The role of "consumerism" and "infotainment" on American life...
The following quote is a critical observation of George F. Babitt, a fictitious middle-class American character of the 1920s created by author Sinclair Lewis:
The implication here clearly is that individuals in modern America are controlled by pleasure and the experience of buying and consuming - external forces telling the individual what they should think, believe, and buy in a mass marketing consumer society dominated by advertising and other forms of propaganda. To Sinclair the "image" is everything, and Americans are bombarded and finally conquered by what "image" they should model themselves after; few in the end think for themselves. We as consumers thinks we have lives we have chosen, but in reality it is a life dictated for us by others: the elite few opinion shapers lead a mass mob in a giant parade of conformity. Whether selling a politician, a movie, an idea, or a pair of shoes, the emphasis is on earning product loyalty and controlling consumer thought. To what extent is this observation true today in the "infotainment" American economy of MTV, blockbuster movies, rap music, and trendy clothing fashions in a culture of celebrity -worship -- all amidst an advertising presence in the lives of Americans today that dwarfs that of the 1920s? Are Americans today controlled by pleasure and gratifying the ego? The party, the fun, the "neverending excitement"? Are the rich and the famous and the glamorous really "different"? Do they have a better time of it in life? Is the "image" of celebrityhood as portrayed through the media in popular culture really true to life? Is popular culture a vulgarizing influence on America and Americans? Do television and video games turn people's minds to guacamole? Is a constant staring at screens all day long why Americans as a people are so overweight and unhealthy?"Just as he was an Elk, a Booster, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, just as the priests of the Presbyterian Church determined his every religious belief and the senators who controlled the Republican Party decided in little smoky rooms in Washington what he should think about disarmament, tariff, and Germany, so did the large American advertisers fix the surface of his life, fix what he believed to be his individuality. These standard advertised wares -- toothpaste, socks, tires, cameras, instantaneous hot-water heaters -- were his symbols and proofs of excellence; at first the signs, then the substitutes, for joy and passion and wisdom."
Are the mass media and popular entertainment a sewer from which anything that sells will be sold - no matter what the result to the buyer? (Drugs, bootleg gin, violence, sex, jazz, rap music?) Or is entertainment in America a uniquely powerful and positive medium that helps Americans get through the day and find the "fun" in life that is at times unavoidably painful and tedious? (Is this why foreigners love American pop culture so much?) Are the movies and popular music where America tells its more important stories? Where Americans discuss what is most important to them? Or is it merely pandering to the lower interests of viewers? Or is it both?
Is this more of Mr. Geib asking five or six questions at the same time? More of his attacking your brain from more than one direction at the same time? Do you want it boiled down to one specific question. So be it:
Please post your comments with regards to the above questions by 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday the 16th of March, 2005 by 8:00 a.m.To what extent is entertainment in America a positive and helpful or a negative and harmful influence on our national life?
I look forward to reviewing your ideas!
5 Comments:
Wow! We are off on running on this one! Lots of food for thought there, Mrs. Stam...
Let us see where our students take this one... let the blogging begin!
Students: please remember that while you can disagree in the most vigorous terms and with the sharpest words possible with regards to each other's opinions, you will always remain respectful to the person and not stoop to ad hominem attacks. Be advised.
Now you can go at it...
First off…
Ms. Stam I don’t mean to argue viciously at your opinions or proposals but I shall offer my own views in opposition to yours by dismantling your argument first off…
However, it is taking more and more effort to wade through the crap in the ever -consolidating media outlets to get any truly objective information. This is especially true as we discover that our tax dollars have gone to pay for political infomercials that look just like newscasts. Both the Bush administration and our "governator" are guilty.
Really… like? I find it amusing that you say your Television has not worked for some 10 years yet you see these ever so rare infomercials that I personally have not seen in my duration of around possibly 6 hours of miscellaneous side glances at a TV every week, or 3 hours possibly on a Sunday night with nothing else to do while watching channel 11 which is a pretty mainstream chanel…
The goal is no longer multi-sided and balanced but who can manipulate an issue better.
Was the history of political advertisements ever “balanced” in the first place, that calls into question if there ever was a political system that everybody agrees on… I throughout my search in our history books have still not seen this utopian ideology that is caused to be considered by your statement
“I think most Americans no longer want to think independently. They would rather have someone else make the tough decisions. EX: The Swift Boat ads. Now, here is a candidate, John Kerry who actually served in Vietnam and who is attacked by men who never served directly with him and who are being paid by the GOP, while we have a draft dodging idiot who refuses to read a newspaper in the White House.’
