Abstract of Cornel West's “Nihilism in Black America”
by Mike Peterson
Description
West argues that the two current and polarized “camps” that discuss the plight of black America—the liberal structuralists and the conservative behaviorists—fail to grapple with and even add to the real threat: nihilism. West discusses how these camps focus too narrowly on structures (liberal structuralists) or on values, attitudes, and individualism (conservative behaviorists), and ignore the nihilistic threat: “the despair and dread that now flood the streets of America” (276).
West argues that nihilism in black America has existed since slavery, but that until the 1970’s the black community has erected powerful buffers against its effects: cultural structures of meaning and feeling, religious and civic institutions that embody values of service and sacrifice, love and care, discipline and excellence. But now the commodification of black life and the crisis of black leadership have resulted in the crumbling of those structures and a relapse of nihilism.
The solution is a politics of conversion, which treats the nihilistic threat as a disease that can be tamed but never cured. For this to happen, leadership needs to be strengthened at the local level. West argues that national leaders are often too charismatic with little programmatic follow-through, which leads black nationalists, with their myopic visions that cause fragmentation, to pick up the slack. This all leads to political cynicism, which hampers the efforts of local activists, on whom the progressive effort depends. West says the model of one black national leader must be shunned, and that local activists must work in conjunction with state, regional, and national networks to form the collective responsibility that can hold back the nihilistic threat to black America.
Key Terms
Nihilism: “…the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness, hopelessness, and (most important) lovelessness” (277).
Politics of Conversion: Treating nihilism as a disease that can be tamed by love and care, but that can never by completely cured (279-280).
Liberal structuralists: Focus on structural constraints. “More government money, better bureaucrats, and an active citizenry” (275).
Conservative behaviorists: Focus on behavioral impediments. “There projects rest largely upon a cultural revival of the Protestant ethic in black America” (275).
Comments and Questions
I don’t disagree with anything West has to say, but as I read the essay I became a little wary of his writing style. He uses direct, colorful language that is borderline bombastic at times. Does this pathos help or hurt his argument?
A few examples:
“We must delve into the depths where neither liberals nor conservatives dare to tread, namely, into the murky waters of despair and dread that now flood the streets of black America” (276).
– I see the point he’s making, but he generalizes entire groups of people based on ideological affiliation, as if expressing a liberal standpoint makes you incapable of understanding or dealing with the threat of nihilism. Is there a way to talk about polarized ideologies without over-generalizing and exaggerating the “void” of the middle-ground?
“Many black folk now reside in a jungle with a cutthroat morality devoid of any faith in deliverance or hope for freedom” (278).
– I don’t have a critique of this. It’s very powerful language that carries his point well. It’s obvious that the author has a lot of emotional and cultural investment in this topic, which spills out in his language. Does this have the potential to hamper his argument? Could critics dismiss him as being too emotional or too enmeshed in the culture to be reliable?
“…ushering the humble freedom fighters…who have the audacity to take the nihilistic threat by the neck and turn back its deadly assaults” (280).
– Beautiful imagery, but how does one actually take an idea by the neck? Very motivational language, but it lacks concrete solutions or follow-through. I know this essay isn’t the place for West to lay out a direct plan of action, but it does leave me feeling a little let down—I clearly agree there is a problem, but I don’t walk away feeling empowered to do anything about it.
West critiques national leadership based on the current state of affairs (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc), and he uses these “failures” to justify his call for increased local activist efforts, collective responsibility, and an end to the one-black-national-leader model. Is West implying that the idea of national leadership is inherently defunct and irredeemable? Is he targeting these specific leaders, or is he saying it’s a plug-and-play model, and it doesn’t matter who you put in their place, the same problems will abound? Or is he saying that these same leaders (again, Jackson and Sharpton) have the potential be effective leaders if local progressive efforts improve and operate in conjunction with, rather than in subordination to, this national leadership?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Abstract of Cornel West’s “Nihilism in Black America” 1992
Abstract of Cornel West’s “Nihilism in Black America” 1992
By Bridgett VanDerwalker
Description of Article:
West begins his article by explaining the two camps of thought who are trying to deal with the “plight of African Americans” those two camps are the liberal structuralists and the conservative behaviorists. West then tells us why these two camps fail to make progress against black nihilism. West then explains what black nihilism is and why it continues to persist. West claims that it is a result of the breakdown in community; a community that was weakened by the abolishment of slavery and further perpetuated by consumerism.
