Thursday: parody or problem?

I wanted my last post on immutable mobiles to be one of reflexivity. I have found that each week after the posts have gone up, everywhere I look I see cultural artifacts and media that shed even more light onto the topics of this course. I recently viewed Conan O’Brien’s parody of Rebecca Black's, Friday, entitled, Thursday. As not to repeat Taryn’s great blog about media imperialism from Tomlinson’s article, I want to instead talk about the viral video as one that raises some deep questions about the representations of race within popular culture.

The verses from Conan’s parody I want to draw on are the following:

Why is there a rapper here?
Why exactly am I here?
Did I just rhyme here with here?
I am getting out of here!

That was a rapper.
Which makes this a real song.
Fun fun fun fun...

The interesting thing that Conan draws on is the fact that within the Rebecca Black video, an African American male rapper appears in the song. Drawing from Gilroy’s discussion of the Black Atlantic, it is interesting that having an image of a black rapper seems to make the song appear more real. While this may seem ordinary I have to ask:

Is African presence in popular music seen to be a validation of what is deemed ‘real’ music?

Although it may not have been his intention, Conan seems to indirectly get at an important issue within the music industry. Yes popular music is seen to follow a standardized formula, but is the presence of race now a part of that formula? By placing the line: “That was a rapper. Which makes this a real song”, rap music could be viewed as also being parodied in the video. When I initially saw Thursday I thought it was very clever. However, when I watched it again and heard how race was sung about, it made me wonder what the real message of the video was. Although Thursday is humourous, it seems to shed a negative light on the quality of rap music. While not a fan of rap music myself, I feel that it contributes greatly to the music industry and to diversity in popular media. I want to ask if others believe that the appropriation of race within this video could be seen as making a statement about the validity of African American music? If so, do other videos, which also feature African American’s, fall under the same critique?

Old and New Media

In her article, “Falling apart: Electronics Salvaging and the Global Media Economy,” Lisa Parks emphasises the continuities between old and new media. One of the ways in which this continuity can be articulated is by demonstrating how the same issues that are present in old media persist even after the introduction of new media. For example, some political economists show the continuities between old and new media capitalism, whereby new media has merely created new possibilities to commodify audiences, content and labour. Old media technologies, such as the television, did not allow the audiences to respond.

It seems as though Nick Dyer-Witheford and Greig de Peuter pose a different argument; instead of emphasising the continuity between old and new media, they also illustrate a discontinuity. While they argue that virtual games serve capitalism, in their discussion of “Games of Multitude” they demonstrate that by pirating, protesting and planning games, people may very well disrupt capitalism through the use of communication and information technologies.

During my presentation, I used the FARC example to demonstrate how the same technologies that are used to expand and intensify capitalism can also be reappropriated by people to challenge the status quo. However, there are numerous ways that people utilize social media in an attempt to resist consumerism or even their government. I think a classic example of this would be the case of Napster. The founder of Napster, Sean Parker, single-handedly changed the music industry. File-sharing was no longer for the technologically-savvy, instead, millions of people were now able to downloading music for free. Although Napster and subsequent sites were shutdown, according to this article, the media industries have never recovered.

Inclusion?!

Inclusion – a new term for the attempted integration of the hybrids into the realities of the adopted country relies heavily on formally recognized programs that push and require citizens of the country of migration to become less judgemental and to accept the “intrusions” caused by aliens to their land? All these ideas and criticism or scepticism comes after seeing the ad of formal inclusion.

“The Migrants in the Spotlight project, funded primarily by the European Commission, aims to contribute to improved understanding, awareness and reporting on migration issues, third country nationals, integration and related topics among media and students of journalism, including immigrants themselves, in order to facilitate more effective and accurate reporting on migration issues in Hungary, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. More info at: http://www.mits-eu.org/index.php”

Are we going to formally need to recognize humanity for it to exist? Why the constant need to categorize and name things in order for them to exist? Can a social reality be ignored because of a lack of naming and categorization?

It almost seems that we have put the onus on ourselves to call into existence or discard realities of life. And then I think further at the way in which we establish through the media and different organizations, what is and what is not, to the detriment of all that is. It may sound slightly confusing, but the definition of what is and what is not leads to the poverty of society as a whole. What we know is limited to what we can define and categorize.

I wonder, has migration only started when the International Organization of Migration and the UN as well as other organizations first labeled it as a term… and not a human reality? Do we need to remove the humanity from the reality to present a deemed objective truth? Or, even more, does migration need to become a mere statistical reference for it to gain importance?

The IOM (International Organization of Migration) holds that statistically, the 214 million migrants in the world, of which 49% are women, would be able compile the 5th largest world country. Given the high number of displaced people, is there still a need to formally recognize them, or can we simply relearn the human face of migration and without the formal recognition accept foreign additions as a wealth of diversity?

