Final Reflections

It’s fair to say that you learn as much from teaching a class than from taking it. I am now on both sides, and it was always my biggest hope that someday I’d get to design something of my own. I had definite ideas, and I thought that all of them were awesome. However, the best laid plans should be subordinate to the realities of the classroom. I really hope that I made that leap with my students.

My initial thought was to have them blog, and to blog myself. Wow! I realized very early on that producing an (on average) 1000 word short essay every two days was quite the feat. I also realized that I was working through concepts that had challenged me since my first year in graduate school. Yes, I had the hegemonic ideology down pat, but I really owe my students a debt of gratitude.

YOU MADE ME FIND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE KEY CHAPTER OF MY DISSERTATION. Really… had I not worked so hard on the posts about the frontier myth, and immigration, it would have taken longer to realize how long of a history recurring myths have, and how intertwined they are. Frederick Jackson Turner addressed immigration, and I don’t think I would have seen the relationship had it not been for this blog.

There are things I would have done differently, and the next time around, I certainly will. First, I would have left the last film review open from the get go, instead of trying to fit it into a pre-assigned topic. By pure happenstance, I ended up leaving it open anyway, and I think it was far more satisfactory for everyone involved. I was able to see, as we neared the end of the quarter, what students were most interested in, and  that was a good thing in terms of how this course would be re-designed in the future.

Another thing I would change is that I would allow re-writes on blog posts. If we think about blogging as an educational experience, how are we supposed to learn if we don’t have the ability to edit? I think that re-visiting previous work, and improving it, should be part of the course design.

More, later.

Filed under: Course matters, My comments, Course matters, evaluation, pedagogy

Women in American popular culture

Popular culture may seem all vapid and superficial, but it is undeniable that the most significant ideological battles of the Twentieth Century seep into popular forms of entertainment. Civil Rights spawned very special episodes on Little House on the Prairie, and Women’s Liberation opened the door to Mary Tyler Moore. The problem is, though, that when popular culture reflects upon contemporary social issues, the schizophrenia often ensues. Conflicting value systems and interests make for representations of daily life that have little resemblance to actual daily life. This is the main point of Susan Douglas’ book, Where the Girls Are.

Chapter Two of Douglas’ book (Mama Said) deals with images of motherhood in popular culture. Douglas states that these images are far removed from reality, and that they cause frustrations upon those who consume them. In other words, they imposed impossible ideals upon real women. They were expected to be perfect housekeepers:

No wonder so many of our mothers were pissed. They worked all the time with little or no acknowledgement, while their ingrate kids watched TV shows that insisted that good mothers, like true princesses, never complained, smiled a real lot, were constantly good-natured, and never expected anything from anyone. when our mothers sat back to relax in front of the TV after twelve- to fifteen-hour day, they were surrounded by allegories about masculine heroism and the sanctity of male gonads. Rarely, if ever, did they see any suggestion that the incessant, mundane, and often painful contortions of a woman’s daily life might, in fact, be heroic too (Douglas, 1995, p. ).

Television in the 1950s limited women’s role to the domestic sphere; women were expected to keep an immaculate house, while the men went out into the real world to earn a paycheck. In American culture, this idea was expressed as the separate spheres ideology. According to it, men and women were biologically, morally and spiritually different, and these differences were ordained by god. Men were aggressive, rational, independent, and strong, whereas women were passive, irrational, submissive, nurturing and weak. Because of their natural characteristics, men and women were destined to function in separate spheres of influence; the men would rule the public sphere, and the women would reign over the domestic sphere (Lavender, 1998).

Catherine Beecher was an influential, albeit contradictory, advocate of the separate spheres ideology. Beecher, who was a member of a prominent New England family, believed that women should be educated, but only because of their role as mothers, caretakers, and educators. Catherine thought, therefore, that the most significant contribution that a woman could make to the democratic process was bringing up the men to be upstanding citizens:

The success of democratic institutions, as is conceded by all, depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the mass of people. If they are intelligent and virtuous, democracy is a blessing; but if they are ignorant and wicked, it is only a curse, and as much more dreadful than any other form of civil government, as a thousand tyrants are more to be dreaded than one. It is equally conceded that the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand. The mother forms the character of the future man; the sister bends the fibres that are to be hereafter the forest tree; the wife sways the heart, whose energies may turn for good or for evil the destinies of the nation. Let the women of this country be virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same. The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured (Beecher, 1849, 36-37)

The separate spheres argument is a patriarchal one. Patriarchy is a belief system that sustains that men are superior to women, and are thus entitled to privileges that women should not aspire to, or enjoy. In patriarchal systems there is a clear distinction between roles and spheres, with men dominating the public sphere, and women restricted to the domestic one.

