• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • The end of popular culture?
  • The LAST Blog
  • Ftubol y telenovelas
  • Transculturacion
  • Mestizaje

• Blogroll

  • French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • SPAN364: Survey of Spanish-American Literature to the 1820s
  • SPAN365: Magical Realism Reconsidered
  • SPAN401: Spanish-English Translation
  • SPAN404: Cinema of Mexico

• Contributors

  • Ana´s blog
  • Andrea Azcona
  • Annabelle693’s Blog
  • annamarieke
  • Cennet Bahcesi
  • Earth Lives Connection
  • El Rincon
  • Javier’s LAST 201 Blog
  • jen gebert’s blog
  • jtraynor
  • kieron_hodgson
  • L@sT 2001 –>PoPul@R CulTuRe iN L@tiN AmErIC@
  • LAST 201
  • Last two-oh-one…
  • Latin American Pop Culture
  • Latin American Studies
  • Latin American Studies 201
  • Lluvia
  • maite’s blog for LAST201
  • Mercy’s Blog
  • POPULAR CULTURE IN
  • Popular Culture in Latin America
  • Posthegemony
  • ree00
  • RF. LAST 201 pop culture in LA
  • Salvador’s Spanish Class Blog
  • Sebastian’s blog
  • Sush Mgush
  • Taylor Cole LAST 201
  • tithflo
  • Tory’s blog for LAST201

What is The People?

Eva Peron and Jose Luis Borges’ pieces characterize the Argentine people during the Peronist regime. Both authors attempt to define who the people are, a task more daunting than I originally perceived. Evita wrote In My Own Words while she was dying to reaffirm her allegiance to her husband and to whom she refers to as “the people.” Evita repeatedly describes “the people” as Argentina’s working class, and specifies subgroups including women, the exploited, and descamisados (shirtless men, or workers). Her narrative style utilizes various binaries (“we” versus “them”, “light” versus “darkness”) to portray the polarization within her society, and to depict the upper-class as antagonistic and oppressive. She states “Nation is not a plot of land with moveable borders; rather, it is the people. The Nation suffers or is happy in the people that form it,” which emphasizes the importance of the working class to all of society. Although I’m not very familiar with Argentine history, I found her passionate tone extremely moving. She praises fanaticism, claiming it is “the only way life can defeat death,” and denounces the indifferent as the most deplorable enemy. Her critique of imperialism kind of confused me. She claimed that capitalism exploits the people, and condemns the upper-class for profiting from this system. Again, I’m unfamiliar with this article’s historical context, but didn’t Eva climb from the working to upper class? She speaks of her own jewelery, possessions and wealth, yet claims to be one with society’s poorest people. She also expresses extreme contempt for the wealthy, although she was included in that class. Maybe she aimed to inspire the working classes with her enormous success, but I thought this discrepancy cheapened her purpose. I did, however, really like what she said about religion. She states it “should never be an instrument of oppression for the people,” and criticizes Christian institutions that have abandoned the poor. I think this heavily relates to our society, as people sometimes use religion to justify hatred and discrimination. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article. I would like to know more about Eva and the article’s general historical background to understand some of the ambiguities within her argument.
I was very confused after reading Borges’ “A Celebration of the Monster.” I think I lacked the necessary historical and contextual background to understand the story. Borges also characterizes the Argentine people during the Peronist time period, but takes a radically different stance from Eva. Whereas Eva repeatedly declares her allegiance and belief in her husband’s policy, Borges depicts Peron as a tyrant or monster. I don’t really know what more to say about this article. . . Hopefully discussing it in class will give me more insight. Bye!

These two articles give us two different representations of  "the people" .  What is the people?  Who are the masses? These questions are somewhat tumultuous but continually fascinating and thought provoking.