The institutionalization of terms doesn’t change the reality, and if members of the international bodies of government are still seeking to assimilate the aliens in their countries through social programs of integration or recognition, are they not merely reinforcing the distinctions between the people? Something to ponder on…

It ain't about where you come from, it's where you're going!

In this course, one theme has been continually referenced, discussed, and contemplated quite prominently, that of IDENTITY. Regardless of status; immigrant, citizen, ethnic minority, gender, or the like, we have all quickly understood that our identities have been shaped and formed by not only the landscape of our “place” but through media and corporate intervention of that place. In considering this, I immediately was reminded of the film “The Desert is No Lady” which documents the lives and artistry of nine female artists (painters, creative writers, tapestry workers, sculptors, poets, etc). This film discusses the way in which ones upbringing and interaction with their landscape will drastically change their artwork. Technical intervention, for example, in a rural town caused one artist to feel disconnected from her roots. Corporate infiltration and urbanization (Americanization) caused another to lose her sense of nostalgia in what she once considered home.

These stories reflect the themes constantly considered in the course; globalization, urbanization, community, belonging, identity, diaspora, and difference. Each woman brings with them a different creation story, set of practices, set of beliefs, values, cultures, and artistry and yet can interact with a landscape in such a profound way. Spaces and places can have either negative or positive effects on the individual based on their cultural upbringing or way of life, but regardless of a positive or negative mindset regarding “place” it seeks to INSPIRE. One artist sees the landscape as not rigid or static, but as a constant redefinition of customs and stories. Another layers images upon images in her work to demonstrate that this landscape has inspired multi-faceted views of “home.”

So, then, as Barney posits that the baseball field is the ideal place for community and a true sense of identity, could it not be so that regardless of WHERE, it is the LANDSCAPE which inspires and unites us all? Each of these nine women are bound together by their interaction with (in this case the Southwest) a space and through their constant interactions with it have transformed it into their “place.” So I suppose my question then is this: what difference does it make where we came from, landed, or are currently living in? If every single landscape we interact with can inspire us, can we not argue that community can be wherever we choose? Wherever we are? Wherever we will be? Why does community or identity have to be so intrinsically linked with our upbringing or the colour of our skin; why cannot it be simply a constant re-definition of ourselves at different points in our lives based on where we are?

Fast Production and Fast Consumption

I thought that Lisa Parks brought up an interesting argument about the constant need to upgrade digital technology and the ways that technologies are made to be obsolete or out of date. In some ways this can be related to the Fordist movement where more working class were able to be hired on an assembly line, receive higher pay for labour jobs and also stimulating more consumerism. In terms of the Fordist movement, meant that more working class people were attracted to industrial jobs because they are paid more and because there are more positions.

The individualization of assembly line jobs created more jobs and also improved production of the business. This production meant that the business grew, which in turn could be reinvested in the business. Employees were earning more money and more able to sustain the consumer economy that the industry is producing. Therefore, supply and demand sustained each other. It seems that this cycle is relevant to the constant evolution of technology. There is a rising need for technically savvy employees, more funds to pay employees, more individualized jobs, more production, more commodities and finally more middle-class people to purchase these products.

The re-creation of some computers, cell phones and iPods creates more jobs for computer engineers and also a new market for consumers. Unfortunately, the need for new media is not necessary, but advertisers market its necessity. Consumers’ willingness to purchase new technologies, which are simply rebranded and changed slightly each year, is a result of the manipulative tactics of advertisements.

Things like Culture Jammers and the Yes Men are exposing these forms of capitalist manipulation. Culture Jammers are emphasizing the role of celebrity endorsement in branding commodities. While the Yes Men are highlighting the unreliability of advertisements and corporations, as they easily pose as representatives for dominant corporations.

Empire of mind? The “Rational Peasants” Won’t Follow the Rule!

Lisa Parks (2007) in the book, Residual Media, argued that the structured obsolescence as an economic strategy not only created a fetishism of the new, but also generated millions of e-waste to China, India and Nigeria where there are little/no environmental regulations. Indeed, globalization gives multinational corporations a great opportunity to maximize their profits with minimum costs, and in the process spread the capitalistic mind of empire to developing countries. As Noam Chomsky claimed nicely in his lectures, "Whenever I say Globalization I mean a specific modality of international integration. There are several kinds of international integration (not bad by its nature), but globalization is the official one, which transforms the domestic labor in developed countries into rational peasants for capitalists.” I think the problems that E-waste brings about are symptoms of globalization: the empire of capitalistic minds. However, will the “rational peasants” fit in well with the framework of the new world order?

In GuiYu, known as the “e-waste capital of China”, the electronics recycling industry has destroyed the ground water and poisoned young children. Although Chinese government has issued regulations in 2005 to forbid this industry, many people still could not resist the lucrative temptations and did it secretly howsoever.

