Month: November 2013

I did the readings in a funny order this week, usually I just go through them as they are outlined in the syllabus from top to bottom, but I decided to attack the big ones first this week, so tackled Williams, Foucault and Fiske. It was only when I read Horkheimer and Adorno that everything sort of tied itself together. In reading Horkheimer and Adorno I was able to relate to Foucault, and his ideas about power and knowledge. It was quite scary to read of the Panopticon and think of the efficiency of power that this image implies, along with his ideas about discipline and the various methods which can be used to control the body. It seems to me that Foucault is leaning towards the idea that observation and gaze are the key instruments of power, an idea which I feel ties in with Horkheimer and Adorno’s notions that all products, or commodities, are essentially the same, it is just the way that we as consumers in our different groups are marketed to. So the notion of observation, that consumers are always being watched and observed, our needs and desires being continually assessed so that we may be more easily lead by the propaganda which comes our way, lead me to consider that the idea of the Panopticon was not just present during the 18^th century but that it has been carried through into the society in which we live today. A quote which struck me was “something is provided for all so that none may escape” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1243), which I think illustrates the idea of the modern-day Panopticon that is the technology/media-controlled society in which we live. Technology, it seems, has become the underlying structure for maintaining this cycle: as technology improves individuals feel the need to buy into this thinking they are improving themselves. This has been going on for many years, as Williams seems to suggest in his writing. Not only ‘things’ but individuals have also become mass-produced, if you think of the music industry there are so many pop icons who are gunning to be the next Britney or Rhianna. Again going back to technology, we think we are being individual in our choice or colour of iphone, or maybe the different screen cover we put on it, but everyone has fallen prey to the same propaganda which those in ‘power’ have used to influence our buying habits because of the knowledge they possess about our likes and dislikes, or what we may/may not be able to afford. I think this links back to Foucault’s notion that knowledge and power go hand in hand.

I did the readings in a funny order this week, usually I just go through them as they are outlined in the syllabus from top to bottom, but I decided to attack the big ones first this week, so tackled Williams, Foucault and Fiske. It was only when I read Horkheimer and Adorno that everything sort of tied itself together. In reading Horkheimer and Adorno I was able to relate to Foucault, and his ideas about power and knowledge. It was quite scary to read of the Panopticon and think of the efficiency of power that this image implies, along with his ideas about discipline and the various methods which can be used to control the body. It seems to me that Foucault is leaning towards the idea that observation and gaze are the key instruments of power, an idea which I feel ties in with Horkheimer and Adorno’s notions that all products, or commodities, are essentially the same, it is just the way that we as consumers in our different groups are marketed to. So the notion of observation, that consumers are always being watched and observed, our needs and desires being continually assessed so that we may be more easily lead by the propaganda which comes our way, lead me to consider that the idea of the Panopticon was not just present during the 18^th century but that it has been carried through into the society in which we live today. A quote which struck me was “something is provided for all so that none may escape” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1243), which I think illustrates the idea of the modern-day Panopticon that is the technology/media-controlled society in which we live. Technology, it seems, has become the underlying structure for maintaining this cycle: as technology improves individuals feel the need to buy into this thinking they are improving themselves. This has been going on for many years, as Williams seems to suggest in his writing. Not only ‘things’ but individuals have also become mass-produced, if you think of the music industry there are so many pop icons who are gunning to be the next Britney or Rhianna. Again going back to technology, we think we are being individual in our choice or colour of iphone, or maybe the different screen cover we put on it, but everyone has fallen prey to the same propaganda which those in ‘power’ have used to influence our buying habits because of the knowledge they possess about our likes and dislikes, or what we may/may not be able to afford. I think this links back to Foucault’s notion that knowledge and power go hand in hand.

In the book Decolonizing the Mind, Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o describes his own experience in of how English decisively matters during the education of one child in Kenya. The real power of imperialism resided not at all in the cannons of the first morning but in what followed the cannons–new school. As Cheikh Hamidou Kane says, “The cannon forces the body and the school fascinates the soul”. Violence, expropriation, conquest, slavery can definitely take the land over, but English, as a language that represents and carries imperialist’s culture, was the official vehicle and the magic formula to colonial elitedom. This visibly gentle method  of ruling the black continent has planted English as its true weapon and now when really talking about African Literature, people sink into the unending discussion of “what is African Literature” since the language they use is no longer the original, traditional mother-tongue that embedded in their mind. Thus the crisis of definition makes people truly realize how powerful this after-cannon colonialism could. Here, the author has to stress the importance of language: a mean of communication and a carrier of culture. So what the author initiates is the resort to their native language. And this book becomes him farewell to English.