Evas, "My Message"  was full of emotion and created a sense of national identity. Eva has the persona of a caretaker and mother figure of the exploited, under represented and basically the majority of Argentina.  She says multiple times that she loves them, the "descamisados, the women, the workers…the world’s exploited people, condemned to death by imperialisms…"  Evas charismatic manner enabled her to mobilize the masses. It is interesting to question who the people are that she is seemingly representing. It seems as though there are two groups, "the workers/the people" and "the elite". Eva was hated by the elite. Political and military members hated her power she had with the people and what she could do with it. One thing that made her a great partner to Peron was that she unlike him, came from a modest background and could directly identify with "the people". The working people saw her as an almost spiritual leader.  She identified her people and in turn took action for them where they could not. She was highly invested in workers rights especially for women in labor, and supported unionization. Ultimately  within "My Message" Eva speaks of the many evils she came face to face with  in her position of power and gives instruction to her people about what they must do and be aware of in order to liberate themselves. Eva and Peron worked as a team under the Argentine political movement of Peronism, which was basically a social justice party. Eva was beautiful and a great public speaker, which combined allowed her to capture the support of ‘the people", "her people". It seems to me that the problems that Eva wishes to abolish are still around today, all over the world. The hope to erase social lines and borders between people is very difficult, and perhaps unrealistic. The idea that a politician or leader of any sort really can be on the exact same level or page as "the people" is nice to imagine and hope for but rarely found in "real life".

The next article is about (I think) a man in the Argentine military. It seems that Eva’s speech did not have a positive effect on all people. I found this article a bit harder to follow. The man tells of "the monster", the gang or group that he is part of. They seem unorganized and chaotic, as well as dangerous. This is very different description of Argentine people. Perhaps both articles need to be looked at for exactly what they are, just one side of a story. Eva was seen by many as a saint, but there were also many discrepancies regarding her principals and then her actions.  Some people say that she was indeed a social climber despite her statements against that very thing.. she did end up in a pretty good spot at the end of the day.  For the second article, we get just another point of view, and a much harsher one at that. It could be that this is a more realistic point of view on the Argentine army/people.

JLV

Under this weeks topic of What is the people? two diverse essays were presented. Both essays of, In My Own Words  by Evita Peron, and A Celebration of the Monster by Jorge Luis Borges brought with them two very different perspectives. Peron’s extremely long essay had great narrative qualities and I found was easy to agree with her arguments and discussions. She makes some extremely wise statements of which are evident that a lot of personal reflection were done by her self to come to these conclusions. As an example “We  must convince them that the Nation is not a plot of land with moveable border; but rather it is the people…” I really like this statement as   I personally strongly agree with it.  Right from the beginning  a level of trust is induced  between Peron and the reader when she proclaims that it will be her to tell the truth ( with the publics belief or not) When attempting to look at the relationship between Peron and her husband it is evident that she cared about him but was also very skeptical about the people surrounding him as people are not always who they appear to be. Throughout the essay Peron makes some strong conclusions  and that in the end its all about the people. That her wish is that exploiters and “backstabbers” should be removed from the picture. I think that Peron’s position of being within the government yet still somewhat removed and able to reflect upon the situation within the government puts her in a good position. The only issue I had with her article was the length, of which I found to be somewhat repetitive and extended. I felt the points she was attempting to bring forth could have been condensed in half.  As for Borges essay, a completely different perspective is evident. In Borges essay, a strong perspective of being the presidents wife is of course not occurring but I feel as though an equal amount of insight is conducted by him. Both of these essays fit perfectly under the heading of What is the People? When looking at “the people” it is evident that solely one perspective is not enough. The diversification of these essays show that when labializing something as large like “ the people” as a whole, there is no right or wrong, or one or the other way to classify or attempt to define “the people”. I truly enjoyed reading both of these essays and found them to inspirational in the attempted understanding of people and society as a whole. 

Hey class! My name is Javier and I joined class a little late but better late than never!! I am excited to learn about Latin American culture as I have some ties to that area of the world with my family originally being from Cuba. I am new to this blogging world so go easy on me at the start! Look forward to a fun semester!

I had a little technical difficulty with posting the first week’s responses so I had to break the two articles up this week. In response to the Keesing article, I agree with the theme of his argument that “culture” is very complex and cannot be conceptualized as anthropologists have for years as a widespread reified entity. Culture is abstract not concrete. It is more than just art, music, language, and food. I do agree with the idea of Culture having a history likened to a coral reef, the core is constantly morphing in small almost invisible ways but it is in continuous change and all those subtle changes work to shape the true identity of that culture.

The two articles assigned for this week were intended to answer the somewhat vague question of “what is the people?” After reading both articles, I have some ideas about what “the people” can be described as and how they find their legitimacy in society.