In the 1960s, Betty Friedan would re-introduced the separate spheres argument; however, she would call it  the feminine mystique, and would argue that it kept women from reaching their full potential:

The feminine mystique says that the highest value and only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own femininity. It says that the great mistake of Western culture, through most of its history, has been the undervaluation of this femininity. It says this femininity is so mysterious and intuitive and close to the creation and origin of life that man-made science may never be able to understand it. But however special and different, it is in no way inferior to the nature of man; it may even in certain respects be superior. The mistake, says the mystique, the root of women’s troubles in the past is that women envied men, women tried to be like men, instead of accepting their own nature, which can find fulfillment only in sexual passivity, male domination, and nurturing maternal love (Friedan, 1963, p. 43).

According to Douglas, the feminine mystique ideology did not take hold of American society until the late 1950s. However, once it did, the feminine mystique confronted American women with conflicting expectations. On the one hand, they were expected to be consumers, but were depicted as irrational, childlike, and incapable of logical judgment. On the other hand, they were also expected to reign supreme in the domestic sphere, even though the domestic economy often requires both parents to work outside the home.

For Empey, the problem with motherhood is about incompatible institutions. The public sphere, that of government, schools, and the economy, place impossible demands upon the domestic sphere, and thus individuals can participate fully in one, but not both:

When institutions are coordinated individuals can participate in the activities of one institution without being prevented from participating in the activities of other institutions. When individuals cannot participate in more than one institution, we have good reason to think that something has gone wrong – that our institutions aren’t allowing us the freedom they should (Empey, 69).

But, how much freedom do our institutions really allow for? According to French theorist Louis Althusser, institutions serve the interests of a ruling class, and no ruling class can “hold state power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses.” (2006, p. 81). These Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) include churches, educational systems, families, trade unions, and the media. ISAs “function primarily through ideology,” not repression, that is individuals are not coerced to accept a belief system; they are, in fact, free to choose what they believe in. They do not, however, have equal influence over which ideas become mainstream, or how they are presented. Furthermore, ISAs actively discourage dissent because they instill expectations about behavior, rituals, and practices that signal acceptance.

When we think of popular culture in ideological terms, we must ask: which ideology/ideologies are being captured and reproduced through its manifestations? In the case of the representation of women, especially that described by Douglas, patriarchy is clearly evident. However, Douglas also states that not every woman bought into the patriarchal argument, which indicates that ideologies may be pervasive, but they are, by no means uncontested or unchangeable.

Questions:

• What is the image of motherhood depicted in contemporary TV? (please provide examples). How does it compare with the image of television mothers of the 1950s, like Donna Reed or June Cleaver?
• Can we think of all forms of popular culture in terms of ideology? Why/why not?
• What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of using ideology as a concept to analyze popular culture?

——

References

• Beecher, C. (1849). A treatise on domestic economy, for the use of young ladies at home and at school. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.
• Douglas, S. (1995). Mama said. In S. Douglas Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media. New York: Times Books.
• Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Lavender, C. (1998). The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood. Accessed on 9/29/09 from http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/386/truewoman.html
• Empey, S. (). Lois: Portrait of a Mother

Filed under: Class notes, Course matters, Uncategorized, class notes, Course matters, Donna Reed, femininity, motherhood, Roseanne, TV mothers., women in American popular culture

How popular things become popular?

When I was a lot younger, I thought that likability determined whether something became popular or not. Take The Beatles, for example; they were popular because “everyone” liked them (according to my mother). The same could be said of Elvis (according, again, to my mother), hula hoops (according to the Coen brothers), and Like a Virgin (according to me, when I was 14). Of course, this meant that if you did not like any of those things, you were hopelessly out of touch. Perhaps you were  too old, too weird, too un-coordinated, or just un-cool; either way, something was wrong with you, because millions of fans cannot be wrong.

Popularity baffles me. Mind you, I tend to agree with Chuck Klosterman when he says “don’t get pissed off over the fact that the way you feel about culture isn’t some kind of universal consensus.” (Klosterman, 2004). Klosterman, however, stops short. He simply reminds us that “culture can’t be wrong, because culture just IS,” but he doesn’t wonder HOW it becomes what it IS. So, even if my instincts back then, when I was a teenager, were right, likability does not explain how an artist, a fad, a song, or a gadget get to have millions of fans? Where does it all start?