West feels as though blacks are jealous of whites, which then turns into anger that is turned on their own kind in acts of violence which causes more depression and lower self-esteem. West proclaims that it is through love and caring that nihilism can be curved. He closes his article by calling for strong black leadership. This leadership must start at the local level than at the national by doing so reforms can be passed that will help those who need it but it must start at the local level if any reform is to work. Community strength builds hope, a hope for a better future, and an end to the nihilistic cycle.
Key terms:
Nihilism
The Absurd
Familial/Communal Networks of Support
Politics of Conversion
Collective Responsibility
Discussion, Comments, and Questions:
West indentifies two camp of thought. The liberal structuralists think government programs will mead the ill of the blacks. The conservative behaviorists purpose “self-help programs, black business expansion, and cultural revival” (275). West suggests that the bigger issue of black nihilism is overlooked in three ways by the two camps. One aspect that is overlooked is the idea that “institutions and values go hand in hand” (275). They can’t be separated by taking positive actions this will not elevate living conditions for those living in black society. The second aspect is that one needs to look at all kinds of contributing structures not merely the political and economic ones. One question on this idea is, are mainstream values compatible with black values? I think West’s idea on strong black leadership can bridge mainstream values and those of blacks in particular but only if there are black leaders to speak for their needs which hasn’t happened as of yet. The third aspects that both camps ignore are the feelings of black people the deep-rooted despair and neglect they feel throughout all aspects of their lives. This type of problem is not easily solved and can’t be repaired with a quick patch up job in the form of political or economic reforms.
West explores where these two camps fail in their particular approaches. The structuralists fail to acknowledge the supporting structures like family, churches, and media and their role in reform these structures have to be in cooperation with the political and economic reforms if real change is to occur. Another failure of this camp is they “neglect the battered identities rampant in black America” (276). If the reform makers are white upper-middle class they can’t relate in any meaningful way to the troubles of lower class black citizens.
Conservative behaviorists fail in three aspects in their reforms. They fail to acknowledge that behavioral and political/economic factors contribute to the nihilistic attitudes prevalent among black citizens. The black attitude is one can’t succeed regardless their efforts so they feel cursed and hopeless. A second failure is admitting that they can’t relate to the blacks’ situation and that blacks are victims which only continue the bad feelings towards politicians. Thirdly, their lack of enforcement in policies results in cutbacks which furthers their nihilistic attitudes.
West defines what he means by black nihilism. He says it is the cumulative result of “the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness, hopelessness and (most important) lovelessness” (277). This condition results in detachment from others and society as a whole; West remarks that this affliction is a “distinctive form of the Absurd” (277). I think Camus would agree that without hope the world is indeed Absurd and there is no point in fighting because it is futile in the end. A depressing thought for sure especially if a whole segment of the population feels that way and nothing is being done but denying it exist at all.
West explains that past generations of blacks had “cultural armor” which protected them from threats from the outside and that when the institution of slavery was abolished so to was black culture. West seems to be puzzled as to the reason why this would be but doesn’t reach a clear explanation. West goes on to claim that “Black people have always been in America’s wilderness in search of a promised land” (278). This may be so, in that black people have been neglected by American society as a whole but this doesn’t really explain the last 40 years. They have had the right to vote since 1968, and fought extremely hard to do so; then they seemed to stop fighting and thus disappeared into the underbelly of society. West seems to overlook this fact which weakens his overall argument that they never had fought and have never had self-pride. West explains that nihilistic attitudes “contribute to criminal behavior- a threat that feeds on poverty and shattered cultural institutions” (278). This point is hard to argue against given the statistics that blacks are less likely to go to college than all other minority groups, the highest murder victim rate, and the highest suicide rates in the country.
West’s argument that corporate market institutions are to blame for blacks feeling anger is besides the point in that the media affects everyone especially the disenfranchised which is a fifth of the US population. West claims that corporate institutions try to shift blame back upon blacks but West lacks conviction and evidence in supporting this claim. West says that violence, poverty, and hopelessness are signs “of cultural decay in a declining empire” (279). I think this is true, if a section of American society is decaying than the rest of society will eventually follow. A good example of this is the Katarina/New Orleans fiasco. Why didn’t we don’t we do more to help? Simple answer is 70% of the population of New Orleans was/is black. As a result of this disaster blacks feel more alone and helpless that they have ever did before. And the sad truth of the situation is no one cares. If this disaster had happened in New York or Washington D.C., they would have received more support financially and emotionally and the reason is a big percentage of the population is well-off whites.