When the world is embracing the wonderful products provided by Apple Cor., who cares about the tragedies happened in the suppliers of Apple Cor.? A string of suicide among young workers of Foxconn Technology in China due to the high workload, which is one of the largest contract electronics manufacturers of Apple; 137 workers “suffered adverse health effects” at Wintek’s Suzhou factory in China, which supplies parts to Apple and Nokia, because of exposure to n-hexane, a toxic chemical in cleaning agents. Chinese suppliers admitted that they use the toxic chemical to enhance the appearance of the products to pursue the high profits of Apple’s products.

I finally understand the sarcasm in Chomsky’s remarks about the word “rational”. Under the logic of globalization, rational simply means money-seeking. People voluntarily become rational peasants for the capitalists. Thus, I know how irresistible the network of power is, as is argued by Hard & Negri in their book Empire.

However, this is not the whole picture.

One thing I find very sarcastic is that the processed and refurbished E-waste could finally go back to the US, existing in their “gold” jewelry, as a case of reaping what they have sown. The toxic chemicals on the Apple products would also flood into the developed markets if it were not stopped in time. This certainly demonstrates the idea that there is no outside of the Empire, including the developed countries themselves. But, I wonder, can it be seen as a kind of resistance by itself?

Resisting Empire

How does one resist the all-encompassing Empire? This is on of the question posed in this weeks reading about video games and global capitalism by Dyer-Witheford and de Peuter. Global capitalism can clearly be seen in the way that video games are produced, marketed and sold within a Western capitalist system. Video games are a media that exist within, and are supported by the Empire. Often with the discussion of Empire it is difficult to see areas of resistance or ways to subvert the power of the Empire. However, I like the way Dyer-Witheford and de Peuter were able to discuss a few such areas where resistance to the dominance of the system. They specifically mention three forms of resistance through pirated games, protest games, and planning games. While these may be some of the main avenues of resistance there are also other interesting examples. One such example can be seen in the recent hacking of Microsoft’s point’s cards. These cards are normally available for purchase and allow gamers to buy movies, games, things for games, etc. within the Microsoft gaming community through the Xbox platform. Hackers recently were able to crack the algorithm that makes up the codes on the backs of cards, allowing them to steal millions of dollars worth of points related purchases. This is just one interesting example of resistance related to theft and piracy. I’m curious to know other’s opinions on this example and whether you see this as a resistance to or an acceptance of Empire?

I realise that these forms of resistance don’t actually tackle the underlying problems of consumerism, nor do they subvert the ways in which games are produced, marketed, etc. However, with seemingly so few options for resistance, any little act can seem like a something positive.

Infotoxins: Are you a mental environmentalist?

The readings and discussion this week about virtual gaming and e-waste were ones I found to be quite interesting, and yet also quite product focused. I feel that in our attempts to deconstruct production, we left out two important pieces of evidence, that of the corporation and the individual mind. I know that the argument has been made against corporations in the past, however it seems as though we place more emphasis on the effect the product has on our lives, than the actual corporations who make them. Are they so far removed from responsibility that we no longer take notice of them? The Yes Men, in their social experiments, have tried to shed light on corporate activity and in fact have done a very good job at it.

Yet how much resistance do we actually pose against the corporation?

In 1886 corporations were granted personhood, meaning that they have the same rights as humans do. This legal arrangement has posed many problems for us as citizens whose main discourse, production and prosperity relies on a type of capitalist framework. Oftentimes I feel as though competing against commercialism is a helpless cause. Is there really any way to stop the “global hierarchy of power” (Dyer-Witheford and de Peuter) of corporations?

Call me idealistic, but I want to say and believe that there is a way and one organization leading the way is Adbusters.

Adbusters is “a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society” (www.adbusters.org). Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz, founders of Adbusters, believe in the movement. They also believe that Western culture has been overcome by infotoxins. They propose that those fed up with consumerism join the Mental Environmentalism Movement. This movement “draws a connection between the pollution of our minds by commercial messaging and the social, environmental, financial and ethical catastrophes that loom before humanity” (www.adbusters.org). I want to pose a challenge to us, well actually two challenges. The first is a challenge to participate in National Buy Nothing Day (the day also known as Black Friday in the United States). Secondly, I want to propose that we participate in Digital Detox Week, a week where you literally take a week off of using digital devices. Can we separate ourselves from things such as Facebook, Twitter, cell phones or laptops for an entire week, 168 hours, 7 whole days?

While it may seem that ceasing to shop on Black Friday or participating in a digital detox week may not have an effect on consumerism, it could. If everyone in North America was serious about bridging the digital divide, caring for the earth and lessening the gap between rich and poor, these events would not be a hidden secret to social movements, but more so a national holiday. Are we willing to stand up against the corporation? Or will we simply going to sit back passively, taking in the commodities, ideals and lifestyles these entities promise to give us in exchange for our silence?

