For the longest time I've been trying to determine my stance on censorship. During the class presentation today, I saw a statement in the slide show that spoke to me in such a tremendous way that I scribbled it down frivolously so as to write about it in today's post.
The statement was:
"Enlightened societies comes from individual freedom of behavior and expression."
This statement sums up my feelings on censorship, and I finally can say I have stopped my censorship stance see-saw. I can say with certainty that I agree with this statement, and that I believe censorship is a path to eliminating enlightened societies.
Censorship, in my opinion, is a tragedy to society. It's a means of encouraging others to choose what's better for society. Who's to say that the government really knows what is good for people and that people don't deserve to choose what's good for themselves? Who's to say that the upper class know what's better for society? Do they really have a higher cultural taste?
I have to argue that the best education comes from learning for yourself. The best sense of identity comes from understanding your own behaviors and expressions. Understanding is a personal milestone. Censorship takes away the personal aspect of understanding, and it is a one-way ticket to losing enlightened societies.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What is Celebrity Culture?
By definition, culture is a disctinctive group of people that share common meanings about affective and cognitive responses (feelings, attitudes, beliefs), behaviors (customs, rituals behavior norms), and the environment (living conditiongs, geographic locations, important objects). It also provides people with a sense of identity and an understanding of acceptable and desirable behavior within society. Culture, although valuable, changes over time.
Our preoccupation with celebrity is evidence that celebrity culture is a function of human culture.
Celebrity culture has a set of social functions that human culture clings to strongly. As Dr. Bob pointed out in class, the social functions of celebrity culture are as follows...
1. to celebrate the idea of consumption itself
2. to distract us from paying attention to more important issues, particularly economic ones and the power of the ruling class
The social functions of celebrity culture, therefore, are heavily aligned with the views of Marx. Marx strongly believed that economics determined what happens in the cultural sphere (news and entertainment), and the social functions of celebrity further argue that point.
One cannot flip through the pages of a magazine without reading stories about "What stars are buying" or "Who stars are dating". Media numbs human culture with its stories related to consumption, or by distracting us from the bigger issues (ie: power of the ruling class).
Marx makes a good case, but I can't help but play Devil's advocate here: Is it the cultural sphere that, in fact influences the economic domain instead?
Our preoccupation with celebrity is evidence that celebrity culture is a function of human culture.
Celebrity culture has a set of social functions that human culture clings to strongly. As Dr. Bob pointed out in class, the social functions of celebrity culture are as follows...
1. to celebrate the idea of consumption itself
2. to distract us from paying attention to more important issues, particularly economic ones and the power of the ruling class
The social functions of celebrity culture, therefore, are heavily aligned with the views of Marx. Marx strongly believed that economics determined what happens in the cultural sphere (news and entertainment), and the social functions of celebrity further argue that point.
One cannot flip through the pages of a magazine without reading stories about "What stars are buying" or "Who stars are dating". Media numbs human culture with its stories related to consumption, or by distracting us from the bigger issues (ie: power of the ruling class).
Marx makes a good case, but I can't help but play Devil's advocate here: Is it the cultural sphere that, in fact influences the economic domain instead?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Censorship
The case for/against the regulation of mass media is one that I can never seem to take a stand on. Most of the time, I lean more towards the against side- simply from an unconstitutional standpoint and because I'm really not sure censorship is as effective as many believe it is. I don't necessarily agree with the suggestion that the media is destroying the morals and characters of our nation. Therefore, I don't entirely agree with censorship as being completely effective in avoiding total corruption by media, as many argue for the case of censorship.
I'm particularly against the idea of 'positive' media regulation, which makes me wonder if I am then entirely anti-censorship. In positive media regulation, its encouraged that production companies produce desirable types of content. To me, this is glorifying the media, of which I am entirely against.
A really highly controversial censorship example that has resonated with me over time has to do with the tragedies of 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, a lot of papers ran images of "The Falling Man". Some ran large photos on their front pages, others ran smaller images inside their papers and some chose not to run the photo at all. A lot of people were really astounded when newspapers chose to run this image. People began to define 9/11 with this image alone.
"In most American newspapers, the photograph that Richard Drew took of the Falling Man ran once and never again. Papers all over the country, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to the Memphis Commercial Appeal to The Denver Post, were forced to defend themselves against charges that they exploited a man's death, stripped him of his dignity, invaded his privacy, turned tragedy into leering pornography. Most letters of complaint stated the obvious: that someone seeing the picture had to know who it was."
Although the image is horribly sad, I don't think censorship would have been appropriate here. I think the world has a right to be witness to what the media has to offer. Does this, therefore, make me anti-censorship? I still don't really know.