One explanation is the discovery story. It goes something like this:

A talented group of musicians form a band. They rehearse constantly, write wonderful songs, but must also hold menial jobs to pay the rent. At night, they play at very seedy joints, in hopes of being noticed. One night, out of the blue, a record producer (or a talent scout) catches their act. He signs them, puts them in a study, and has them lay down the tracks that will become (insert name of album here). Their first single hits the top ten, and it’s all uphill from there (at least until egos, drug overdoses, or Y0ko Ono get in the way).

Does this story sound familiar? with small variations you can apply it to musicians that range from Johnny Cash to Madonna. And it may even be true, but it is also very simplistic; it assumes that all anyone needs to be “discovered” is talent, hard work, and luck.  As Barthes would put it, such a story is a myth, and it “obscures history” (but I’ll get to that in another post). For now, I’ll limit myself to reviewing three explanations of how the popular becomes popular.

The political economy perspective

For communications and media scholars, “political economy” is a term generally used to describe scholarship concerned with the relationships among economic, political, and communications systems within the structure of global capitalism” (Bettig, 2002). Political economy is highly influenced by Marx’s views about capitalism, that is, by the idea of how the capitalist economy works. Under capitalism few individuals and/or corporations control the means of production. This control allows them to shape society and exercise dominance. Through conglomeration and monopoly, capitalists maximize profits at the expense of quality. They can also influence prices, wages, supply and demand, which is guaranteed by the lack of competitive alternatives.

In terms of the media, political economists argue that they are also controlled by capital. Consolidation shuts down  alternative viewpoints, and as a result, the media can be used to influence public opinion,  to suppress dissent, and to “manufacture consent” (see Chomsky).

In Malcolm Gladwell’s article “The Coolhunt” we catch a glimpse of what political economists believe about popular culture: it is a commodity. Commodities are manufactured by large conglomerates, and their success in the market depends on advertising. Popularity, hence, is not a fluke; it is the result deliberate actions that call attention to the commodity and make it desirable. Here’s an example from the Mac vs PC (or PC vs Mac… thanks to Sam Szabo, for pointing that out).

The role of advertising is to persuade us. But there is no guarantee that ALL OF US will head to the apple store just because we watched an ad. In fact, according to Dallas Smythe, that isn’t really the point of advertising at all.  Since we live in an industrialized society, we will go out and buy things anyway. Advertising merely shows us how to evaluate different products. Here are two examples to illustrate this:

Political economy also tackles the question of mass appeal. Mass appeal presupposes that there is ONE mass audience, and that what this audience wants determines what becomes popular. Accordingly, Reality TV is popular because people watch it. However, Eileen Meehan (and also Smythe) suggested that this isn’t the case. The ratings, says Meehan, determine which shows are put on the schedule. In the United States, Nielsen is the company that issues the television ratings, and they are based on sampling procedures that do not count everyone equally.

Why not? To put it simply it is because television networks in the business of selling audiences to advertisers, and advertisers want bona fide consumers (Smythe). A bona fide consumer is someone who has disposable income to purchase brand name items. Meehan adds that this  excludes entire segments of the population from “the audience,” which ends up being middle class, white, suburban, and male.

Meehan and Smythe provide some persuasive arguments that explain how television operated when there were only 3 networks. However, we now live in a multi-channel society, and it is neither feasible nor realistic to talk about ONE AUDIENCE when we have so much segmentation. Hence, can bona fide consumers can be of any color of the rainbow, gender, ethnicity, or political persuasion?

Absolutely, but one key insight still holds: they need to be able to consume. If they can’t, or won’t, they’re of less value to advertisers.

Diffusion of Innovations

Diffusion of innovations (DOI) offers another explanation for the popularity of things (and I’m using the term very broadly to include shows, ideas, trends, fashions, etc). Gladwell (1997) suggests that understanding DOI can explain “how trends work.” According to Rogers (1995, p. 5):

“Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas.”