In Eva Peron’s My Message, she continually refers to “the people”, “her people” and “Peron’s people”. I believe she meant to distinguish between them, seeing them in her mind as different types of people, who may have come from various backgrounds, but all believe in a similar future for Argentina. I think she saw “the people” as those people in society oppressed by the powers of imperialism: workers, women, children, the poor, and the sick. However, I believe that the people is more than just those who are suffering due to their place in society and as a result of the powers of imperialism. When I think of the people of a nation, I think of not only those who are marginalized from society, but also those who are included.

While I loved Eva Peron’s ideals, views and the strength of her beliefs in an “ideal Argentine nation”, I found them to be slightly over-optimistic. To bring justice, equality and liberty to all people would be a great accomplishment for the world. However, at times I felt that Evita was overly optimistic in the power of her people, that is, those of the working class. Not that I am undermining the power of the people. However, I find it hard to ignore the power that those in higher positions of government and society in general hold, and can exercise over the rest of society. We have seen it happen in many countries, all over the world.

Eva Peron gave power to the people, by uniting them and igniting them with her passion in the fight for freedom, justice and equality. Her people, united, became a force to be wreckoned with, for the military and those opposed to “Peronism”. However, I believe the second article, A Celebration of the Monster, to be a depiction of how the union and empowerment of people for a cause can quickly take a wrong turn. Peronism became a so-called Monster as those people for whom Peronism resonated with so strongly exercised their own methods of bringing about social change.

I found it difficult to distinguish who the narrator of the story was, and who he was fighting for. At first, I believed he was part of the military. However, I found many clues that caused me to think he was part of the working class, and therefore a follower of Peronism. For example, the man describes himself putting on his “trusty overalls”, a uniform normally associated with the working class. He also mentions that the man who owned the bus “wasn’t no oligarch you had to worry about no more”, and oligarchy was something Eva Peron was strongly opposed to. In any case, the men described in the story show a great display of pride, togetherness and brotherhood, characteristics that Eva Peron and Peronism wanted to spread to the people. However, the men’s feeling of togetherness with one another was taken out on one young man who was not a part of their group, and was not seen as part of “the people”. The men, in beating up the Jewish man, aimed to solidify and claim legitimacy to their “rightful” place in society. They took from him what they did not have, and probably would never have access to: his jeweled Bulova, Fabricant watch and Plumex fountain pen. While these men were fighting for equality and justice, they applied the platforms of Peronism in a way that Eva Peron surely had not intended.

Who are the people? What do they represent? How are they incorporated into the creation of the Nation?

In Eva Peron’s “My Message”, the People, above anything else, is the focus. The ultimate epicenter of her piece. Eva, taking on a somewhat mother-like persona, repeats that she holds a strong love for People of the Nation. Eva reaches out to the “descamisados, the women, the workers… the world’s exploited people”, all of whom represent the People, and at the same time she condemns the “imperialists”, “clergy” and “ambitious men”. As a result Eva Peron creates a People versus “them” divide which on one side allows her to side with the People, yet goes against “togetherness” and “solidarity” that she talks about.
The People to whom she refers to are juxtaposed to and often paralleled to Peron, the former President of Argentina. Over and over again Eva Peron describes how Peron, her husband, understood the People, drawing the connection between the two so that they became a single body. Eva furthers her argument that they both not only share her love, “love for the People”, “love for Peron”, but also the love for freedom and justice.
Placed at the opposing front is the military, the clergy, and oligarchy, to which Eva denounced as misunderstanding, steeling and exploiting the People and thus Peron. One a literary level I felt it was particularly fascinating to read “My message” and truly feel the energy and the adrenaline that Eva brought about through her description and persuasion of “fanaticism”. It played so beautifully well to the emotions, that indifference, an effortless manifestation of empathy, created a stark and unacceptable contrast in the mind and body.
It was believable that Eva Peron and the Peronist movement was the ultimate People’s rights and freedom movement (through Eva’s words in “My message” and Jimenez’s description of Eva, as having been “ a blessing for Argentina,”) until reading the “A celebration of the Monster” by Luis Borges. In a uniquely intimate way of writing, Borges was able to shed light on another perception, one that is unexpected, if only having read “My message” to the brutal side of Peronist movement. In this short story, the young man in the military (the narrator) who seems to be proud of the beating and killing of the “read Jew”, unravels the brutal truth of the military and Peronist relationship. How the military acts as a perpetuator for the Peronist doctrine through their spread of propaganda on walls in support of Peron while masking themselves as the People, is shocking if one has only read the “My message” side of the story.
Now to come back to the question what is the People, the People in Eva’s story seem to represent whatever she wants them to represent, so long as it promotes her ideals and values. The People, in the case of Borges short story, present a truer depiction of people. Through Borges style of narration, the voice of the young military man reveals a realistic side of Argentina. A realistic side of Argentina that encompasses the brutal murder, the random and unexplainable anger that drew the men to their first killing on the way to the march, the constant bullying of the young man by other members of the military and all the barbarous, corrupt and pitiless side of humankind.