West is on the right path when he suggests his politics of conversion. This politics of conversion is a call for strong black collective leadership in and at every level of government. His second idea for improvement is a self-sustaining circle of love and caring for oneself and others by doing so will produce political resistance within the community. West says “The politics of conversion proceeds at a local level then spreads when grass root organizations push for reform at the state and national level” (280). West proclaims that the politics of conversion meet the threat of nihilism head on and connects with everyday people it is trying to help. This is an idealistic vision but one that offers a real chance of hope.
West has three critiques of black leadership. His example of Jesse Jackson, who got caught up in his own politics and that of his party’s resulted in lack of follow through. Others focus too much on race neglecting other disenfranchised people or the bigger issues. West says “black leadership at the national level tends to lack a moral vision that can organize (not just periodically energize) subtle analyses that enlighten (not simply intermittently awaken), and exemplary practices that uplift (not merely convey status that awes), black people” (281). Can Obama do the above things? I don’t know, however, he is concerned with universal healthcare which would benefit everyone and particular blacks. West’s last claim is the lack of strong black leaders reinforces that blacks can’t make a difference just isn’t true. Blacks have the second largest percentage of voters in the US, so that makes them very powerful if they vote it will make a substantial difference. In the 2008 elections, black voters will have 15 million votes and 60% of those voters are Democrats so Obama could have a good chance of being elected. West points out that the real change must occur at the local level because that is where the biggest changes can occur.
West closes the article by saying that a leader must have a genuine want for equality, freedom and responsibility. It is this hope in good civic leadership that the war against nihilism can be won.
By Bridgett VanDerwalker
Description of Article:
West begins his article by explaining the two camps of thought who are trying to deal with the “plight of African Americans” those two camps are the liberal structuralists and the conservative behaviorists. West then tells us why these two camps fail to make progress against black nihilism. West then explains what black nihilism is and why it continues to persist. West claims that it is a result of the breakdown in community; a community that was weakened by the abolishment of slavery and further perpetuated by consumerism.
West feels as though blacks are jealous of whites, which then turns into anger that is turned on their own kind in acts of violence which causes more depression and lower self-esteem. West proclaims that it is through love and caring that nihilism can be curved. He closes his article by calling for strong black leadership. This leadership must start at the local level than at the national by doing so reforms can be passed that will help those who need it but it must start at the local level if any reform is to work. Community strength builds hope, a hope for a better future, and an end to the nihilistic cycle.
Key terms:
Nihilism
The Absurd
Familial/Communal Networks of Support
Politics of Conversion
Collective Responsibility
Discussion, Comments, and Questions:
West indentifies two camp of thought. The liberal structuralists think government programs will mead the ill of the blacks. The conservative behaviorists purpose “self-help programs, black business expansion, and cultural revival” (275). West suggests that the bigger issue of black nihilism is overlooked in three ways by the two camps. One aspect that is overlooked is the idea that “institutions and values go hand in hand” (275). They can’t be separated by taking positive actions this will not elevate living conditions for those living in black society. The second aspect is that one needs to look at all kinds of contributing structures not merely the political and economic ones. One question on this idea is, are mainstream values compatible with black values? I think West’s idea on strong black leadership can bridge mainstream values and those of blacks in particular but only if there are black leaders to speak for their needs which hasn’t happened as of yet. The third aspects that both camps ignore are the feelings of black people the deep-rooted despair and neglect they feel throughout all aspects of their lives. This type of problem is not easily solved and can’t be repaired with a quick patch up job in the form of political or economic reforms.
West explores where these two camps fail in their particular approaches. The structuralists fail to acknowledge the supporting structures like family, churches, and media and their role in reform these structures have to be in cooperation with the political and economic reforms if real change is to occur. Another failure of this camp is they “neglect the battered identities rampant in black America” (276). If the reform makers are white upper-middle class they can’t relate in any meaningful way to the troubles of lower class black citizens.