DOI recognizes that every new idea comes with a degree of uncertainty. This means that not everyone will jump on the bandwagon at the same time. Here is how Gladwell summarizes it:

In the language of diffusion research, the handful of farmers who started trying hybrid seed corn at the very beginning of the thirties were the “innovators,” the adventurous ones. The slightly larger group that followed them was the “early adopters.” They were the opinion leaders in the community, the respected, thoughtful people who watched and analyzed what those wild innovators were doing and then did it themselves. Then came the big bulge of farmers in 1936, 1937, and 1938 – the “early majority” and the “late majority,” which is to say the deliberate and the skeptical masses, who would never try anything until the most respected farmers had tried it. Only after they had been converted did the “laggards,” the most traditional of all, follow suit.

Gladwell also notes the importance of interpersonal communication for the DOI process. Accordingly, a great majority will adopt a new idea based on examples and opinions of those who adopted it first.

Going viral

Political economy and DOI are very useful when we consider how commodities, new ideas and trends become popular. In political economy, popularity is linked to market value. In DOI, on the other hand, the adoption an innovation depends, among other things, on how well it will satisfy (or create) needs (Rogers, 1995). But, what about those viral videos? How do you assign monetary value to the Dramatic Chipmunk? What need does it fulfill?

For Johnson (2007), memes can offer an explanation for the dramatic chipmunk. Richard Dawkins coined the term. In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins argued that cultural change can be explained through evolutionary theory. Memes are similar to genes; they are “replicators” (Dawkins, 1976/1989, p. 192). Genes contain information that preserve and replicate those traits that can ensure the survival of the fittest. Memes, on the other hand,  allow trends to thrive through imitation:

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catchphrases, clothes, fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said  to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain [...]. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation (Dawkins, 1976/1989, p. 192).

Like genes, furthermore, memes are also highly competitive. According to Johnson (2007), a successful meme is one that captures our attention. However, memes are very superficial; they’re ephemeral, which is why we’re not stuck with the dramatic chipmunk for years and years. We will inevitably move on as soon as new meme catches our attention.

The interesting thing about memes in popular culture is that they can, and are, being monetized. According to Bonnie Ruberg, from PC World magazine, internet memes are opening up new possibilities for businesses. Some examples include Cute Overload, StuffWhitePeopleLike.com, and ICanHasCheezburger.com.

So, why do popular things become popular?

Last year, I was one of the millions to post 25 things about me on my facebook account. I did it after I was tagged. Three days later, Katie Lee was talking about it with Hoda on the Today Show. Time magazine did a story on it, and so did every major news organization. Did news coverage helps spread the 25 random things? or did it respond to it?

The reason I ask these questions is so we can think about more complex explanations for popularity. Business imperatives do matter, to some degree, but DOI and memes also figure into the equation. So here is what I think: We should acknowledge that trends emerge from multiple sources; they can come from the top, or from the crowd. Furthermore, in our increasingly networked society, popularity  rests largely on the ability to spread through social networks, which means that our media use and our habits matter. Finally, businesses, media, and institutions can and will pick up on trends, and spread them even more (and this is what happened with Obama Girl).

In other words, it’s not productive to settle on a single explanation. We should, instead, consider popularity as a complex phenomenon through which ideas, trends, and fads spread through society.

——-

References

• Bettig, R (2002). Political economy. In Encyclopedia of Communication and Information. (Vol 2, p. 711-713). New York: Macmillan Reference.
• Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Gladwell, M. (1997, March 17). The coolhunt. The New Yorker.
• Johnson, D (2007). Mapping the meme: A geographical approach to materialist rhetorical criticism. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 4(1), pp. 27-50
• Klosterman, C. (2004, December 31). Culture got you down? Esquire. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.esquire.com/features/chuck-klostermans-america/ESQ0105-JAN_AMERICA_rev
• Ruberg, B. (2009, August). Cash in on the internet memes phenomenon. PC World. 27(8), p. 33-34.
• Meehan, E.R. (2006). Gendering the commodity audience: Critical media research, feminism, and political economy. In M.G. Durham and D.M. Kellner, (Eds.), Media and cultural studies Key Works. [Revised edition], pp. 230 – 257.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
• Rogers, E. (2005). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press
• Smythe, D. (2006). On the audience commodity and its work. In M.G. Durham and D.M. Kellner, (Eds.), Media and cultural studies Key Works. [Revised edition], pp. 230 – 256.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Filed under: Class notes, class notes, Course matters, Diffusion of Innovations., Malcolm Gladwell, memes

Portfolio Assigments: What’s the point?

I have been reading some of your blog posts, and realized that I need to post the criteria for the assignment on this blog. I noticed that most of you are not discussing concepts from the course. Please bear in mind that the discussion of concepts is part of the grade.