The concept of ‘the people’ is complex and may have very different meanings to different people. Like the concept of ‘culture’ it is something that may seem straightforward at first, but is multi layered and loaded with many different interpretations. In Eva Peron’s ‘My Message,’ she speaks to the people in a reflective manner looking back on her high profile time in the political world. She also looks to the future and explains her hopes and aspirations for her beloved people of Argentina. Peron paints a portrait of collective identity that is often defined by suffering, struggle, and the corruption of power. In this sense of collevtive identity, she aims to identify herself as one of ‘the people’ who understands their struggles, as opposed to an elite merely looking down upon them from a high position in society. She seems to be speaking most strongly to the people who are disenfranchised and pushed to the margins of society; a group that may be powerless individually but incredibly strong in numbers. Much of what Peron speaks about is a sort of power struggle, between the elite who have concentrated power and use it for furthering personal self interest, and the rest of society which falls victim to this power when it is flexed self serving ways. Her ideal of ‘the people’ is a mass of people who work collectively to further the good of society and together, and can become stronger than the individualistic and oppurtunist elite in control. She speaks idealistically about how power corrupts and how this power often comes at the expense of the better good of the collective ‘we’. Peron’s message is positive as it aims to empower the masses in a society that has been marked by extreme concentration and exploitation of power, however it is interesting that she is in fact writing this from the perspective of a person in a high-class position of great prestige. I do not know much about her, but from I what I do understand is that ironically, she was labelled by many as an oppurtunist or social climber, though this may also have to do with the fact that people were uncomfortable with a woman in a position of social power. It is also interesting, that as a women, she aims to empower other women and advocates for them, however constantly referes to herlsef in a subserviant role to her husband. Peron’s style of writing was very extreme, but I think that despire the controversy around her, her message was overall, very empowering. It is rare to find a politician or person in a position of social power who legitimatley advocates for ‘the people’ over serving themselves first. It is also rare that a person in this position would be so willing to discuss the dimensions and inequality of power and oppression that exist within society.

The second article was also interesting and offered a differing view of the people. I feel that I would take more away from this article if I had more knowledge about the political situation in Argentina during this time. I know that the Peron’s were populice leaders who were controversial and both loved and hated by the country, but without knowing much more beyond this, it was a little difficult for me to understand exactly the perspective of the person writing. I am also interesting in discussing further the symbolism of the Monster.

The “exploited people”:

As we saw with Williams, culture is ordinary which it means that culture is made by people, but which kind of people? A nation is an heterogeneous group of people, a nation is made of different social classes. In My Message, Eva Peron keeps speaking about “her” people which means the Argentineans but especially her sustainers, the Peronist ones. She keeps claiming universal messages such as solidarity, togetherness or social cohesion but we do not really know to who she is speaking to: which people does she describe?  “Her” vision of the people is a very including one but by reading her message, she creates divisions and categories: the workers, the women but also the people’s enemies like the oligarchies, the clergy and the ambitious. Her discourse is not balanced: there are the people’s enemies and the people’s defenders but her conception of the people’s defenders is very restricted to the Peronist.  She seems very close to the people: she speaks about sleeping, living with the people. On the one hand, she’s totally devoted to the people but on the other hand she seems also very populist. Obviously she does not have the same living conditions that the majority of the Argentineans and she wants to describe herself as non ambitious but she has been animated by a certain ambition before reaching the power even. To be ambitious could be a very good quality and does not mean necessarily to think only about its own interests. I do not really like her way to create special categories and to extract herself from others. She seems wanting to be so close to the people that her discourse becomes not credible so that we could wander which people does she target?

The ”people-target”:

The people could also be a target.  She wants to win over the people by erasing the frontier between the people and the politicians but this frontier is normal. The politicians are the representatives of the people but they are not the people. It is not a mirror representation but a representation by delegation of power.

