's the correct way to say it. It claims be an ideal government and that all others should be like, however (and this is the interesting part of it) it is very similar if not just like all others. At time of elections, candidates promise numerous thing knowing that they will probably not be fulfilled and they do this for the sole purpose of winning votes. Then when in office, they are questioned by the people, why have they been deceived, when promises are unfulfilled, and the presidents always give a thoroughly thought out answer that might include lies to make us believe that we are getting a true and good answer, but their answer is most of the time to dodge the real answer. Just like Bush, the answer that he gave regarding the question of the iraqi war was very thought out because he would pause before saying a word to say things in a cryptic way to dodge having to say a straight answer because if he would do that then more people would be against him, and as a president what he needs and wants is more people to support him. I find that very sad because instead of giving people an informing answer, he feels that he has to weave around and lie with his answer just so that he and every president can gain or at least not lose support. However I don't think that none of us will ever do something because in order to do something against the government we need a large enough group that can be noticed, therefore it is more convinient not to do anything and as betty said, we are satisfied, and I believe that the only time someone has a response against the government is when they have a personal issue to address. Everything else we just brush it off of our shoulders and pretend it is not happening.
Friday, July 13, 2007
1984
I was speaking to one of you yesterday after class about my hero, George Orwell, and I may have seemed almost religious in my praise of him. He is the guiding spirit of this course: humane, articulate, and incisive. He sniffs out hypocrisy and authoritarianism wherever it may be found and promotes sincerity and authorship in their place.
Our exercise in class yesterday in which we analyzed the excerpt from President Bush's press conference was intended to illustrate Orwell's argument that our political leaders use language and abuse it to disguise their true intentions. You all were able to cut through the words to the kernal of substance in that paragraph and put it in much clearer prose. Orwell would be proud of you as readers and writers but horrified by the state of language a half-century after his death. Clearly, we, as an electorate in the 21st Century, do not insist on clarity and directness in those whom we trust to lead us, yet without real transparency of language how can we know on what basis to make our decisions as citizens? How can we know when we should lay our lives on the line for our country or when to hit the streets in protest? If we are told nothing in a nice way, we will know nothing and still feel warmly toward those who have appeared to provide us with the info we need to understand the issue. We are, thus, as Betty wrote, "satisfied enough and quiet."
In 1984, Orwell is, as I read it, almost prophetic. As I argued, the "telescreen" is proliferating in today's public spaces with tvs and surveillance cameras, controlling our attention (keeping us distracted) and watching our every move. What specific element in Orwell's novel do you believe has parallels in today's world? What does it mean?
Our exercise in class yesterday in which we analyzed the excerpt from President Bush's press conference was intended to illustrate Orwell's argument that our political leaders use language and abuse it to disguise their true intentions. You all were able to cut through the words to the kernal of substance in that paragraph and put it in much clearer prose. Orwell would be proud of you as readers and writers but horrified by the state of language a half-century after his death. Clearly, we, as an electorate in the 21st Century, do not insist on clarity and directness in those whom we trust to lead us, yet without real transparency of language how can we know on what basis to make our decisions as citizens? How can we know when we should lay our lives on the line for our country or when to hit the streets in protest? If we are told nothing in a nice way, we will know nothing and still feel warmly toward those who have appeared to provide us with the info we need to understand the issue. We are, thus, as Betty wrote, "satisfied enough and quiet."
In 1984, Orwell is, as I read it, almost prophetic. As I argued, the "telescreen" is proliferating in today's public spaces with tvs and surveillance cameras, controlling our attention (keeping us distracted) and watching our every move. What specific element in Orwell's novel do you believe has parallels in today's world? What does it mean?
This Says It All....
This blog contains some great reading. I hope you are reading all of these, just as I am. Every now and then I will feature a particularly terrific posting and invite as many as possible of you to respond to it. This week I will feature Betty's terrific response to the question of our freedom. Betty wrote:
I feel free enough. I mean, ideally none of us would have to worry about getting parking tickets, running late for class, or even being brainwashed by Tommy Hilfiger ads, but I guess that's all stuff we've learned to live with.This strikes me as being at the heart of how powerful interests manage to intrude on liberty, our privacy, and our values without our objecting, and how we allow for injustice to happen all around us and to us with our acquiescence. We are allowed just enough to keep us from truly standing up and protesting the abuses others commit in our name.