The more sensitive side of cultural hybridity?!

As researchers we often fall into the belief and practice of viewing concepts as detached from the people they define. The truth is cultural hybridity is not merely a term, it is the definition of many members of our societies. So why the question of hybridity, at times positive, and at others, negative?

Integrating into a new culture requires a great degree of adaptation; even more so, maintaining the hybridity requires an excessive amount of courage. As researcher, Brene Brown asserts, courage comes from the Latin cuore, which is the meaning for heart and refers to the telling of the story of who you are with the whole heart. Often times the stories of migration are hidden away. The choice of individuals to not integrate into the specific culture may be due to fears of rejection: “the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we are not worthy of connection. (Brene Brown)”

Brene Brown on Ted Talks on the Power of Vulnerability (a self-reflexive approach to research and vulnerability)

If people fail to open up and be themselves due to fears of rejection, from the predominant culture, the cultural hybridity is further nurtured and sustained.

Often times the solution to the livelihood within new cultures lies in the ability of the migrant people to maintain a close relationship with the homeland, a source of acceptance, and a sense of belonging which is often unmet in the adopted country.  Are we responsible for the undesirable aspects of cultural hybridity?

Connection, according to Brene Brown requires the willingness to let go of the attainable self and allow the real self to emerge. One must have the courage to be imperfect, to be compassionate to the self and to others. Brown states that there is beauty in vulnerability. Cultural hybridity provides distinction and beauty in an almost unique way and its exposure requires a form of vulnerability. Is cultural hybridity a choice? What role does the society of the specific country have in the integration of hybridity?

Furthermore, is this vulnerability what national identity should be based on? Looking at states that have embraced cultural hybridity as a necessary part of their identity, can it be said that cultural hybridity has been made possible through an incorporation of the willingness to let go of the ideal self and willingness to share the self without any guarantees? Has there been a better understanding of the joining hybrids thanks to the pre-existent ones? What effect does the existence of cultural hybrids have on the political life of a nation? Does cultural hybridity strengthen the identity of an individual or does it loosen it? Politically, can it be said that a country is stronger due to its ability to integrate cultural hybridity into its context, or is it merely dispersed into the various cultural mosaics? Does the cultural hybridity of a nation lead to a stronger ability to govern its people? Are subjects of cultural hybridity trapped into a game of identity-seeking?

There are various questions to be addressed, all sparked by a wonderful presentation on the power of vulnerability. Self-reflexiveness is necessary in research to assess the transformations experienced by a culture; vulnerability is necessary for the integration of the self into the cultural frame, and research is more lively and humanistic than often assumed. Concepts are not mere concepts and realities are not mere descriptions of situations. Where are we headed? As a product of cultural hybridity I often wonder about this. Perhaps time will tell. I may never be an integral part of the scape I have adopted, or I may be absorbed in the tumult of “tamed hybrids”.  Think twice before labeling, it can hurt, or it can overjoy!

Secrets

Stella’s interesting post about the lecture on Chinese restaurants and culture really got me thinking about art and the way it can be used to reflect and share aspects of culture that would otherwise be hidden from us. Returning to Everett for a moment, I would like to discuss imagined communities once again. To a certain extent, national boarders disappear in cyberspace, replaced by structures of virtual communities and homelands. I think one very interesting example of an online imagined community is the Post Secret project. Post Secret is “an ongoing community art project where people mail in their secrets anonymously on one side of a postcard”. The site is updated once a week with new post cards that contain secrets from people all over. People can also comment on the post cards and often people mention how much they connect with the various secrets, many times seeing their own secrets reflected back at themselves from alternative perspectives. Interestingly, this website is hosted on Blogger, as a blog not a fancy or expensive Internet platform.

Perhaps people connect with the site for the voyeuristic entertainment it provides, glimpses into the secret lives of anonymous people. However, I think there is something more at work here. As an art project, it is a very interesting reflection of the hybridity of culture, imagined communities and the erasure of race, gender, etc. in online spaces. People often write comments or send in post cards that reflect how much post secret has helped them realize that they are not alone in their secrets. In this way, it serves as an imaginary community.

People are anonymous, they do not sign their cards, if pictures are used on the cards faces are often black out. When comments are made, names are also omitted. In this way, everyone is equal, with difference removed via the screen. However, it doesn’t just allow for difference to be removed, it also allows difference to be exemplified. People can write secrets that express elements of themselves (whether about gender, race, economic, marital status, etc.) that demonstrate just how different we all are. Although most of the secrets are written in English, some are written in different languages, meaning many people who visit the site cannot understand what they say. This is another way that difference is exemplified. Yet somehow in this anonymous community people can connect over the fact that they share similarities and differences. Whether Post Secret conceals or expresses difference, the digital media of the Internet has definitely changed the scale of social networking, allowing people from all over the country, and all over the world to come together to share a few secrets.