An imperfect people:

The text written by Borges is the opposite.  He describes some people who do not like Peron and its regime. They do not manage to identity, recognize themselves in Peron’s speech. They are very skeptical and ironical with the notion of “togetherness”.  At the end of the text, they kill a Jew, this murder is the symbol of the total disunity of the people which is totally opposed to Eva Peron’s speech about unity and solidarity. Borges’s text describes an Argentinean people which seems more real. Contrary to Eva Peron’s speech he emphasizes the people’s flaws that’s why for me his description of the people seems more realistic and convincing.  

What is the people?
After Reading the two articles for this week I started thinking how difficult is to define the meaning of “people” that formed a society, in this case the people of the Argentinean Nation. I do not think that is fair to attribute ideas and actions of the people of this society just to one factor. I believe that the combination of external and internal factors is what shapes the behaviour and actions of the people. In “My message” of Eva Peron one could see that even though she had experiences with the upper classes and we could say that she benefited for being part of that elite she went against the flow of the river and she fought for the working people and women. On page 50 Eva writes that “Because no one who left the people take my path ever went back, They were dazzled by the marvellous fantasy of power, and they remained there to enjoy the lie” and I agree with this thought because most of the people once they have power they do not anything to change things to benefit others. I think that Eva´s passion made her strong and that is why she was able to speak out.
In the second reading there is the testimony of the guy that is part of the Argentinean army. This article made me think of the people that also joined Hitler’s army. I am not saying is right but I think that under certain pressure at that time and nowadays people have two options to be part of the governments “movement” or to be against it, and in order to be against it people needed to be very courageous because it is very hard to go against the flow of the river. The guy even describes the Argentinean army as the monster so I think he was not in it because he really wanted, but at the same time he did not do anything not to be part of it.
It is interesting to see that both were aware of the issues that were affecting their country at that time. Eva fought for what she thought was right even though she knew many people would not like her. It is even more interesting that she was a women and she did not assume the “role” that women had and still have( I would say even thought things have changed still there are some role expectations for women). In one class last semester we saw how Rigoberta Menchu also went against of her gender expectations and showed that she was a very brave woman. To be that brave is psychological only expected for men. Women tend to be “fragile” in the mental constructions of societies, when in fact that is not true and those two women proved it. On the other hand, the guy just acted the way he was “expected” within the social context of that time.

Williams- “A culture is common meanings, the product of a whole people, and offered individual meanings, the product of a man’s whole committed personal and social experience” (Williams, Pg. 15). Williams argues that culture is indeed very ordinary due to the way in which it is taken for granted by people. He discusses how Marxism argues culture is dying and the masses are ignorant, influenced by the development of the industrial state and how it “deliberately cheapens our human responses, making art and literature into desperate survivors…” (Williams, Pg. 16). Despite being a member of the communist party for a year and a half, Williams rejects how Marxism views society and insists that the essence of culture lies within its people. He also notes how culture is constantly changing and evolving as people change and evolve. In Williams’ rural homeland he sees a powerful sense of culture with a strong democratic ideology, one that has not yet been encapsulated by the capitalist doctrine. Personally I do agree with most of Williams’ arguments although I found the article a little disjointed at times. Maybe that i just me not understanding the writing completely but after finishing the essay I do definitely get a sense of exactly the direction Williams is heading in. He feels the industrial revolution is thought of as a culture-vulture but in fact culture lies within the people, and those people are still strongly connected to the arts and other characteristics of a vibrant culture.