I think the older we get, the more responsibilities we take on and with all of these new responsibilities, we feel less and less free. At least I do. I feel like as I grow and mature and learn new things, there are new standards constantly being placed on me and I have to live up to them. Well, we're always trying to strive for more and climb higher oh whatever ladder we're climbing, so it's like I can never stop and take a break and actually feel free.
But none of this is to say that I am not happy with how much freedom I feel I have. I know we're all lucky here not to have to worry about bombs and stuff like that. Anyways, the bottom line is, I have enough freedom to keep me satisfied and quiet .
In response to the Hilfiger discussion
When I told the class last week that I would argue for my analysis of the Hilfiger ad until all of you agreed with me, one of you--I can't recall whom--protested, "Hey, but I thought we were allowed to have our own opinions in this class!" Others of you in your blog postings have referred to my "opinion" or my "belief" about the ad; many of you are positive that I must have "overanalyzed" it or proposed an interpretation that was invalid. Now, it is time for me to answer you all.
First, you are entitled to your own opinions, both in this class and as guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States. As some would claim, "this is a free country" after all. Although if you work at Walmart or Starbucks or any other corporation or business I wouldn't be too free with my opinions or ideas if I were you, for these institutions, in most cases, are not run democratically and are not interested in their workers’ free self-expression, which if exercised might result in termination. In this class, by contrast, I hope for you all to feel free to have a voice, to make your thoughts and ideas known, and to feel safe in your self-expression. I also expect that, both here in the Blog and in class, that you extend that right and courtesy to one another as well. You can do this by showing mutual respect and thus creating an atmosphere that extends the greatest freedom to the most. (It would limit the voice of your classmate, for example, if you called him or her "a pencil-necked, swamp-drinking platypus" or talked over someone with a quieter voice.) You should expect the same from me. So far, our discussion has been lively and interesting and respectful--I am very pleased--yet I know it can get even better. How? If we all try to manage to withhold our opinions.
"What?" I can hear you all say, "I just thought he said..."
I don’t mean to limit your freedom of expression; I’m just not so interested in these:
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" Elizabeth Drew.
I want to see you rise to support your ideas with evidence, positive knowledge, and/or proof whenever you can. I’m looking for well-developed ideas, supported with illustration and explanation. Without this, you will have to resort to verbal trickery, your personal authority, strength of voice, or weaponry to manipulate your audience with or you will fail to meet your objectives.
One kind of evidence is derived from careful observation and analysis, and this I have tried to provide in my interpretation of the appeal of the Hilfiger ad.
It is my mere opinion that the ad is “offensive”--you don't have to find it offensive yourself. But if you want to dismiss my argument that the rape narrative I described exists in that Hilfiger ad, I expect a counter argument from you. Warning: these, for example, don't work:
Tommy would never do that!
It's just sex. Sex sells.
English teachers always "overanalyze" everything.
Now, I just don't know how clear we were on the question. Were we concerned with whether the ad demonstrates that the marketers intentionally portray this woman as a rape victim? whether it establishes that Tommy is a racist? whether it exposes that such a narrative is a part of our collective, unconscious understanding of things, that we expect this is the way the story goes? or whether such a narrative could ever sell product?
There are so many questions here; here’s my attempt to make my argument more precise:
First, you are entitled to your own opinions, both in this class and as guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States. As some would claim, "this is a free country" after all. Although if you work at Walmart or Starbucks or any other corporation or business I wouldn't be too free with my opinions or ideas if I were you, for these institutions, in most cases, are not run democratically and are not interested in their workers’ free self-expression, which if exercised might result in termination. In this class, by contrast, I hope for you all to feel free to have a voice, to make your thoughts and ideas known, and to feel safe in your self-expression. I also expect that, both here in the Blog and in class, that you extend that right and courtesy to one another as well. You can do this by showing mutual respect and thus creating an atmosphere that extends the greatest freedom to the most. (It would limit the voice of your classmate, for example, if you called him or her "a pencil-necked, swamp-drinking platypus" or talked over someone with a quieter voice.) You should expect the same from me. So far, our discussion has been lively and interesting and respectful--I am very pleased--yet I know it can get even better. How? If we all try to manage to withhold our opinions.