… Well there is no bias there… Ms. Nonconformist multisided balanced ideologist as seen in the above arguments…
(I would like to note you tied in politics to social mental structure as an average, therefore it gives me free reign to use this at my own digression)
Now to debate your foremost argument thus far, Americans no longer want to think independently instead they would have someone else make their dough decisions for them and then you give reference to Swift boat ads which I might add have nothing to do with this argument, because what do adds on a TV have to do with making tough decisions on a national scale.
Let me ask you in a nice way, what would you have done after 9/11/2001 would you have endorsed the liberal cause and turned the other cheek, would you have allowed more blood to be spilled on American soil as if we were all infidels or criminals worthy of execution under Allah… Jihad is Jihad, Wahabiists are Wahabiists, one cannot change a culture without intervention… and it was a given fact the Middle East in its entirety is a breading ground for terrorists that would cause a direct threat to America… (NOTE I’ve done MULTIPLE projects on this, including my 9th grade project, a form of thesis project at our school, was based on The New Wave of Terrorism in other words, I can be a good authority on this subject)
My personal ideas upon the subject of Americans thinking independently versus political roles would contribute to the evidence I have been building over the last few years that the majority of Liberals and or Democrats I have met all argued the same stupid idiocy, screaming and yelling things like bush should be hung for war crimes, calling the patriot act “home grown Terrorism planted by the republican party,” and other such bumper sticker logic worthy of Michael Moore, or for that matter the Movie Industry controlled by liberals with money and mouths, if our modern society is listening to people like this who only sit there just to bitch and piss and moan and carry on about why bush is sooo bad even though they don’t have a single clue in real life or national security, then no wonder they don’t want to think independently, they are being rallied like communists, join our cause, you wont have to think as much just let the dictator do all the work…
A good example of this, I was in a debate once and my opposition was ranting that bush was going in and committing genocide on Muslims… I responded with a hastened laugh, and replied only Wahabiists, she responded, what are those?
(And God help those of you who argue politics and don’t know the fundamentals of our modern world)
I realize that I have… … According to Marx, Americans drown themselves in meaningless, mindnumbing activities like watching TV, reading the National Enquirer and worrying about whether Brad and Jen get back together to escape the essential emptiness of their lives. As our lives become more controlled by outside factors and corporations and meaningless work, and we become more divorced from the natural environment that is fast disappearing, it is the only place to put our despair…
Interesting, it is true that From what I have seen of the small amount of people I have met in this world, most would rather indulge themselves in mind numbing idiocy only to be left with the brevity of a halfwit, it is a sad thing to see friends and even family fall victim to such shallow idiocy and an even more depressing mentality when you get locked into a cycle of refuting the norm with no one else who has attained some form of sentience above the humble banter. Also I wouldn’t go so far as to tie politics into this argument as I have in my above arguments which I assure are only to refute a few of your points, because I’ve seen same common squabble bubbling out of every corner of society no matter what sect or group one belongs to.
1) Never watch TV…9) Buy plants from Independent nurseries /avoid Home Depot
In opposition to your idea of a list, it seems a bit outlandish it’s almost as if it is Ostrich syndrome 101, because like it or not these big industrial chains may have good values and you as a person will wind up selling out to one of them in any way shape or form, hell just paying the electric bill is selling out to one of these mass producing ignorance spewing companies.. just trying to be a good person and appeal to the small business owner wont cut it, no matter what, one will most likely give in to such interests and usually they’ll be better for them or not, it is a given… one will give in to what is considered “the normal trends” in order to fit in with society…
I personally am not but from what I have learned in life it seems more worth while to live to your own happiness not to your sorrow, sure common masses may spew petty squabble, but at least they know how to live.
One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to test the depth of those around me and try to teach them how to live if they cannot already see how to… I don’t have all the answers, and I openly admit it, and because of that I’m able to try to get along with others… in reality that is what life can be about, humility and living life to teach others an equation of living
Now as the evening draws on and as im spending around an hour and a half writing this I will answer Mr. Geib’s question
To what extent is entertainment in America a positive and helpful or a negative and harmful influence on our national life?
To the extent that we as a society can live our lives without giving in to such idiotic amusments such as this pop culture, Im the type of person to look at overnight “celebrities” like Britney Spears, Ashley Simpson, Paris Hilton, and every other soul who whores their physical appearance and or voice for money. Im going to pick on Ashley simpson first, SHE CANT SING, NOBODY LIKES HER, SHE FAILS EVEN AT LIP SYNCING, that is my rant about her, Paris Hilton IS NOT A CELEBRITY SAVE FOR HER OWN PRIVATE MOVIES…
The meaning of this rant, If we cannot go about society without the interruption of such stupid superficial meaningless trends based on emotion or thoughtless sex appeal at EVERY street corner, advertisement… hell even graffiti then that is where the line should be… right at the point where all mentally devoid social aspects of life mean nothing and account for nothing do we have the utter depravity of intelligence amongst our modern world.