Lecture Reflection: Chinese Restaurant and Diasporic Counter-publics

On March 9th, I attended Dr. Lily Cho’s lecture, “Diasporic Counterpublics: Chinese Restaurants as Institutions and Installations”, which is part of the “Cultural Studies Series” of WLU. Her presentation was very interesting and enjoyable, and I really want to share my experience with those who didn’t get the chance to attend it.

In her presentation, Dr. Cho drew on part of her recent book, Eating Chinese: Culture on the Menu in Small Town Canada, to explore the problem of membership in conceptualizing Chinese diasporic community as a counter-public group. As was pointed out by Alex in the poster, two of the central arguments of this book are, first, that Chinese diasporic culture emerges through interaction and, second, that old and new diasporas are crucially constitutive of each other.

Dr. Cho unfolded her presentation by incorporating a series of art installations across Canada, "Gold Mountain Restaurants”, installed by Karen Tam. The vivid images of the installations, depicting Chinese diasporic culture within the cosmopolitan spaces of contemporary art, illustrated Dr. Cho’s arguments that Chinese restaurant is a diasporic counterpublic.

"Karen Tam's art project involves installation work that uses humour and familiarity to investigate a specific cultural phenomenon, the Chinese restaurant. That is, the "Westernized," "Americanized," "Canadianized" Chinese restaurant, primarily catering to non-Chinese customers in the New World. These are often smaller establishments specializing in take-out, falling uncelebrated amongst the current popularity of Pan-Asian quick service dining and the seemingly more "authentic" restaurant within North American Chinatowns…” ---Text adapted from TAM TIMES, April 27-June 10, 2006.

As there was no food served in the restaurant as an art installation, the cultural elements of Chinese restaurant surfaced. During the art installation, Gold Mountain Restauran, “a number of passers-by couldn’t resist the urge to come up to the gallery while the installation was going up, to offer the artist their own “relics” as souvenirs of their Chinese restaurant experiences” (Sylvie Lachance, Artistic Director, MAI, 6). “Anyone can potentially be a member of Chinese diasporic culture”, Dr. Cho said in her presentation.

Chinese restaurant is the space where Chinese diasporic culture is produced through the interaction between and across cultural divides. The Chinese diaspora culture is composed of old and new thoughts together. Both diasporic and non-diasporic people can be members of Chinese restaurants and Chinese diasporic culture.

Dr. Cho pointed out that the transformative relationship between stranger and the diaspora is important in understanding Chinese restaurant as a counter-public. According to Warner, to "inhabit a public discourse is to perform the transition from the stranger to the addressee of a public speech continually, and to some extent it remains present to consciousness” (Michael Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, 2002, p. 77). As such, what makes strangers the addressee of the diasporic public discourse is the transformation of the relationship with others, "specifically, with those others who are the most different from themselves, the foreigners” (Françoise Belu, curator, Montréal Arts Interculturels, 17). It is the strangeness of Chinese culture that invites strangers/non-diasporic people to enter into the space. In Chinese restaurant, the strangers become the producer of the Chinese diasporic culture as well. People are similar despite/because of differences. The relationship between different cultural divides transforms.

"There are two extremes of the meaning of ‘diaspora’ in the past, as catchall or as private club” (Stéphane Dufoix, 2). Neither of these two captures what Dr. Cho defines as diaspora and diasporic culture. According to her, membership is a very rigid condition in conceptualizing diasporic community. She wanted to challenge the community-centered view, by examining the production of diasporic culture in counter-public spaces such as Chinese restaurant. In doing so, she offered an instructive way of thinking about diaspora and diasporic culture as unspecific, flexible terms.

Reflect on her presentation, I find it very intriguing to depict diasporic culture as “counter-public”. In the seminar facilitated by Sophie, we have discussed the possibility of making Cyberspace a public sphere to voice minority’s interests. From Dr. Cho’s presentation, we can at least learn three things: one, use her assertion that anyone can be potential member of diasporic culture to define diasporic cyberspace as a counter-public; two, to explore how diasporic culture is formed not only through people’s lived experience in restaurant but also their mediated experience on cyberspace. Another thing I find quite interesting is why restaurant becomes such a frontier of cultural interaction. We have talked a lot about food (e.g. Marie’s beautiful posts about McDonaldization and Food Courts as Americanized imagined world); Lily Cho and Karen Tam also got a lot of inspiration from Chinese restaurants within cosmopolitan space.

I am really sorry for the delay of posting it a week after the presentation, but I hope that there be something that interests you.