After reading both articles I thought to myself to which one I prescribed to more.  I thought at times I truly feel part of a greater thing, being part of a people but at other times, I love the quiet and can’t imagine living in a loud, populated environment.
I love Evita Perons view as she is someone with a certain amount of power and yet she truly thinks of herself as a lower class.  She findsher strength within the people, all people of Argentina, even those who are poor and have little to offer but faith to something greater.  I love the thought of a belief in something greater than oneself.  I enjoy the idea of finding strength in numbers with people who all have the same common beliefs and values.  I really got a picture of strength from Evita’s message.  She truly portrays someone who deeply cares about the people she is serving, or helping.  She denounces all the people who are against the poor people and any person who falls for wealth and power.  She defines wealth in the form of the people of Argentia, the people who believe that they can make a change and control their destiny.
Any ordinary person can find strength and understand what she is saying, as we are also ordinary.  We the people create our own reaities and the environment around us, which in turn creates the world we live in.  I find Evita’s message very empowering as she speaks to the lower levels of society, the people with all the heart and soul of the Nation.  She is sincere which helps bring her closer to the people in every aspect of society as they start to believe and find strength in her words.
The second reading was not as much so cut and dry.  His essay was busy and seemed filled with anger and resentment for the people around him.  It seems as though all he wants to do is flee from his current situation but he is kept to still tell his story.  It seems he is constantly making fun and putting down the people around him as lesser beings in the grand scheme of things.  He calls them by nicknames always punting out their faults as people.  This reading shows another side to the people.  It shows the horrible side of togetherness, the confining aspect of it.
Both readings speak about freedom in different ways.  Evita is searching for the freedom for her people and the second reading seems to be constanly trying to get freedom, to escape the constancy of the people.  Both shows freedom in a different light, the achievemtn of freedom with or without the help of the people.  It kinda shows us how freedom can be achieved no matter what you believe in. I found the second article interesting in the way he was writing, busy, all over the place at times confusing, which seems to me how a busy metropolis of people would be.
As both these article talk about people in different ways, I am more inclined to feel warmth and comfort and strength in Evita’s message to the people.  I am a huge fan of bringing the poor up to a place of power, and I truly believe that power and strength do lie within the people, which brings a smile to my face.

I think that Mackenzie’s description of culture as ordinary makes sense in the context of why people come together and pay attention to each other. Human beings need each other, for survival as well as self-awareness and expression. Mackenzie believes that societies are made by finding common meanings and directions. I interpret common meanings as common feelings. Hope, fear, happiness, and loneliness are things which we all experience. I especially like his analysis of education as ordinary and the emphasis of removing restrictions like money. It’s an interesting idea that societies can move beyond the limitation of a maximum fraction of people cable of profiting by a higher education. It accompanies Mackenzies interpretation of an expanding culture which makes room for what he calls “bad” culture. Lower forms of art like television are a given as it is easier to distribute it and there is more leisure time to receive it. It does not necessarily destroy older less commercialized mediums of expression. I don’t believe it necessarily separates classes either. What it does is causes the audience to be interpreted as an unknown mass, the unknown. Higher culture has an intended audience which fits the niche of a socioeconomic class like museums or theaters. I believe that if education were less restricted the barriers which seperate different mediums of expression would be seen by a greater audience of individuals as opposed to an unknown mass.

I’d like to start off my saying that this is a couple days late because I accidentally made two separate blogs and posted my first response there, anyway here it is in the right place.

I began the first reading by Williams with much enthusiasm and enjoyed his comparisons of lifes journey to that of a buses. However as I got further and further into the text I found it quite difficult to follow his thought processes or understand the point he was trying to make. Holistically I think I grasp it even if point by point I thought it to be unclear. Even so one of his very first points related to us stuck with me throughout the rest of the article, “To grow up in that country was to see the shape of a culture, and its modes of change” (pg.11). This caught my attention because it bodes true for every person, no matter which country they are from. While he was talking about his personal history and culture, I couldn’t help but think of mine. Although in the grand scheme things I’m not even a blip on the timeline of the Earth, I’ve still been around long enough to have been one the neighborhood kids and then outgrow that same title. A new generation is trick or treating while I’m now the one doling out the sweets. Moreover I think we all constantly hear stories from our parents or grandparents of the golden ages, when things were safer, gas was cheaper and kids played outside instead of rotting their brains on the couch. I know I used to roll my eyes at such stories which felt more like neverending lectures than accounts of the past. Now I can feel similar tales welling in my mouth waiting for to be released on younger ear. Anyway what I’m trying to say is I agree with Williams in the respect that there is this wave of elitist culture more about keeping others out then including everyone in. Why not let everyone enjoy the opera whether or not they can afford box seats? On the other hand I believe those striving to become a “culture vulture” are missing out on the most accessible and fulfilling form of culture possible, family. During the article Williams makes multiple references to his ability to stay grounded by thinking about the ones he loved and pitying them because they were part of the working class. There is nothing shameful about creating and in today’s internet run world, something you can hold on to, touch , and feel, well, that sounds pretty darn goods

Hi fellow classmates! My name is Mercy and this is my blog. I’m a first year arts student and very excited about this course.