"What?" I can hear you all say, "I just thought he said..."
I don’t mean to limit your freedom of expression; I’m just not so interested in these:
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" Elizabeth Drew.
I want to see you rise to support your ideas with evidence, positive knowledge, and/or proof whenever you can. I’m looking for well-developed ideas, supported with illustration and explanation. Without this, you will have to resort to verbal trickery, your personal authority, strength of voice, or weaponry to manipulate your audience with or you will fail to meet your objectives.
One kind of evidence is derived from careful observation and analysis, and this I have tried to provide in my interpretation of the appeal of the Hilfiger ad.
It is my mere opinion that the ad is “offensive”--you don't have to find it offensive yourself. But if you want to dismiss my argument that the rape narrative I described exists in that Hilfiger ad, I expect a counter argument from you. Warning: these, for example, don't work:
Tommy would never do that!
It's just sex. Sex sells.
English teachers always "overanalyze" everything.
Now, I just don't know how clear we were on the question. Were we concerned with whether the ad demonstrates that the marketers intentionally portray this woman as a rape victim? whether it establishes that Tommy is a racist? whether it exposes that such a narrative is a part of our collective, unconscious understanding of things, that we expect this is the way the story goes? or whether such a narrative could ever sell product?
There are so many questions here; here’s my attempt to make my argument more precise:
- I have no knowledge of who conceived of this ad or its different elements, so I make no claims about the intentions of its creators. Without evidence about a conspiracy to propagate racist ideology of commercial or political purposes, I will refrain from making any such accusation.
- This ad, like many, succeeds in an unexpected way: rather than focusing on the attributes of the product itself--advertising is far more complex than that in how it manages to motivate us to buy--it makes us feel insecure in ourselves, at least, subconsciously and that insecurity drives us then to spend money in an effort to compensate for our perceived weakness. Why else show skinny people when advertising for weight-loss pills?
- How can an African-American woman make a “declaration of independence,” move into her rightful place at the diner’s lunch counter, and advance in mainstream America? Easy, by buying Tommy products. Beware, however, that these products are so expensive as to sap a young person’s income to such a degree that she must work excess hours at a low-wage job rather than studying in school, run up credit-card debt, or beg her parents to direct their scant resources to Tommy rather than to her and her development as a student and a citizen. Her “independence” looks like freedom when in fact it is only another, more subtle kind of enslavement.
- Our reality is the stories we tell about ourselves and those others tell about us. Most ads retell stories, usually ones we’ve heard many times before, so many times that they lurk in our unconscious where they serve to construct our expectations about the way things will happen in our lives. Boy meets girl and they live happily ever after. We are all happier when we are sailing. Girls will get what they want if the wear scanty clothing to show off their skinny bodies. Men will get what they want if they drink beer with their buddies. In the Hilfiger ad, African-American girl gets raped, (Did you ever consider the historical fact that black slave women who bore the children of their masters bore more slaves, making rape an economic tool and these women factories of slave labor.) White men will understand that the woman is receptive to the white phallus.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Joining the blogging etc.
This is me, Melissa saying hello to you guys and that i may in fact actually be blogging now...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
this is the is my introduction paragraph on freedom unedited:
Can all of us say we are free? Free to do as we please? We all have the right to freedom growing up in the country known as this United States. In fact our country’s very own creation was founded on the notion that all men are free. For being such as an in alienable right, it has an awfully abstract meaning. Everyone is supposed to be entitled to the same freedom yet everyone has a different definition for it. Skipping all the “...Life, Liberty...” we go straight to the pursuit of happiness; can we really pursue what we be our will? I can say I have freedom of speech. Can I say anything according to my inheritance from this society? I can say that I’m free, but I can also say I’m not free. I am free to do as I please. This rule means, go to college, eat junk food, sleep in, write my English papers on the eve of its due date, skydive and save the world from bad guys; whatever I want to do as long as I am not impeding on, altering, or taking away others’ right to be free. I virtually have choices to the power of infinity and just passed it. Since we live in a this free society, our freedoms must coexist with its rules. Our so called “freedoms” are give by society; a community in which must not violate its rules to be a proper member of and reap its rewards. This reward we receiver for being a part of this society is called freedom. And since we also live in a community we have to deal with others’ freedoms. We have to deal with other people’s religions, expectations, opinions, ideas and products. Thus making us slaves of consumerism. I am a slave of the society that is built solely on freedom of men.