Homi K. Bhabha introduces the concepts of ambivalence and hybridity. They are seen as the consequence of “resistance” that colonized people react to the imposition on them of an alien language and culture. This time in a different continent and by a different methodology, the author points out that the Bible, as religious mediation and as a cultural and linguistic medium, was questioned of its presence but more of its signification–a strategic device in a specific colonial engagement and an appurtenance of authority. As a matter of fact, there is no unsigned, undisguised Christian among Indians. But the author failed to mention that Indians have their own religion to faith in. Hinduism is deeply rooted in this nation from generation to generation.  The ideal purpose of imperialist that  proselytize seems impossible to happen. So when Bible books distributed among people, it didn’t erouse such influence that it was presumed to be. Maybe the ruler underestimated what religion means to this nation. But now English is the second official language of India, and Christian is scattered compared to the mass believers of Hinduism. 

It is true that when imperialists encounter a land which could bring whatever economic benefits, they crushed for the wealth or the infinite labour power by violence. But it was also the collision of two cultures, two languages and two religions. The consequences produced had never been expected and was impossible to forecast. It’s easy to judge the victory of a war in a battlefield, but in the field of cultures’ collision, which side is the winner is hard to define. Ambivalence,  exists all along.

People of my country, including me, are football’s fan. When our team plays, I mean the Colombian Selection, the country just stops because almost everyone is watching the game. A game, let’s say, against Argentina is an event which compromises our jobs, classes… and if you can not skip a meeting or a class, usually the radio takes places and, as I experienced while I was teaching, students and workers have their earphones connected and listen at the same time they are “taking notes”.

From my perspective, this huge fanaticism has increased last twenty years since a traditional broadcastings developed a particular way of transmit Colombia’s games. When our team plays, the anchors and reporters increase the national symbols, and the semiotics of language changes completely. When they start to talk about the Colombian team they use on purpose the possessive our for identifying themselves and the audience with the team. For instance, several times they omit saying the “Colombian team”, but rather they say “Colombia” and when you hear the name of your country besides the name of a team, something different is perceived.

Probably a decade ago, the fashion of using the Colombian’s team t-shirt the day of important games started. TV promoted, in a subtle way, that if you use the colors of your country, you help the players “to fell that they count on you”. Of course, the majority of TVs anchors, some in the news some others in talk-shows, wear their yellow shirts with the Colombian Football Federation symbol. They also spread this idea since it’s very common to adapt yourself to social norms proposed on TV.

Before the game, the TV news is almost completely absorb by the football information so, from the two hours that usually the news takes, only thirty or forty five minutes are dedicated to the news of the country, and the other part is dedicated to players interviews, reports, images of the last game… and a frequents visits to the stadium, interviewing the public and make seem happy. In that way, the audience is all the time expecting the game starting, and we can not change the channel, of course.

When the game is on, the publicity becomes crazy: a lots of ads appears during the whole game, even the narrators announce products and in the half is almost a fifteen minutes of commercials.  If Colombia’s team scores is like a tsunami of nationalism: “This is my dearest homeland!”, the narrator says, “This is my country, this is the people who give us hope!” (and you should imagine the voice of the narrator almost crying of “happiness”). And then a popular Colombian music resonates to increase the sense we are building a new country because of one goal.

Actually, I think when the TV takes advantage of football for creating a sense of hope, is because t is used as part of creation of the subject-in-ideology, as Fiske explains Althusser’s concept (1270). The reproduction of the ideology is that “this is a great country and we can get better, but we need the team wins because it represents the state”. Even, the current president has visited several times the Colombian’s team trainings and give “his support”, and he calls the football team as part of the state. But most of these players play in Italy, France, Spain, Argentina… they grew up as players in those countries, they had to travel and got other economical support and better teams since Colombia football or economical possibilities were not good for them as players.

When all advertisements and all this symphony of nationalism take place, it is really hard to see what is really happening with the country. The purpose of the TV transmission is not other than to sedate the sensation of inequality or indifference that Colombians feels constantly, and create and stimulate a system of values based on believing in football, and in that way in the state, since is really hard to create confidence with politics or social justice.