Well as I started to read both articles, I was quite into them, wondering what each author was trying to get at.  Of course I had set aside a couple hours to do the lengthy readings and was excited about writing my first blog.  About halfway through the first article my cell phone rang and it was my mom on the call display.  I thought it was a little strange as it was in the middle of the afternoon and she should have been at work.
Her tone seemed fine but I knew something was wrong.  She preceeded to tell me there had been a death in the family, a close family friend and all of a sudden the details of the freak accident were all my mind could contain.  As I hung up the phone with her, I tried to continue reading and realized that there was no way I could even begin to read about culture or to even write about it when someone\s life close to me was literally falling apart.  I decided to put the readings down and focus on my family and the loss it has had.
That is the reason I have no culture blog up here and why I won’t be commenting on any of my classmates blogs for this week.  I will continue with the readings next week and know that everyone will understand my situation.
Just a quick note that we should all cherish every moment we have with the people we love as noone knows when our time will be up.  Sorry for that somewhat depressing last comment….but it’s so true.

Week 1 Readings

The reading “Culture is Ordinary” centralizes around the idea that culture originates from ordinary people. Often culture is associated with the elite of a population, as they are the main producers and consumers of arts and knowledge. However, it is obvious that that there is a kind of “working class” culture that has emerged, that is quite different from the typical idea of refined, luxurious, high-class culture. Williams brings up an interesting point that often the makers of art have a hostile view towards the elite, making their consumption of the art somewhat ironic. The article goes into great detail about the Marist take on culture, stressing that “culture is interpreted in relation to its underlying system of production”, that his English society was a “class dominated culture”, just as Marxist thought states. I find these two things very interesting, because you at first thought I would not think that a system of production would have very much to do with culture. But when looking at a modern culture, such as the United States, one can see that the constant production and flow of goods, and their wide availability and marketing, are all directly tied to the consumerist aspect of American culture. Also, I found interesting the statement that only the “deserving poor get much educational opportunity” in relation to his earlier Marxist statement about the bourgeoisie being the dominant class in a class dominated culture. I had not really thought about this, but after reading this I find it especially true. The rich can buy their education, with not much regard to whether they are actually “deserving” of it or not. There are requirements to be able to attend educational institutions, but in many cases it is money that is the determining factor in one’s acceptance. For a poor individual to receive an education such as the one that members of the elite receive, he must do extra work in order to excel academically, athletically, etc.

I am not sure I really agree with Williams talk about “bad culture”. When talks of the “cheap feelings and moronic arguments” shown in popular culture are a “deeply degrading version of the actual lives of our contemporaries”. I understand where he is coming from, as anyone can see that much of our modern culture is, as he says, vulgar. But on the other hand I don’t really agree with his immediate branding of this culture as “bad”, just because it is new and not produced by the upper class. Perhaps I am not fully grasping his argument, but his label of modern culture as “vulgar” seems to be a little pretentious.

Keesing’s article talks about the way we stress the differences between cultures while analyzing them. I found it interesting how Keesing explained how the focus on cultural difference is a search for the exotic. One can see this everywhere: when tourists travel to tropical places, when people dress in the style of a different country, when people take dance lessons, etc. These are pretty trivial searches for alternative expressions and experiences, but it they are everyday examples of the “search for the exotic” that Keesing speaks of.

I also really liked how the article brings up the irony of the fact that it is fashionable to be different in a globalized world, where boundaries between cultures are vanishing. Not so long ago, distinct cultures where shrouded in mystery due to lack of contact between them. Now that much of this mystery has disappeared, and a kind of global culture is emerging, people have decided they want to stand out from the crowd, either individually or by uniting their people to show they have a strong, vibrant culture.

Both these articles were quite interesting, but a little hard to grasp the main concepts. They both taught me a lot about the production, reproduction and consumption of culture that I had not thought about before.