Can all of us say we are free? Free to do as we please? We all have the right to freedom growing up in the country known as this United States. In fact our country’s very own creation was founded on the notion that all men are free. For being such as an in alienable right, it has an awfully abstract meaning. Everyone is supposed to be entitled to the same freedom yet everyone has a different definition for it. Skipping all the “...Life, Liberty...” we go straight to the pursuit of happiness; can we really pursue what we be our will? I can say I have freedom of speech. Can I say anything according to my inheritance from this society? I can say that I’m free, but I can also say I’m not free. I am free to do as I please. This rule means, go to college, eat junk food, sleep in, write my English papers on the eve of its due date, skydive and save the world from bad guys; whatever I want to do as long as I am not impeding on, altering, or taking away others’ right to be free. I virtually have choices to the power of infinity and just passed it. Since we live in a this free society, our freedoms must coexist with its rules. Our so called “freedoms” are give by society; a community in which must not violate its rules to be a proper member of and reap its rewards. This reward we receiver for being a part of this society is called freedom. And since we also live in a community we have to deal with others’ freedoms. We have to deal with other people’s religions, expectations, opinions, ideas and products. Thus making us slaves of consumerism. I am a slave of the society that is built solely on freedom of men.
Subject:Tommy Girl
This has been way too much work for such a short post. Anyway this is in responce to the speculations over the Tommy Girl ad. I know, a little overdew. Anyway I thought it way disturbing not that it was done, but that it implied they thought it would help them sell more products. What kind of people think that way? I'm not refering to the designers, I'm refering to the customers. The entire line of thought is disturbing. If you find this vague talk to Tom. His suspisions are what brought this all about (Although the reason I'm not tying it up is because you know saying bad things makes them happen). I don't know anything about the company, the product or its head so I can't comment on the racism or urban legend features. Dang Tom didn't send me the second e-mail!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
When I sift through most advertisments, I see pornography, incest, pedophilia, rape, homosexuality, and many other perverse subliminal messages that warp the pure sense of self. Ads tell us what we need. How to be desirable. How to be sexy. They stress that the superficial is most important. They scream at us, "Take pride in that which takes no accomplishment or effort!" "The best way to find love, trust, and a satisfying relationship is to be promiscuous!" "If you don't have firm tits and a tight ass then your worth as a woman is zero!"
I am not sure whether the racist, sexist, or voyeristic tone of this ad is deliberate. I'm not even sure if that matters. What I do know is that the truth always comes to light. The evil and crude things that are in the heart cannot be hidden because they will spill up and over into our communication styles. A liar always slips up. You just have to watch and listen carefully.
Lets say for the sake of conversation that the intent of this ad was to show that, 'Hey, we (Tommy) LOVE black people!'. Perhaps it was a marketing attempt to fix Tommy's image, what with all the bad press about him being a racist. To show that at Tommy they feel that black Americans are just as American as Anglos. But the lack of compassion and understanding is apparent in the advertising. So regardless of what is said and regardless of what I think, the proof shows that 'Tommy's' heart is not in the right place. And to me that is what is truly important.... The heart of man.
I am not sure whether the racist, sexist, or voyeristic tone of this ad is deliberate. I'm not even sure if that matters. What I do know is that the truth always comes to light. The evil and crude things that are in the heart cannot be hidden because they will spill up and over into our communication styles. A liar always slips up. You just have to watch and listen carefully.