I’ll add to this that you should feel free to edit your blog posts at any time, so if you haven’t discussed a concept because you weren’t thinking about that, you can always revisit the post later. So far, I’m really pleased with the quality of what I’m reading, and with your enthusiasm for popular culture. Now you just need to take it to the next level, and if you’re wondering why, all I can say is that the best writing about popular culture happens when the author brings in more to the table than his/her opinion.

Here are the criteria for the assignment (based on Danielle Stern’s portfolio guidelines… kudos to her!):

A portfolio is a collection of artifacts — documents, articles, video, etc. —, and reflections about those artifacts. The purpose of the portfolio is to illustrate, support or contradict the key ideas explored throughout the course. You can find these ideas in lectures, discussion, readings and videos. Whatever catches your attention can be your springboard. Examples can include statements such as: “There could be no mass culture until there were masses” (Macdonald, 1962, p. 13), or “Jon Stewart makes cynicism attractive; indeed, he makes it profitable” (Hart & Hartelius, 2007, p. 263).  Bear in mind that the most important aspect of the portfolio is not the artifacts, but your reflections, what you think about as you read, or what comes to mind while you’re watching a youtube video that just reminds you of something discussed in class, even if you can’t quite peg what that something is. If it bugs you, explore it, but remember: What is important is how you use the artifacts to answer questions like:

• What does this artifact say about masculinity/femininity?
• How does this artifact explain the relationship between popular culture and consumption?
• How does this artifact help us understand the role of social networks in American politics?

These are only examples, but there could be more questions that you can come up on your own.

Here are some examples of artifacts:

• Description of a scene for a television program, video clip, video game.
• Link to a photograph, cartoon, drawing, or illustration.
• An article from a magazine, newspaper, etc., of an excerpt from it.
• Information from a relevant website.
• Quotes from well-known individuals.
• Entries in Wikipedia. However, bear in mind that you should find at least one credible external source that backs up the Wikipedia entry.
• Screen captures of a twitter feed, online game, Facebook feed, chat.

Please make an effort to find and post examples from a variety of sources and types, as this will be taken into account when I evaluate your portfolios. Your portfolio must include a total of 20 artifacts. 10 ARTIFACTS WILL BE PART OF YOUR MIDTERM GRADE. The portfolio should include the following types of posts:

• An introduction stating who you are, what your interest in popular culture is, and what your overall goals for the course are. Please use the blog’s “about” page for this entry.
• Personal reflections (minimum one post per week), where you analyze popular culture artifacts in light of the concepts we discuss in class.
• Reflections on classmates’ entries (minimum one post per week). The purpose of these reflections is for you to use the blog as a virtual forum. Hence, you are expected to contribute at least one entry per week that expands on something one of the blog contributors (including the instructor) has posted. If you post the comment directly on the contributor’s page, make sure you copy and paste it as a new post on your own blog (for ease of grading).
• Final reflection (one entry at the end of the quarter – due 11/12/09 by 5 pm.). The final entry summarizes the key insights you have learned from this process. You should review your previous posts and course materials in order to produce this final entry. The final reflection should be approximately 500 words in length.

I recommend that you make it a habit to post on your blog weekly. Otherwise the point of the assignment, which is for you to reflect on the material as we go along, is completely lost. If I notice that people are not keeping up, I reserve the right to take 5 points off for each late posting. I will give feedback and assign grades to portfolios on two occasions: Oct 13 and at the end of the quarter. Your grade will be based on the following criteria: (1) You present a variety of sources and artifact types (at least 2); (2) The artifacts and reflections are relevant to the course, and you present sufficient evidence to support the connection; (3) The artifacts and reflections identify key concepts from the course; (4) less than 3 spelling and grammatical mistakes; (5) the reflections are at least two paragraphs in length.

Filed under: Assignments, Course matters, Assignments, Course matters

Commenting (for portfolio assignment)

By now, I’ve received several messages from you, with the URLs for your blogs. I’m already reading interesting insights about what draws you to popular culture. I’ll get to that in another post, or in comments on your blogs.

What I really want to address now is a logistical matter. In the syllabus, you’re asked to comment on someone else’s blog regularly. One of you asked if those comments were going to be posted on your blogs, or on the other person’s blog. I now have an answer for that. You’ll be posting them on YOUR blog, but make sure that you include a link to the original post. The link will set off a pingback, and your comment will appear on the other person’s blog as a link.

Filed under: Course matters, Blogging, Blogs, Course matters, How to