Barthes

I worry about Barthes' selectively neutral treatment of the myth. In the Blue Blood Cruise, his political statement is poignant. I wonder why value judgments are absent from other mythologies, specifically Wrestling [insert title]? Maybe I'm missing something?

Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'm stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.

When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.

Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]

--

I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the audience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?

Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?

Marcuse

When Marcuse talks about the idea of losing "inner freedom" it reminds me of the oral epic tradition discussed in the first few classes last semester. To Marcuse, loss of the "inner freedom" is devastating. He says, "Today this private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual..." (p. 10). In the Greek oral epic tradition, the memorization and repetition of stories allowed no room for personal reflection or critical thinking. The advent of writing afforded the opportunity to externalize thoughts and reflect upon them. It seems that Marcuse is describing the same lack of reflection and critical thought present in early Greece.

The irony is stunning. Look how far we've come.

Mills

The Power Elite could not be more relevant today. Case in point: evil genius Dick Cheney. He worked through the organizations of Halliburton (among others) and the U.S. Government to influence all three of Mills' spheres: military, political and economic. He decides to go to war (military/political), what corporations get government money to provide services for the war (economic), and how long the war continues(military/political). He is one of "the warlords, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate" (Pg. 9).

Mills' 1956 text caught on. In 1961, Eisenhower's warned (YouTube clip) about the Military Industrial Complex, and in 2004 (just two years before his death) J.K. Galbraith condemned the relationship between the military, economic and political powers specifically in reference to the Iraq war.

In 2007, Todd Boyle argued (YouTube link) that no military industrial complex equals no war. Quite the bold statement. He likens the close-looped system to a "self-licking ice cream cone." [[FYI: If you're not in the mood for a rant, stop at the 8-minute mark.]] Below is a diagram from his anti-war website taking the idea further by integrating all three aspects of Mills' argument: military industrial congressional complex.

So, those are the ways I see Mills' argument playing out in recent large-scale events. If we operate on the definition, "those who are able to realize their will, even if others resist it" (Pg.9) combined with "...although all of us are within history we do not all possess equal powers to make history. To pretend that we do is sociological nonsense and political irresponsibility" (Pg.22), we must include other newly emerging history-makers: terrorists. During our discussion group on Monday, Ruthie mused about this idea in relation to Appadurai's cellular vs. vertebrate system theory, and at first I was not willing liken terrorists to the power elite. After working it through, my position is this: Terrorists do not fit Mills' definition of the power elite, but the do hold the same "finger on trigger" power to make history with which he was decidedly concerned. Appadurai makes a good structural argument for why technology is changing power systems. I am not completely sure what this means. Maybe we are in a new "epoch"?

Some general issues with the text:

• Mills' concept of unintentional elitism. Realizing this is the backbone of his "not a conspiracy theory" tautology, I don't think it's realistic. Being generous, I might agree that most elites are not aware of their elitism, however, there are bad people with bad intentions who use this power for bad things, just like there are good people with good intentions who use the power for good things. Ignoring this fact to eliminate a conspiracy stereotype may be good for selling books, but not so good for legitimate analysis.
  
• Mills doesn't get into the possible conflict between the three institutions (political, military, and economic.) He does mention the intimate and at times inseparable connection of the military and political institutions, but not the economic. This is especially important to explore when our government is handing out billion dollar "bail out" loans to large corporate institutions.
  

Other thoughts:

• "What is lacking is a truly common elite program of recruitment and training" (Pg 295). Currently, I see an easier path for individuals aspiring to jump from non-elite to elite status. I think the above quote compliments this idea. Will develop this idea later.
  

Polyani

I found the final chapter of our reading, Birth of the Liberal Creed (Continued): Class Interest and Social Change most challenging. Polyani argues that "Not economic exploitation, as often assumed, but the disintegration of the cultural environment of the victim is then the cause of the degradation. The economic process may, naturally, supply the vehicle of the destruction, and almost invariably economic inferiority will make the weaker yield, but the immediate cause of his undoing is not for that reason economic; it lies in the lethal injury to the institutions in which his social existence is embodied." In other words, it's not loss of income but the experience cultural degradation (i.e. man and nature being commoditized) that causes true exploitation. I follow this. I understand that bringing class issues to the forefront tends to distract from serious issues of degradation.