Football, used in that form, seems like a strong make-up for covering for some hours what is really happening and construct this “national we”, as Fiske reminds (1272) for not reading what is really happening. In that order of ideas, this is a sad example. In November 6th, 1985, the  M-19 guerrilla took over the Palace of Justice and the most violent military answer occurred causing hundreds of dead and disappears. The radio and TV broadcastings that were transmitted that event, suddenly stop because the Communications Cabinet Minister from that time commanded to intervene the media and. All the the broadcastings, then, started to transmit a football game that was taking place at the same time in other place of the country.

I do not want to finish with this sad episode. Actually, last week Colombian government recognized that the state had a big responsibility on this tragedy and apologized with the victims. This has being a huge step. And also, Colombian team is already qualified for the FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014, so it is great motive for celebrate. That is my team! Thanks for giving me hope!

People of my country, including me, are football’s fan. When our team plays, I mean the Colombian Selection, the country just stops because almost everyone is watching the game. A game, let’s say, against Argentina is an event which compromises our jobs, classes… and if you can not skip a meeting or a class, usually the radio takes places and, as I experienced while I was teaching, students and workers have their earphones connected and listen at the same time they are “taking notes”.

From my perspective, this huge fanaticism has increased last twenty years since a traditional broadcastings developed a particular way of transmit Colombia’s games. When our team plays, the anchors and reporters increase the national symbols, and the semiotics of language changes completely. When they start to talk about the Colombian team they use on purpose the possessive our for identifying themselves and the audience with the team. For instance, several times they omit saying the “Colombian team”, but rather they say “Colombia” and when you hear the name of your country besides the name of a team, something different is perceived.

Probably a decade ago, the fashion of using the Colombian’s team t-shirt the day of important games started. TV promoted, in a subtle way, that if you use the colors of your country, you help the players “to fell that they count on you”. Of course, the majority of TVs anchors, some in the news some others in talk-shows, wear their yellow shirts with the Colombian Football Federation symbol. They also spread this idea since it’s very common to adapt yourself to social norms proposed on TV.

Before the game, the TV news is almost completely absorb by the football information so, from the two hours that usually the news takes, only thirty or forty five minutes are dedicated to the news of the country, and the other part is dedicated to players interviews, reports, images of the last game… and a frequents visits to the stadium, interviewing the public and make seem happy. In that way, the audience is all the time expecting the game starting, and we can not change the channel, of course.

When the game is on, the publicity becomes crazy: a lots of ads appears during the whole game, even the narrators announce products and in the half is almost a fifteen minutes of commercials.  If Colombia’s team scores is like a tsunami of nationalism: “This is my dearest homeland!”, the narrator says, “This is my country, this is the people who give us hope!” (and you should imagine the voice of the narrator almost crying of “happiness”). And then a popular Colombian music resonates to increase the sense we are building a new country because of one goal.

Actually, I think when the TV takes advantage of football for creating a sense of hope, is because t is used as part of creation of the subject-in-ideology, as Fiske explains Althusser’s concept (1270). The reproduction of the ideology is that “this is a great country and we can get better, but we need the team wins because it represents the state”. Even, the current president has visited several times the Colombian’s team trainings and give “his support”, and he calls the football team as part of the state. But most of these players play in Italy, France, Spain, Argentina… they grew up as players in those countries, they had to travel and got other economical support and better teams since Colombia football or economical possibilities were not good for them as players.

When all advertisements and all this symphony of nationalism take place, it is really hard to see what is really happening with the country. The purpose of the TV transmission is not other than to sedate the sensation of inequality or indifference that Colombians feels constantly, and create and stimulate a system of values based on believing in football, and in that way in the state, since is really hard to create confidence with politics or social justice.

Football, used in that form, seems like a strong make-up for covering for some hours what is really happening and construct this “national we”, as Fiske reminds (1272) for not reading what is really happening. In that order of ideas, this is a sad example. In November 6th, 1985, the  M-19 guerrilla took over the Palace of Justice and the most violent military answer occurred causing hundreds of dead and disappears. The radio and TV broadcastings that were transmitted that event, suddenly stop because the Communications Cabinet Minister from that time commanded to intervene the media and. All the the broadcastings, then, started to transmit a football game that was taking place at the same time in other place of the country.

I do not want to finish with this sad episode. Actually, last week Colombian government recognized that the state had a big responsibility on this tragedy and apologized with the victims. This has being a huge step. And also, Colombian team is already qualified for the FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014, so it is great motive for celebrate. That is my team! Thanks for giving me hope!