Lets say for the sake of conversation that the intent of this ad was to show that, 'Hey, we (Tommy) LOVE black people!'. Perhaps it was a marketing attempt to fix Tommy's image, what with all the bad press about him being a racist. To show that at Tommy they feel that black Americans are just as American as Anglos. But the lack of compassion and understanding is apparent in the advertising. So regardless of what is said and regardless of what I think, the proof shows that 'Tommy's' heart is not in the right place. And to me that is what is truly important.... The heart of man.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Tommy Girl Ad
I personally think that the advertisement did show a little racial discrimination. Having a young African-American girl sitting in a diner reflected back on the Civil Rights Movement, when African American's were not allowed in the diners. I would assume that portraying this picture as some sort of rape is extreme. I believe that the Tommy logo was placed right above her crotch area to make it more of a seductive picture. By having her legs apart and the logo near her crotch makes the people look more into that direction.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
TH poster
Argument: The Tommy Girl poster mocks Blacks by placing a young black girl provocatively sitting in a diner, where Blacks where previously banned from entering.
My view: A college student or a school teacher could notice the same observation, but most people wouldn't. I don't think the average Joe links a black girl sitting at a diner to Civil Rights prohibitions, and even college students have a hard time noticing it, as evidenced by the fact that, out of a class of more than 30 students, no one commented on it while the ad was being discussed, and only one student mentioned a fleeting thought about it. Whether said inference was intentional one may never know, but I hardly see the benefit of a racist ad in this 'politically-correct' times.
My view: A college student or a school teacher could notice the same observation, but most people wouldn't. I don't think the average Joe links a black girl sitting at a diner to Civil Rights prohibitions, and even college students have a hard time noticing it, as evidenced by the fact that, out of a class of more than 30 students, no one commented on it while the ad was being discussed, and only one student mentioned a fleeting thought about it. Whether said inference was intentional one may never know, but I hardly see the benefit of a racist ad in this 'politically-correct' times.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Responses to Emily and Ann
Maybe I did fall for the ad. But, in the end, I'm not buying any kind of Tommy Hilfiger product, anyhow. Lame...
And I actually did say that Tommy is trying to show the perfume will improve you. I think I just kind of pondered who would be dumb enough to believe it.
On a totally unrelated note, WHO ARE YOU GUYS?! For the most part, I have no idea who I'm talking to...
And I actually did say that Tommy is trying to show the perfume will improve you. I think I just kind of pondered who would be dumb enough to believe it.
On a totally unrelated note, WHO ARE YOU GUYS?! For the most part, I have no idea who I'm talking to...
Thursday, July 5, 2007
FEEL FREE to begin your discussion...
Just to kick it off, I will throw out a question: Do you feel free? Why or why not?
For this one, instead of creating new postings, just respond to this one,
Tim
For this one, instead of creating new postings, just respond to this one,
Tim
Response to Tommy Girl ad
The Tommy Girl ad as a statement of vulgarity and as a rape scenario is quite extreme in my mind, but I thought that Professor Maxwell made some critical observations and drew some compelling arguments. I was definitely impressed. Upon first seeing the ad, I noticed that it did exacty what any successful ad was out to do: appeal to the masses with a pretty smiling face, comfortable lighting, and a little bit of sex appeal. I would never have taken the placement of the Tommy logo or placement or shape of the perfume bottle as allusions to sex or rape.
I think this ad is successful if viewed from the average consumer's perspective, but after hearing the professor's observations and interpretations of the ad, I am convinced that the company did everything very purposefully in this ad and perhaps was making a conscious statement about the owner's views on race relations, or even to assert his own dominant position in a social heirarchy. I think they did it in a very clever and artful way so that the subtle attack would only be picked up by people with educated backgrounds. I am glad I am now a more aware consumer and can look out for these things in the future.
I think this ad is successful if viewed from the average consumer's perspective, but after hearing the professor's observations and interpretations of the ad, I am convinced that the company did everything very purposefully in this ad and perhaps was making a conscious statement about the owner's views on race relations, or even to assert his own dominant position in a social heirarchy. I think they did it in a very clever and artful way so that the subtle attack would only be picked up by people with educated backgrounds. I am glad I am now a more aware consumer and can look out for these things in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