However, it seems like Polyani is polarizing economic losses and social losses. I think this may present a problem. In ignoring the economic losses, one brushes aside issues of class and power completely. I think rather than championing one over the other, a balance of both viewpoints wound be the most advantageous.

"Yet the ultimate cause is set by external forces, and it is for the mechanism of the change only that society relies on internal forces. The "challenge" is to society as whole; the "response" comes through groups, sections and social classes" (160). I'm interested in examining the cause, or the "challenge." What exactly is a cause? How are causes or challenges created? I don't have answers, but I do have a nagging feeling (likely spurred by my reading of Mills last week) that the answers are related to power, i.e. the decisions of a small group of 'Power Elite.' I find this group, although the identification of them may give material to the economic liberals, impossible to ignore.

It is entirely possible that I misread the chapter, but here's my stab.

Benjamin

"From an alluring appearance or persuasive structure of sound the work of art of the Dadaists became an instrument of ballistics. It hit the spectator like a bullet, it happened to him, thus acquiring a tactile quality. It promoted a demand for the film, the distracting element of which is also primarily tactile, being based on changes of place and focus which periodically assail the spectator." - Page 238


A few weeks ago, my friend John and I were talking about the movie-going experience. In conversation, I revealed that I really dislike going to the movies. He was shocked! I spent the next hour answering question after question about WHY I felt this way. My argument was simple: I don't like the way it makes me feel. The room is dark, with all eyes are focused on the bright light of a screen. It's silent, and even whispers are frowned upon. Put away the cell phone, too distracting; you might miss something! I feel like my senses and my psyche are arrested for two hours. Critical thinking is difficult while being dragged into an editor's world. I get so caught up, so emotionally engaged with the film, that it sticks with me. Like Benjamin put it, I feel "assail"ed. I told John to read this essay; I figured Benjamin could explain it better than I.

Dewey

I've read this text three times in three separate classes, and my perspective changes with each reading. First read, I was a little confused by prose but ultimately inspired and hopeful. I saw no problem with the work. Second read, I was asked to read it with Lippman's "The Phantom Public." This gave Dewey's argument a new context, and I drifted a bit from his optimism. Third read, I'm tired of the argument. The America he talks is about only exists within the covers of his work. If this "Great Community" is possible -- why haven't we seen it yet? Both Lippman & Dewey wrote their works in the 20's. Dewey's ideal still hasn't come to fruition. I'd really like to embrace Dewey's work - but I need more. How will the great community happen? Yeah, you talk about "signs and symbols" enhancing communication -- but what do these "signs and symbols" look like? How will this work in the real world? And in a society with incredible medical and technological innovation, why can't we create the "signs and symbols" to make our Democracy work? I'm not sure it's possible.

That's why Lippmann makes sense to me. He talks about the public I see and interact with on a daily basis. He offers a realistic role for the public with tasks we can actually achieve. I also think his book was WAY more fun to read... but we won't factor that into the argument :)

After three readings, this is my stance. I'll update again if I go for number four!

Lanier, Oh Lanier.

Dear Jaron Lanier,
You are a film director. That is why Wikipedia says you are a film director. Just because you wish you were not a film director doesn't make the Wikipedia entry false. Using that as proof that collective knowledge is "for the most part stupid and boring" (Pg. 6) is for the most part stupid and boring.

Moreover, please tell me more about this "real writing" (Pg. 6-7) you describe. Blogging isn't writing? Really?! Since you went to a really really good school and you're SO much better than us, why don't you educate all the little people out there about this "real writing" you champion.

Also, searching for HARD NEWS sources on a website called POPURLS is a pretty unfair way to judge its overall worth. Are people really going to this website to get hard news content? Do a study on that before you start spouting off.

Finally, you're mostly right about the rest. Thank you for Pages 8 & 9. Collective knowledge should be used strategically. We should consider the issues of reproduction (Benjamin) and authorship. These are two topics worth discussing. But, we shouldn't lose hope that this "collective" can improve in intelligence and move forward. Although some may cry "that's unrealistic!," it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep striving for the best. Please, stop being a negative Nancy!

Best,
Amy

P.S. - You and Walter Lippmann should hang out. You guys would be BFF's.