If considering the context in which the School of Frankfurt flourished, one can find solid ground for the radicalism of Adorno and Horkeimer’s arguments. For example, the 1930s was the era of the big major studios (MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros) who exploited the star system and controlled local and international markets through vertical integration, block booking, among other strategies. The prevalence of images and dreams imported from Hollywood has been a reality in other countries where the local industry still struggles to release endogenous movies, and I even remember how video stores used to classify genres where American movies were considered the norm while national movies were grouped under their own subcategory based on their origin (Colombian films) and not their genre.

Mass production of cultural goods led to assume the homogeneity of dreams and a top-down determination in the hands of ‘evil’ producers for these two authors that supposedly represents the end of the individual. I am always surprised with the fascination exerted by boy bands all over the world and the disposability of these artists every 3 years, if lucky enough to survive that long.

I think the main contribution of this approach was to reveal the high concentration of the media market and standardization of goods or objective nature of products (1244). As critics have pointed in subsequent years (Miege, Garnham and Hesmondhalgh, among others), there are serious flaws in the main arguments of the Cultural Industry school that deserve further discussion. First, the term of Cultural Industry in singular overlooks the different conditions of cultural sectors or that the terms refers to the way of producing culture rather than a specific economic sector, so Miege (1989) prefers to use the term in plural “Cultural industries”. Right now, the term has even changed to Creative industries and Hesmondhalgh (2007) has argued that this distinction is to please the current neoliberal context.

Another serious observation is the assumption that company directors represent a monolithic and coordinated group free of contradictions or struggle of power or that there are other forces acting in the market (state, civil society, new comers, multiple technology alternatives etc.). We all have witnessed how the arrival of video rental/purchase, cable television, video on demand and streaming.

Last but not least is the role of the public as robotic recipients of the cultural content with no sense of consciousness or imagination (1244) when experiencing cultural goods, especially sound films. That’s why I found Certau’s counter-argument of the gap between those products and the use of them (1250) very interesting because it allows to have a sense of play toward the determination of taste.

References:

Hesmondhalgh, David. The cultural industries. Los Angeles: Sage, 2007.

Miege, Bernard. The Capitalization of Cultural Production. New York, N.Y.: International General, 1989.

If considering the context in which the School of Frankfurt flourished, one can find solid ground for the radicalism of Adorno and Horkeimer’s arguments. For example, the 1930s was the era of the big major studios (MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros) who exploited the star system and controlled local and international markets through vertical integration, block booking, among other strategies. The prevalence of images and dreams imported from Hollywood has been a reality in other countries where the local industry still struggles to release endogenous movies, and I even remember how video stores used to classify genres where American movies were considered the norm while national movies were grouped under their own subcategory based on their origin (Colombian films) and not their genre.

Mass production of cultural goods led to assume the homogeneity of dreams and a top-down determination in the hands of ‘evil’ producers for these two authors that supposedly represents the end of the individual. I am always surprised with the fascination exerted by boy bands all over the world and the disposability of these artists every 3 years, if lucky enough to survive that long.

I think the main contribution of this approach was to reveal the high concentration of the media market and standardization of goods or objective nature of products (1244). As critics have pointed in subsequent years (Miege, Garnham and Hesmondhalgh, among others), there are serious flaws in the main arguments of the Cultural Industry school that deserve further discussion. First, the term of Cultural Industry in singular overlooks the different conditions of cultural sectors or that the terms refers to the way of producing culture rather than a specific economic sector, so Miege (1989) prefers to use the term in plural “Cultural industries”. Right now, the term has even changed to Creative industries and Hesmondhalgh (2007) has argued that this distinction is to please the current neoliberal context.

Another serious observation is the assumption that company directors represent a monolithic and coordinated group free of contradictions or struggle of power or that there are other forces acting in the market (state, civil society, new comers, multiple technology alternatives etc.). We all have witnessed how the arrival of video rental/purchase, cable television, video on demand and streaming.

Last but not least is the role of the public as robotic recipients of the cultural content with no sense of consciousness or imagination (1244) when experiencing cultural goods, especially sound films. That’s why I found Certau’s counter-argument of the gap between those products and the use of them (1250) very interesting because it allows to have a sense of play toward the determination of taste.

References:

Hesmondhalgh, David. The cultural industries. Los Angeles: Sage, 2007.

Miege, Bernard. The Capitalization of Cultural Production. New York, N.Y.: International General, 1989.