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.