Conservative behaviorists fail in three aspects in their reforms. They fail to acknowledge that behavioral and political/economic factors contribute to the nihilistic attitudes prevalent among black citizens. The black attitude is one can’t succeed regardless their efforts so they feel cursed and hopeless. A second failure is admitting that they can’t relate to the blacks’ situation and that blacks are victims which only continue the bad feelings towards politicians. Thirdly, their lack of enforcement in policies results in cutbacks which furthers their nihilistic attitudes.
West defines what he means by black nihilism. He says it is the cumulative result of “the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness, hopelessness and (most important) lovelessness” (277). This condition results in detachment from others and society as a whole; West remarks that this affliction is a “distinctive form of the Absurd” (277). I think Camus would agree that without hope the world is indeed Absurd and there is no point in fighting because it is futile in the end. A depressing thought for sure especially if a whole segment of the population feels that way and nothing is being done but denying it exist at all.
West explains that past generations of blacks had “cultural armor” which protected them from threats from the outside and that when the institution of slavery was abolished so to was black culture. West seems to be puzzled as to the reason why this would be but doesn’t reach a clear explanation. West goes on to claim that “Black people have always been in America’s wilderness in search of a promised land” (278). This may be so, in that black people have been neglected by American society as a whole but this doesn’t really explain the last 40 years. They have had the right to vote since 1968, and fought extremely hard to do so; then they seemed to stop fighting and thus disappeared into the underbelly of society. West seems to overlook this fact which weakens his overall argument that they never had fought and have never had self-pride. West explains that nihilistic attitudes “contribute to criminal behavior- a threat that feeds on poverty and shattered cultural institutions” (278). This point is hard to argue against given the statistics that blacks are less likely to go to college than all other minority groups, the highest murder victim rate, and the highest suicide rates in the country.
West’s argument that corporate market institutions are to blame for blacks feeling anger is besides the point in that the media affects everyone especially the disenfranchised which is a fifth of the US population. West claims that corporate institutions try to shift blame back upon blacks but West lacks conviction and evidence in supporting this claim. West says that violence, poverty, and hopelessness are signs “of cultural decay in a declining empire” (279). I think this is true, if a section of American society is decaying than the rest of society will eventually follow. A good example of this is the Katarina/New Orleans fiasco. Why didn’t we don’t we do more to help? Simple answer is 70% of the population of New Orleans was/is black. As a result of this disaster blacks feel more alone and helpless that they have ever did before. And the sad truth of the situation is no one cares. If this disaster had happened in New York or Washington D.C., they would have received more support financially and emotionally and the reason is a big percentage of the population is well-off whites.
West is on the right path when he suggests his politics of conversion. This politics of conversion is a call for strong black collective leadership in and at every level of government. His second idea for improvement is a self-sustaining circle of love and caring for oneself and others by doing so will produce political resistance within the community. West says “The politics of conversion proceeds at a local level then spreads when grass root organizations push for reform at the state and national level” (280). West proclaims that the politics of conversion meet the threat of nihilism head on and connects with everyday people it is trying to help. This is an idealistic vision but one that offers a real chance of hope.
West has three critiques of black leadership. His example of Jesse Jackson, who got caught up in his own politics and that of his party’s resulted in lack of follow through. Others focus too much on race neglecting other disenfranchised people or the bigger issues. West says “black leadership at the national level tends to lack a moral vision that can organize (not just periodically energize) subtle analyses that enlighten (not simply intermittently awaken), and exemplary practices that uplift (not merely convey status that awes), black people” (281). Can Obama do the above things? I don’t know, however, he is concerned with universal healthcare which would benefit everyone and particular blacks. West’s last claim is the lack of strong black leaders reinforces that blacks can’t make a difference just isn’t true. Blacks have the second largest percentage of voters in the US, so that makes them very powerful if they vote it will make a substantial difference. In the 2008 elections, black voters will have 15 million votes and 60% of those voters are Democrats so Obama could have a good chance of being elected. West points out that the real change must occur at the local level because that is where the biggest changes can occur.
West closes the article by saying that a leader must have a genuine want for equality, freedom and responsibility. It is this hope in good civic leadership that the war against nihilism can be won.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Abstract of Paul Willis’s “Symbolic Creativity” 1990
Description of Article:
Willis begins his article by questioning the institutions of art and what it stands for. Willis proposes that art is not merely a collection of artifacts that we peruse on occasion but something that we engage in everyday by using symbolic creativity. Willis points to how young people engage in symbolic creativity in a multitude of ways because they are shut out of the world of “high culture” art. Willis points out that “symbolic creativity is not only part of everyday activity, but also a necessary part” (207).