Though if I can argue in affirmative for this I would say it gives a whole new meaning to the word Irony.. for instance when this one girl I know did a speech on how bad Ashley Simpson and/or any of her equivalents really were, she stopped to say she owned all their cd’s, so #1 It provides me with laughter through irony, and #2 it gives poor unskilled people like Simpson to become “famous” and get money… meaning it provides hope to those who suck at everything else….
That is my rant, ill probably add more later but im too tired right now
“Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.” –FDR, First Inaugural Address
If this is true, then why does Paris Hilton appear to be having the time of her life having never worked a day in her life (setting aside those “jobs” she does on her hit reality series “The Simple Life”)? Do you have to earn money through honest effort in order to enjoy it? Is it fair that celebrities are paid for no more than being beautiful- or rather what the media tells us is beautiful? Do they really have more fun, or is it just the hype of their publicists trying to get an unsuspecting public to waste time and money on tabloids? Is it fair that a prospective employer can turn you down simply by the way you look, without even a glance at your application? Ok, enough with the questions.
My opinion on the matter of whether or not the rich have more fun is that each person has a choice in life- to enjoy what you have or live wishing for what you do not have.
I am unhappy with my life at times, yet I’ve been given everything that I need to live a satisfying and fulfilled life. I have all the advantages I need to do any extracurricular of my choosing and supportive parents who are proud if I just get out of bed in the morning. Yet I am unhappy with my life. Something is missing. Its not money, its not support, its not love or friends; its ambition and inspiration. The one thing that is abundant in my life as of now is apathy. I don’t care anymore. What is it all for- the music, the clothes, the stuff?
I turn on MTV and see nearly naked hoochie mamas drinking “booze” with their gangsta boyfriends whole “roll the best weed ‘cause they got it goin’ on,” and I am surprised to find that I am not surprised at all. These modern day “flappers” have no shock value left. These images have become an accepted part of our popular culture, and obviously the majority of consumers have no complaints. The highest record sales are for the hip hip/rap artists who glorify the gangster life of drugs, sex, and spinnin’ rims. The problem is not just that they have become mainstream because this new rap craze is not the first of its kind. The jazz age of the “roaring 20s” was one that constantly pushed the boundaries of long standing societal expectations stemming from a long standing religious tradition of temperance and sexual modesty. The problem is that pop culture has made us numb towards toward the vulgarity present in every television set.
With the new technologies of radio, television, and the internet, our generation is constantly marauded with this information overload; not information relating to anything relevant to our future as an intellectual in the adult world, but the latest update on who J. Lo is now engaged to and which cell phone has the most up-to-date features. The repetition of all this information sends a subliminal message to us that this information must be relevant and important to our lives if every where you turn someone is telling you that these celebrities are the epitome of success and that without a pair of Seven jeans you are nobody. But are all of these things the secret to happiness? Once I have my Gucci handbag and my Versace sunglasses with my Crest whitened smile and my hair shining with that Herbal Essence glow, what happens next? I get noticed by all the other people who have been told what is “hot,” and make friends on this superficial basis. You must admit that your first impression of a person is predominantly their appearance.
I don’t, however, want to sound one sided in my argument. Just because I think that pop culture has a mostly negative effect on our generation does not mean that I do not partake in all it. I find the fame of rapper Lil’ John a mystery, but he is none the less entertaining which I suppose is the point. I love Beyoncé and Usher, and I love to dance like crazy in the car to incoherent rap lyrics no doubt making sexual references up the wazoo- all in slang so I have no idea what they are talking about until one of my friends translates. But when I find out their meaning do I choose to turn off the radio or change the station? No. These crude entertainers put their “art” to a catchy beat that is easy to dance to, and I dance along. I dance because it is easier to let go, and not have to think about the deep moral problems facing today’s youth; it is easier to dance along than to fight it.
Wow its late, or should I say early. I need to sleep.
OK, it seems like I'm the last person to post... Go Procrastination! Anyway, it says in the assignment post that as long as I get the post up by 8 I'm OK, so without further ado...