Friday, Friday, Gotta Get Down on Friday: A Question of Media Imperialism

Last week 13 year old music prodigy (yes, I’m using this term VERY loosely) Rebecca Black’s music video “Friday” jumped from 3,000 to over 22 million views within a matter of days, making it YouTube’s newest viral video since Antoine Dodson. Just as quickly, Black’s video became the topic of choice for media personalities and critics, pushing Charlie Sheen out of the spotlight and gaining near equal coverage to Japan’s earthquake. In reaction to Black’s eye and ear gouge worthy video, YouTubers were nicknaming her “The Black Plague”, a play off of another YouTube sensation’s label “Bieber Fever”. Luigi Bastardo for Blogcritics.org calls the video “epically awful”, stating that Black should win Worst Artist and or Song of 2011. CNN calls Black’s Video “the good, bad and ugly of a viral Web” whereas Rolling Stone calls the lyrics “extraordinarily stupid”.

Whether you’re "kickin’ it in the front seat or kickin’ it in the backseat", there’s no denying that all the hate has made the video insanely popular, allowing for “Friday” to make it into iTunes Top 100, currently at number 19.

To quote the Double Rainbow Guy, "What does this mean"?

If there is anything we’ve learned from Black’s video (besides the days of the week…) it’s that it’s not easy to decide what should and should not count as cultural domination. Tomlinson explores issues of media imperialism in his article, but he doesn’t account for transnational, user generated media such as YouTube. Does user generated content play a role in cultural domination?

This is where things get a bit tricky in terms of how we decide what user generated content is. As unbelievable as it may be, Black’s “Friday” was professionally written and produced by Clarence Jay and Patrice Wilson, who own the ARK Music Factory. ARK writes and produces music for young aspiring artists who are looking for some experience in the industry. You don’t need to be a talented rising star to work with ARK (clearly…), as they profit off one-time payment and not off the success or failure of the music, like another talent agency would. Black’s mother paid ARK $2,000 to have the song written and produced for her daughter.

So we have to debate whether or not user generated content can play a role in cultural domination. Arguably yes, because other YouTube sensations (NumaNuma, Star Wars Kid, Sneezing Panda) are all user generated and gained popularity just like “Friday”. But what impact do these types of viral videos really have, I mean, we’ve seen this trend of “so bad it’s good” or “ridiculously hilarious/cute” with stars like American Idol reject William Hung. Does this type of notoriety really have any effect, does it really say anything of substance about Western Culture? Can popularity really be a sign of imperialist ideological power?

Maybe such “success” stories such as Black’s are transmitting the idea of the American Dream, where the underdog can come out on top, where the mantra is “Do something really well, or completely butcher it and your dreams of fame will come true”.

What do you think, is YouTube (or more specifically Black's "Friday") an example of capitalistic transnational media?

A Get Happy "Meal"

Stella’s media imperialism presentation brought up an interesting conflict concerning the usage of ideological Disney Movies as media manipulation. Tomlinson in “Media Imperialism” emphasizes the manipulative role of media and the “need of the system to gain more and more markets and areas of exploitation, and to the strategies employed towards this end”(116).

This directly relates to the exploitation of Disney to reach children through a façade of innocence, which disguises the underlying message of materialism and even gender roles. Corporations like Disney are advertising images of the American Dream, which is exploited and employed toward the development of other markets. Tomlinson says that “Individual media texts are mutually reinforcing in their demonstration of the attractions of consumerism and the ‘American Way’. Their effects, though not directly quantifiable, are cumulative and ‘totalizing’ and are ‘observable as typifying a way of life’” (117).

Not only do these messages define American living, but they are globally recognized as the ideal way of living. In terms of Disney, images of family time, childhood innocence and fantasy are part of this ‘totalising’ message. This ‘system’ needs to gain more markets and we see that in such affiliations as McDonalds. Up until recently McDonald’s used Disney Character toys as a part of their Happy Meal. This ‘Happy Meal’ is not only another form of the ‘American way’ or life, but it uses the same ideologies as Disney to define its products. This is a clear example of media imperialism.

What complicates this is the American Government’s intervention in McDonald’s Happy Meal toys. With the new trend toward healthy living and fight against childhood obesity, the Government has prevented the use of toys to sell fast food to children. What is interesting is the involvement of Government to prevent the association between toys and fast food, but not the use of toys, movies, images of Disney to sell a materialistic, gender specific lifestyle.

The Wonderful World of Disney, ABC, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar…

I found today’s discussion of Disney and media imperialism to be quite good. However, I walked away realizing that we had only spoken about Disney from the perspective of a child, or our own experiences as a child. It seemed as if because we were speaking of Disney, we were exempt from the debate of whether media imperialism can and does have an effect on an adult’s worldview. So with that being said, I think it is fair to ask if we, as adults or even graduate students, are exempt from the influence of media imperialism?

