British School Vs. Frankfurt School Analysis

This video, in my estimation, highlights the differences in these two schools of thought. First, it's an advertisement for Pepsi which can situate it directly within the purview of the Frankfurt School. There is obviously ideology at work here. First, there is the main message--"Pepsi will make you a king and/or a warrior." We see that Enrique Iglesias' emperor has his own chest full of ice-cold Pepsi; obviously it's the stuff of kings. How is he defeated? By the gladiators who "rock" it away from him by creating a rioting crowd chanting "we will rock you." We would expect nothing less from company advertising. When we look beyond that, we also can see several other "value statements" built in to the commercial.

The main characters of the video are Pink, Beyonce, and Britney Spears (pre-Kevin Federline). All are huge pop stars with a built-in following of fans of a certain demographic--tween and teen girls. This makes them the perfect individuals to hype this product and not, for instance, alcoholic beverages. Their dress and behavior in this commercial is not far off from their typical concert look or behavior. Furthermore, the ad parallels the penultimate scene in the movie Gladiator which came out several years before to huge critical acclaim and mass appeal. This similarity may appeal to a different fan-base, making the marketability of Pepsi broader, or may provide us with a familiar backstory that establishes a pre-packaged set of motives and emotional ties that suggest to the viewer how the ad is to be understood. These similarities allow for a completely passive consumption of the commercial as an advertisement; by mimicking their already developed public personas, their fans are immediately alerted to buy Pepsi. Why? Because Britney, Beyonce, and Pink do and gladiators who have survived many brutal fights in the ring do (an allusion to the movie storyline)...and all fans want to be like them--strong, sexy, gladiator Pepsi drinkers.

On the other hand, the British Cultural School would be much more concerned with the meanings drawn from imagery and messaging consumed by the audience. Here, what the women and men wear, do, and say may be considered important if it becomes important to those watching the commercial. Do watchers take away a certain idea about what it means to be a woman, a man, a pop star, and the way the influence of these individuals works? From this standpoint, we cannot say for sure what the importance of the video is until we actively watch people consuming it and creating some kind of derived meaning from it. In this way, we acknowledge that meaning is created from the ground up, beginning with people who watch the ad and translate it into something that has significance (or doesn't) for them. This is active consumption and translation at it's most relevant.

Clearly, both schools have their weak points, both focused around this issue of consumption. The Frankfurt School overly relies on the presence of an agenda working ceaselessly on the "empty shells" of the masses, dumbly watching and taking in the embedded social meanings associated with gender, power relationships, and consumption. There are people (many) who find absolutely zero worth in anything that Pink, Beyonce, Britney Spears, or for that matter Pepsi do or say. This critical approach suggests we're not as easily duped as they may have assumed. Meanwhile, the British Cultural School doesn't allow the idea of ideological manipulation to play a big enough role. While we do likely actively consume culture, we may be unaware of the ways in which values and ideas are built-in to the artifact. We bring to each piece of culture as we consume them ideologies and analytical paradigms that have been given to us through socialization; thus what may be labeled as active consumption could also be an exercise in re-inforcing systems of ideas and values that we've come to accept as "normal" or "real" without realizing that they may not be in our best interests.

Mr. Spock takes on Conventional Beauty

Talk about timely.

Leonard Nimoy sits down to talk with Steven Colbert about the problems with the way the idea of "conventional" beauty is formulated and sold.

Check it out and pay special attention to Colbert's commentary--even though it's sarcastic, it's incredibly insightful and critical:

Again, the discussion is aimed directly at girls...is this a good approach? The correct approach? And how do we feel about Leonard (Len) Nimoy discussing this? Could he have other interests than what he is saying? (Does he have a movie coming out or something?) Is what he talking about hegemony? And in that scheme, does he become an organic intellectual.

Thanks to your classmate Chris for passing this along--proving that we're truly on the cusp of things in this class!

Dove Campaign for "Real" Beauty

This campaign fascinates me. Especially given that we've been talking about the Marxian critiques of media, specifically the Frankfurt School and Althusser, I think it provides an interesting debate. Can Dove, which is undoubtedly in the business of beauty, define what *real* beauty is?

So, the Campaign for Real Beauty should be searched through carefully. While we watched the "film" in class, as I was sifting through the site, the actual ideology of the campaign seems to emerge for me. What is Dove's concept of "real" beauty and how does it mesh with what you necessarily think of as real beauty. In trying to answer that question myself, I started wondering whether I am able to develop an idea of my own of what *real* beauty is without using the references provided to me by Dove. Why is that so hard? Is the an effect of mass media or is it that *real* beauty really cannot be defined?

Making things even trickier is their new campaign, a contest for a "regular" woman who could win the new commercial ad in the campaign for real beauty. The finalists can be found here. How does this change the campaign...now we have "real" women producing "real" beauty...does this get us further away from the trappings of mass media or more deeply ingrained in them? Also check out the intro by Amy Brenneman, the celebrity version of a *real* woman.

What might Althusser say about all of this? What is the meaning of that which is not pictured in this campaign for real beauty and how might his analysis differ from that of Adorno and Horkheimer?