I think that the question of whether or not media is wholesome for the individual carries with it infinite variables. It would depend on what kind of media is being refered to, what person is experiencing it, how the person's mood that day... Essentially everything about the viewer's physical and mental composition at the time. Still, I reject the argument that violent media somehow "causes" people to commit violent acts, and arguments of that like. I myself have run over my share of people in Grand Theft Auto, and watched some of the most incredably and needlessly bloody shows in existantce *COUGH*ELFIN LIED!*COUGH* without having any desire to cause life to imitate art. The very notion that this could be the case is almost like saying that looking at Picasso's paintings will cause you to become a random collection of cubist shapes. It might happen to SOME people, but they were probably going to have it happen to them anyway. =D Another argument that irks me is that media causes kids to neglect "traditional" values and go do "questionable" things. The future is built of questionable things. America was founded by what would have seemed extremely dubious doings to the British ancestors of the colonists, Betoven (go bad spelling!) was considered a "radical," and Jazz was considered "degenerate" far before any of these things ever gained the "classical" status that many of them enjoy today. The critisism that media causes youth to move away from the values of their parents is like critisizing the school system for teaching children things that their parents didn't know.
Similarly I tend to reject critisisms of how media supposedly is causing children to stay in their rooms and do "nothing," and interfering in their studies. Similar charges were leveled at books when they first became widespread, and parents complained that all their children were doing was wasting time reading! The nerve of those children, right? It was probably interfering in their becoming well rounded citizens by interfering with their training in sports and their apprenticeships. However now, generations later, reading is all that is pure and good in the world, sports are auxilary to education, and movies and videogames? Why they're just horrible for interfering with the old order of books and reading.
With that said, I do not believe that all of the new media's effects are positive; advertising and commercials are plagues on society, and political newscasts are helping to divide the nation into "red" and "blue" states, neither of which seem to be capable of considering the other side of the political situation. However, I believe that the problem is not the media which have made these programs possible but the programs themselves. A good television program can reach audiences with an art that books and reading could never imitate; the problem is that it seldom does. I am not the kind of elitist who would desire all television to transform to be "educational," overnight, but it would be good if the ratio of education to fluff was at least 50-50. Media is a thing to be communicated through; the problem is simply a drought in the quality of communication.
In conclusion, I think that I should get extra credit for writing this in 20 minutes 4 hours before the deadline. =D
-Adam
OK, it seems like I'm the last person to post... Go Procrastination! Anyway, it says in the assignment post that as long as I get the post up by 8 I'm OK, so without further ado...
I think that the question of whether or not media is wholesome for the individual carries with it infinite variables. It would depend on what kind of media is being refered to, what person is experiencing it, how the person's mood that day... Essentially everything about the viewer's physical and mental composition at the time. Still, I reject the argument that violent media somehow "causes" people to commit violent acts, and arguments of that like. I myself have run over my share of people in Grand Theft Auto, and watched some of the most incredably and needlessly bloody shows in existantce *COUGH*ELFIN LIED!*COUGH* without having any desire to cause life to imitate art. The very notion that this could be the case is almost like saying that looking at Picasso's paintings will cause you to become a random collection of cubist shapes. It might happen to SOME people, but they were probably going to have it happen to them anyway. =D Another argument that irks me is that media causes kids to neglect "traditional" values and go do "questionable" things. The future is built of questionable things. America was founded by what would have seemed extremely dubious doings to the British ancestors of the colonists, Betoven (go bad spelling!) was considered a "radical," and Jazz was considered "degenerate" far before any of these things ever gained the "classical" status that many of them enjoy today. The critisism that media causes youth to move away from the values of their parents is like critisizing the school system for teaching children things that their parents didn't know.
Similarly I tend to reject critisisms of how media supposedly is causing children to stay in their rooms and do "nothing," and interfering in their studies. Similar charges were leveled at books when they first became widespread, and parents complained that all their children were doing was wasting time reading! The nerve of those children, right? It was probably interfering in their becoming well rounded citizens by interfering with their training in sports and their apprenticeships. However now, generations later, reading is all that is pure and good in the world, sports are auxilary to education, and movies and videogames? Why they're just horrible for interfering with the old order of books and reading.
With that said, I do not believe that all of the new media's effects are positive; advertising and commercials are plagues on society, and political newscasts are helping to divide the nation into "red" and "blue" states, neither of which seem to be capable of considering the other side of the political situation. However, I believe that the problem is not the media which have made these programs possible but the programs themselves. A good television program can reach audiences with an art that books and reading could never imitate; the problem is that it seldom does. I am not the kind of elitist who would desire all television to transform to be "educational," overnight, but it would be good if the ratio of education to fluff was at least 50-50. Media is a thing to be communicated through; the problem is simply a drought in the quality of communication.
In conclusion, I think that I should get extra credit for writing this in 20 minutes 4 hours before the deadline. =D
-Adam
Post a Comment
<< Home