Before my attempt at trying to answer my own question I wanted to draw from Tomlinson’s example of the melodrama, Dallas. Although many of us may not fall prey to the discourses of melodrama (or we may not admit to doing so), we do interact with many texts that operate along the same premises. I think we all have a show we can call our guilty pleasure and as such I think it is possible that we, similar to the viewers of Dallas, are able to refuse the ideology of mass culture as elitist and insist on its purely pleasurable effect (Tomlinson 123).

Additionally, we have probably all watched at least one show from Disney’s ABC channel, and as such we too are influenced by the dominant discourses of such texts. From Grey’s Anatomy, to Modern Family to the latest season of the Bachelor, we all take in ideologies that mediate a certain Americanized discourse. These shows may not present a dominant colonial discourse that we notice or find offensive, but they most certainly do reflect a dominant Western discourse of consumption, romanticized lust and of course a tribute to the American Dream.

Going back to my proposed question, I think that we are not exempt from the notion of media imperialism. Even if we refuse the dominant ideologies and discourses, we are in some sense engaging with the media text. It is fair to say that within our discussion this morning that we have simply “underestimated the audience’s active engagement with the text and the critical sophistication of the viewer/reader” (Tomlinson 123). As a result, we often leave out the active role of the consumer or audience when analyzing texts such as those produced by Disney.

Media Effects & Multinational Corporations

The issue of media effects and the influence of mass media has been a recurring theme throughout the history of communication studies. In fact, some argue communication studies became a discipline as a direct result of concerns over media’s overwhelming power to influence people. What role do media play? Is an audience simply comprised of passive receptors waiting for instructions by media on how to live their lives? Does media have any audience impact? If so, how and how much? These are all questions theorists have been investigating and debating for decades, and as we have read this week, there is no simple or definitive answer to this age-old question.

Although Tomlinson compares and contrasts different theorists’ views of media, I'm not sure the general public would be able to make these critical distinctions. I am not trying to marginalize people or portray them as "others"; however, before enrolling in higher education, I would’ve argued media effects did exist, and that the media was responsible for agenda setting and had a direct influence on advising behaviours. Personally, although I am most definitely not an expert on the history of consumerism, I think the simultaneous rise in our consumption culture and the rise of advertising have led many, including my former self, to view the two events/movements as intertwined. Therefore, it is easy to assume that media influenced consumption patterns because consumption directly fueled the need for advertising and mass media. I will admit, it is still difficult for me to push the assumption that media effects are real into the back of my mind – it just easier to blame the media for everything instead of realizing the information purported by media must now be considered in the context of time and as a reflection of our culture.

Something else I found interesting this week was the multinational/transnational corporation and its strive toward doing its part in fostering globalization. I think there is a tendency for multinational organizations to try to improve their global corporate image by using the media to portray them as a "link" to connect different countries. This speaks to the dependency theory in which multinational and transnational corporations are central because it represents the most significant unit in the system of global capitalism. Companies like Coca-Cola and McDonalds that operate in countries around the world use their corporate branding strategy to link local culture with global culture; additionally, they situate their products/brand as having the ability to erase differences, break down barriers and make an audience think it is possible (and even simple) to just live "as one".

This follows Schiller's (1979) totalising approach, which suggests media are vehicles for corporate marketing and the manipulation of audience. These companies use media to reinforce the attraction of consumerism and the "American way", and thus promote these methods as viable options for living in harmony with others. As mentioned above, while it is easy to see media this way, we need to remember there are many other factors involved in the influencing of audiences. Moreover, research has shown it is nearly impossible to measure the direct effects of media exactly because of the various factors and forms of information we receive on a daily basis.

I am not a Disney reproduction!

Although it may be assumed the Disney culture has transcended boundaries and constructed young children in reproductions of its main characters, forming their points of view pertaining to gender roles, behaviours and attitudes, the truth differs. Being raised in Eastern Europe, I was fairly young when I got to watch Bambi, but the impact of the more influential princess sequels did not touch me in any way. Sure, I liked The Little Mermaid, and read comics with Donald Duck, but non of my views of myself were shaped by this. It may not have been Disney that formed my perception, but a more prevalent cultural form has.

My knowledge of princess-like attitude and definition of beauty was shaped by literature. Consumerism had not made its way into the post-communist society, yet. The visual discourse was held to be less valid and more questionable than that of writing. Books prevailed and the cultural make-up of society was assembled through written material. Yet, somehow looking back I recall moments when I looked at Ariel thinking how beautiful she was, but never wanting to be like her, just wanting my prince – this in itself being presumed to be a construction of the happy ending American story. The truth is most cultures have happy ending stories. People in general are more prone to seek happiness rather than misery. We are interpersonally inclined to seek happy people and success, as part of our quest for love and appreciation.

Today’s discussion made me question everything about the influence of Disney and the cultural dissemination and construction of ideas on gender and gender expectations. Disney cannot attain the stature of Hans Christian Andersen, or Jules Verne. Both forms of cultural expression have transcended time, but the more responsibility for my ideas can be attributed to these authors. Your experience may be different: are you a reproduction of Disney?