I do have my days where I want to argue for the case of the regulation of mass media because media, after all, is a large source of education for a lot of the country. With the amount of sex and violence available in all forms of mass media, I am concerned with the early education of a lot of the youth of our nation.
Nonetheless, there is something incredibly valuable in raw content that I'm not sure I'd ever be willing to argue against.
I'm particularly against the idea of 'positive' media regulation, which makes me wonder if I am then entirely anti-censorship. In positive media regulation, its encouraged that production companies produce desirable types of content. To me, this is glorifying the media, of which I am entirely against.
A really highly controversial censorship example that has resonated with me over time has to do with the tragedies of 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, a lot of papers ran images of "The Falling Man". Some ran large photos on their front pages, others ran smaller images inside their papers and some chose not to run the photo at all. A lot of people were really astounded when newspapers chose to run this image. People began to define 9/11 with this image alone.
"In most American newspapers, the photograph that Richard Drew took of the Falling Man ran once and never again. Papers all over the country, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to the Memphis Commercial Appeal to The Denver Post, were forced to defend themselves against charges that they exploited a man's death, stripped him of his dignity, invaded his privacy, turned tragedy into leering pornography. Most letters of complaint stated the obvious: that someone seeing the picture had to know who it was."
Although the image is horribly sad, I don't think censorship would have been appropriate here. I think the world has a right to be witness to what the media has to offer. Does this, therefore, make me anti-censorship? I still don't really know.
I do have my days where I want to argue for the case of the regulation of mass media because media, after all, is a large source of education for a lot of the country. With the amount of sex and violence available in all forms of mass media, I am concerned with the early education of a lot of the youth of our nation.
Nonetheless, there is something incredibly valuable in raw content that I'm not sure I'd ever be willing to argue against.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Do we love to hate?
Our in class discussion on Charlie Sheen really got me thinking.
Why is our world so captivated by a man with a terrible moral compass? Sheen is a drug-addict, he has been involved in domestic disputes, and he just recently lost the only thing he had going for him: his career. All of these are terrible facets of Sheen's character, but the worst part of his character is how little remorse he shows for any of his wrong-doings. In fact, Sheen thinks a lot of what he's done wrong has been a gift to those who've witnessed it.
So, why do we care about him? Why do we want to know what he has to say? Sheen isn't a role model. His advice isn't, by any means worthwhile. Yet, we're still interested and entertained by what he has to say.
Sheen's celebrity got me thinking about the celebrity of Perez Hilton. Sheen's celebrity and Hilton's celebrity, though different in how they began, are quite the same in how they maintain.
Perez, a famous blogger (his blog can be read here) is a created celebrity. He is famous for his posts which cover the latest gossip about celebrities of various genres. Perez is negative, he has an attitude, he makes fun of nearly every celebrity he chooses to talk about, but he's infamous. In fact, I'll admit it - there was even a time where his blog was the homepage to my laptop; it was purely entertaining.
Within the first 6 months of Perez's blogging career, his blog was named one of Hollywood's most hated websites. Nonetheless, his page was getting millions of views a day.
Charlie Sheen is one of the most hated actors across the country right now, but his Twitter following surpassed that of Lady Gaga in just one day.
And so I pose the question, do we love to hate?
Why is our world so captivated by a man with a terrible moral compass? Sheen is a drug-addict, he has been involved in domestic disputes, and he just recently lost the only thing he had going for him: his career. All of these are terrible facets of Sheen's character, but the worst part of his character is how little remorse he shows for any of his wrong-doings. In fact, Sheen thinks a lot of what he's done wrong has been a gift to those who've witnessed it.
So, why do we care about him? Why do we want to know what he has to say? Sheen isn't a role model. His advice isn't, by any means worthwhile. Yet, we're still interested and entertained by what he has to say.
Sheen's celebrity got me thinking about the celebrity of Perez Hilton. Sheen's celebrity and Hilton's celebrity, though different in how they began, are quite the same in how they maintain.
Perez, a famous blogger (his blog can be read here) is a created celebrity. He is famous for his posts which cover the latest gossip about celebrities of various genres. Perez is negative, he has an attitude, he makes fun of nearly every celebrity he chooses to talk about, but he's infamous. In fact, I'll admit it - there was even a time where his blog was the homepage to my laptop; it was purely entertaining.
Within the first 6 months of Perez's blogging career, his blog was named one of Hollywood's most hated websites. Nonetheless, his page was getting millions of views a day.
Charlie Sheen is one of the most hated actors across the country right now, but his Twitter following surpassed that of Lady Gaga in just one day.
And so I pose the question, do we love to hate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)