These readings offered a unique perspective on what “culture” truly is. It is a difficult concept to grasp, especially as a Canadian living in a multi-”cultural” society. With such a vast mix of characteristics in all Canadians, how can we pick out certain elements to classify our culture with? Especially with the wealth of North America, and all the examples of “high” (unreachable for many) culture, what can we claim to be truly everyones? One perspective, is that through mixing and matching all these social stratums and cultures, we have lost our definition and thus lost our culture. However, in the first reading, by Williams, it shows that this is not the case in the slightest. Instead, modernization has expanded and enhanced our culture. The increased global mobility of persons, in terms of migration patterns, has diffused traditions and self expressions throughout the world. Furthermore, our advancements in the media and communications have allowed us to experience cultural practices that we may never otherwise have observed. For instance, in our class we have a specific demographic of those in a circumstance to choose to go to university. It is acceptable to say, none of us will carry out a portion of our lives in the ”slums,” yet in our first lecture, we were able to see two video examples of life and arts in these communities. This helps us gain perspective on how our own culture is displayed while appreciating those in other classes and societies. Therefore, we are at no loss in our own culture at all, rather we are no longer restricted to the terms of our immediate surroundings. It may be more difficult to define, but that is representative of our cultural breadth.

Culture is the essense of a society. We may be in different social classes, come from various ethnic backgrounds, hold seperate political positions, however, we can all come together for a mutual appreciation of the arts and expressions that we value. In the places that I have lived in I daily witnessed seperation of lifestyle and values, but when a Canucks game came on, or it was time for the Calgary Stampede, or even the Houston Rodeo, everyone could come together and take pride in the place that they live. Therefore, spending in the arts, or whatever it may be that unites the people is a justified request. We all know that governments and religion have faltered in uniting the masses time and time again. However, the cultural elements have the capability to be that glue.

Today I like write in spanish, In the class are some people who would like practice it, so I think it´s a good idea…

Definir qué es cultura es algo que pareciera muy complicado ya que el término ha ido variando con el paso de los años, tal es el caso de los autores de las lecturas de esta semana: Keessing y William, donde podemos ver que cada uno hace evidente la influencia de la época. Por un lado William describe algo en lo que estoy un tanto de acuerdo: “la cultura es ordinaria” y es que todo lo que nos rodea y a lo que vamos dando forma es o será parte de nuestra cultura, es decir, la cultura es producida por cualquier persona o individuo; es por ello que William critica a corrientes como el Marxismo, el cual postula que la cultura es solo para las personas de clase alta y que a ésta no tienen acceso las personas ignorantes o de un nivel inferior. De forma que William apoya la idea de que la cultura es simplemente común. Algo que menciona y que me parece interesante es el hecho de que la educación es vital en la sociedad para evitar que se “polarización” de la cultura, por decirlo de algún modo. Si bien es cierto que a través de la historia la influencia del gobierno ha ido cambiando el rumbo de la historia cultural de un país, también se debe añadir la comercialización de la cultura, tal como lo cita William en el texto. La cultura debe ser simplemente, creo yo, la identidad de un país, cultura, raza, ciudad, etc., aquello que lo caracteriza… Por su parte Keesing hace referencia a la lo que la antropología describe como cultura, la cual es “universo limitado de ideas y costumbres”, y es aquí donde creo que la controversia inicia, por que cómo se puede definir qué está dentro de ese universo limitado. En ambas lecturas se menciona en cierta parte la idea de poder y cómo quienes gozan de éste interfieren en la cultura, por ejemplo el caso del gobierno. Un ejemplo de esto puede citarse en lso libros de texto que el gobierno daba en las escuelas públicas en México, donde la historia esta escrita de acuerdo a los intereses del gobierno y en cierta forma para crear esa identidad nacional o patriotismo en los estudiantes desde pequeños.

Good Day!!!

Hello internet, how’s it going? My name is Andrew Matasovsky and this is my first blog. I’ll give you a quick synopsis of my life story so you know where I’m coming from. I was born in 1988 to a construction worker and a freelance writer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I grew up in Minnesota and I traveled to some places. I’ve been to seven other countries and I lived on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for a while. Now I live in Vancouver and go to the University of British Columbia. Music is my favorite passion, but I also enjoy art and any kind of comedy. The year 2009 has just begun and it feels like a good year, possibly the best time around the sun.

• 

• Categories

  • Administration
  • Arguedas and Asturias
  • Bellos and Hippolyte Ortega
  • Campbell and Taussig
  • Garcia Canclini
  • Gomez Peña etc.
  • Introductions
  • Ortiz etc.
  • Overview
  • Peron and Borges
  • Responses
  • Review
  • Rowe and Schelling
  • Vasconcelos and Wade
  • Williams and Keesing

• Recent Comments