And then there's this video, part of the Campaign for Real Beauty:



I just get a sinking feeling watching these. While ultimately, they are supposed to clearly indicate an change in ideology about beauty, can we (and should we) buy into what this is selling, especially given that it is produced by a company who is selling beauty products. While our knee-jerk reaction may be to applaud Dove, does our doing so only serve to enforce a very specific kind of beauty (just one that doesn't support plastic surgery and pills)? What are these images of beauty missing? And if they're missing something, doesn't that mean that the new ideology is still problematic?

Media Journal #1: South Park--Savvy or Stupid?

I've been thinking both about the concepts of ideology and a critique of the media theorists who supported the notion that low culture actually served to "dumb down" the masses by allowing for a passive consumption of content that was deemed questionable both morally and intellectually. At the same time, I've been formally introduced to the phenomenon that is South Park, a show that premiered on Comedy Central to seriously mixed reviews; generally, the split was generational with kids finding it incredible and parents and religious types strenuously raising their eyebrows. As I watched episodes last night for the first time, through the tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks, I couldn't help but think that Cartman, Kenny, Kyle, and Stan might help to further my discussion of ideology and certainly allow me a chance to critique the ideas of particularly Leavis and Hoggart.

Generally speaking, I find the concept of ideology to be one of the more difficult ones to discuss; it's hard to examine your own life and identify, let alone analyze, the ideas and values you use to make sense of things. As Storey points out, several working definitions exist; the one I find most useful is ideology as the general set of values and ideas that form a kind of "world view" (the German word used by both Marx and Weber was Weltanschuung meaning literally "world view.") This definition takes us almost into the realm of what an individual might consider a "perspective;" I think the important thing to remember here is that ideology differs from perspective in that ideology often (and in my opinion most accurately) refers to a set of ideas and values that many use to make sense of the world. While everyone may be able to develop their own perspectives, once many people agree on certain ideas and values that dictate and inform their lives, a dominant ideology comes to exist. This, then, forms the basis for some kind of social control; the dominant ideology dictates the norms (or expected behaviors both formal and informal) of a given group.

If we think of ideology as a world view, then South Park immediately becomes a tool we can use to identify the dominant ideology. Because it touched a nerve with so many people who considered it *indecent,* we can use that to talk about what people actually consider decent. Taken together, those ideas and values that form our expectations about what is "good and decent" are an ideology.

So, how is South Park "indecent"? First, it features four kids who swear...a lot. So already, the vulgarity is an issue. (It's not how little kids should talk) They also break a lot of rules, show basic lack of concern for what their parents say, and talk about topics that we consider "taboo"--and they're 3rd graders. However, what seems most offensive to people is the juxtaposition of these kids in situations and discussing topics that little kids "shouldn't" talk about using "bad" words: overt "adult" sexuality (one episode is called "Proper Condom Use"), racisim (words openly known as racial slurs have been repeatedly used in the show while Kenny, who is mostly not understandable has been attributed as the character most likely to "say" something offensive), mocking of religion (Catholic, Scientology, and Evangelical officials have all spoken out against the show), in addition to questioning many celebrities by name (Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson most famously).

South Park prides itself on doing what is taboo; because norms dictate those behaviors, ideas, and values a collective will tolerate, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone appear to play on some sense of popular ideology to create a biting social satire of life in Small Town, U.S.A. Thus, all of the "issues" people have with the show indicate what could be a world view dictated by religion (where any sense of morality or what is "right" and "wrong" would likely originate), notions of acceptable social relationships (racism, cult of celebrity, kid/parent/school relationships are developed from this based on a power or status basis), and certain understandings of what "normal" (constructions of race, gender, class, age, work, and so on) and "decent" (the matters of vulgarity, graphic sex talk, and mocking or defacing symbols that we strongly associate with something meaningful would arise here.) If we find ourselves balking at the show, it's content, or characters, it may be because our "worldview" is under attack; South Park may question our ideology.

Because of this and some of the repeating themes of this show (disabilities, sexuality, politics, racism, gay rights, death, censorship, political correctness and the environment to name a few), this show poses serious problems for the early media theorists who claimed that mass culture was a "dumbing down" of culture creating passive, stupid masses of people unable to think for themselves. Because they were responding to the media of their time, I'll cut these theorists a little slack--they never saw nor imagined social commentary via paper-cutout cartoons on television. However, today we hear echoes of this theme coming from the very people who reject South Park because of its content. While we might have concerns about the *form* of the media (the vulgarity, the "indecency" if we must), it seems almost impossible to deny that the social commentary within very accurately criticizes a worldview that, for many, creates a social reality of oppression and discrimination. This show is one of a handful daring to boldly point out a variety of social injustices, inconsistencies in government and "the establishment," and institutions that we often cannot or will not critique. This is a smart show shrouded in swear words and shocking storylines. It requires an informed and intelligent audience who, if paying attention, cannot help but walk away with some very serious questions. Even more important, those who come strictly for Cartman often walk away having been introduced to some new ideas about how social life may actually be. Parker and Stone prove again and again to be astute observers of social life giving us some serious social realities to think about. And that's not a project either for or producing uninformed, unaware "masses" who just "Blame Canada" for all their troubles.

Sesame Street Intros

Please see the series of videos of Sesame Street intros through the decades.

Yes We Can