Pondering further on the questions addressed, I wonder if we are not all products of the cultural discourses that surround us. This has been said in multiple ways over the course of history; we are the products of our communities.

“Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.” (Mexican Proverb)

“A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain.” (American Proverb)

If community, friends, books and visual materials along with our environments and the people and experiences we live influence us, then who really shaped or formed us? Was it books or was it Disney? Somehow I find myself yet again returning to Hardt and Negri’s Empire and the loss of the source of change due to the web of influence. The empire of the entrepreneurial self’s formation is one tangled web of untraceable influence.

Looking for Difference? Come on Down to the INTERNET!

In many ways, I disagree with Nakamura’s claims that race can be concealed in cyberspace. My reason for this lies in the situatedness of myself in cyberspace, namely the realm of online dating whereby difference is not concealed, but necessarily revealed. It is true then therefore that “cyberspace may break down ethnic and racial difference” but not in the concealing way that Nakamura argues, but in a breaking down of race and ethnicity into diverse and specific categorized units. In the world of Online Dating there are websites dedicated to every race, religion, ethnicity, and culture. Www.avemariasingles.com, for example, for Catholic singles, www.blacksingles.com for black singles, and www.jdate.com for Jewish singles all REVEAL rather than CONCEAL difference. These are just three of the copious amount of targeted online dating websites that exist in cyber space (a more extensive list is placed below). Regardless of the potential for an ambiguous “avatar” the users all reveal their situatedness in marginalized groups by partaking, signing up, and utilizing the functions of these websites. In this we see that race cannot be concealed or hidden, but that in many avenues in cyberspace used as a starting point for developing relationships between races.

In this isn’t it possible that the Internet certainly IS a utopian space where freedom exists? We are free to seek others with the same ethnicity, race or culture as us, but at the same time are free to go on generic non-specific websites such as www.match.com, or www.plentyoffish.com and seek others of a different race or ethnicity than us. Online Dating therefore gives us the FREEDOM from meeting people at crowded bars, uncomfortable coffee shops, and awkward blind dates.

In this I would CERTAINLY argue with Nakamura’s claim that we have created a virtual world without difference because by signing up for a website of the group we best affiliate ourselves with we are DISPLAYING and proud of our differences. If indeed the virtual world was one without difference, every dating website would be www.match.com, a generic melting pot of cultures and races. The following list certainly does not represent a melting pot of cultures, but reveals the differences within all cyber users.

www.christianmingle.com, www.gay.com (For the LBGT community), www.interracialsingles.com, www.meet-an-inmate.com (For those seeking an intimate encounter with an inmate), www.1stinternational.com (Men seeking European Women), www.mylatinlady.com (For the Latin community), www.catholicsingles.com, www.equestriansingles.com (Those who love horses), www.largeandlovely.com (Seeking or ARE a fuller figures woman), www.countrysingles.com (Yee Haw), www.greensingles.com (vegetarians), www.asianmatrimonial.org (Muslim and Tamil matrimonial)

Canadian's love their Internet eh?

Over the last few weeks we have had some interesting discussion on the role of Internet media in creating and maintaining cultural identity. Much of the debate has centred on whether the Internet can create a space for people to voice their opinions, connect with others, and experience new and interesting things. Considering the multicultural nature of Canadian national identity, a new survey that tracked global Internet use is interesting to examine. According to the study, Canadians spend more time online then citizens of any other country. In fact, we spend almost double the amount of time online. The average Canadian spends 43.5 hours online per month, while the global average is 23.1 hours per month. What does this say about how we as Canadians see ourselves (to borrow a term from Michael Wesch) on the global dance floor? If Canada is as multicultural as we make ourselves out to be, what does our Internet use say about how people connect with other cultures around the world? Perhaps we can use this example as one that represents the ways in which immigrants and people of diasporic groups use online media to connect with a global society.

It is also very interesting that the image used in this article by the CBC (and posted above) shows two women smiling and connecting together over a laptop. These two women are not white, and (obviously) not male. They seem to represent Canadian diversity, as presented by the CBC. What does an image such as this mean to Everett’s argument regarding the digital divide? Perhaps in the world of web 2.0, or at least the Canadian usage of web 2.0, we can understand a broader, more inclusive public. While the article does not mention how various cultural groups use the Internet or in what numbers, it does mention a growth in the number of people over the age of 55 who have started using the Internet.

Examining the use of the Internet in Canada is also interesting given the recent controversy over usage-based Internet billing. This mandate would have allowed Internet service providers to charge users per Gb used, rather than a flat rate per month. Almost half a million Canadians signed the petition to keep companies from being allowed to charge per-usage billing. This, when taken together with the amount of time Canadians spend online, creates an interesting picture of the ways Canadians connect with each other, and those around the world.