Willis defines the many manifestations of “symbolic creativity” can take and how it can be an individual act or a collective effort. Willis then explains what is produced and gained by symbolic creativity. He also explains why “symbolic creativity” should be considered a grounded aesthetic because it raises and creates the culture around it. Willis concludes by saying that a culture should not be defined by art in the form of artifacts but by pure activity and imagination.
Key Terms:
Symbolic Creativity
Grounded Aesthetics
Universalism
Commercial Cultural Commodities
Comments and Questions:
Willis starts his article by calling for a reform in what we should consider art. He states that art and creativity should be examined for what cultural significance it carries for the whole of humanity. Willis states his goal “is to uncover, explore, and present symbolic creativity in everyday life” (207). Willis believes that not only is symbolic creativity present in our everyday lives but that it is a necessary part. It is after this part that my support wavers especially when he says symbolic creativity is “essential to ensure the daily production and reproduction of human existence” (207). While I do believe that symbolic creativity is present in our everyday lives I don’t think human existence would end without it although it would be very dull. Willis discusses that it is through “symbolic work” we produce meanings and learn to communicate to our eternal essence and to the collective group as well.
The following section is where Willis really excels at defining what “necessary symbolic work” entails and what is produced from these endeavors. Willis explains that it is through the practice of language and our capacity to control it that we find “interaction and solidarity with others” (208). We realize our impact on ourselves and others by engaging in symbolic creativity. The second point he makes is that through our active bodies we produce symbolic resources such as singing and feeling. Willis points out that when we engage in “drama as practice” we are able to communicate to others through performing roles and rituals. Such examples of this principle are dancing, story-telling, and making jokes. His forth point is on symbolic creativity itself. By engaging in symbolic creativity we produce new meanings that are “attracted to feeling, to energy, to excitement, and psychic movement” (208). Willis encourages us to see these actions as “realities rather than as potentials” (208). This is an interesting idea and contributes to the idea that while these activities don’t create artifacts they create the reality of our everyday lives. Being human “the human-be-ing-ness means to be creative in the sense of remaking the world for ourselves as we make and find our own place and identity “(208). This statement summarizes why he thinks symbolic creativity is so important and why it should be recognized by the whole institution of art.
Willis then goes into explaining what is produced by symbolic work and creativity. He reintegrates that symbolic creativity forms individual identity and helps the individual make meaning. He then points out that, “Identities do not stand alone above history, beyond history. They are related in time, place and things” (209). While these creative efforts may different dependent on physical environment, time, and a particular culture they produce similar “products.” These products are dance, singing, cooking, jokes, and other similar everyday activities. Lastly Willis says “symbolic work and especially creativity develop and affirm our active senses of our own vital capacities, the powers of the self and how they might be applied to the cultural world” (209). He explains that by participating in these activities it helps the individual make cultural sense of how to manipulate and use symbolic forms in their everyday lives.
Willis asserts that it is this process that helps young people culturally survive and have power to change the world in some small way. It is in the everyday symbolic work that young people contribute to society as a whole. Willis seems to drift out of focus when talking about young working-class women and their lack of power and how they reclaim power by symbolic works. This example while making sense seems to be lackluster in the demonstration of how symbolic works actually function. Willis goes on to explore why youth culture is so important. He says they can “forge new resistant, resilient and independent ones to survive in and find alternatives to the impoverished roles proffered by modern state bureaucracies and rationalized industry” (210). Willis fails to mention how this reformation might be created in real terms which weaken his argument as a whole. Willis goes on to say “symbolic creativity’ is an abstract concept designing a human capacity almost in general. It only exists, however, in contexts and, in particular, sensuous living processes” (211).
Willis discusses the concept of grounded aesthetics which is “the creative element in a process whereby meanings are attributed to symbols and practices and where symbols and practices are selected, reselected, highlighted and recomposed to resonate further appropriated and particularized meanings” (211). Basically, young people are creating their own meanings to old ideas and symbols thus reclaiming power for themselves. Willis says “Grounded aesthetics are the yeast of common culture” (211). This idea makes sense when we reflect back to the beginning of the essay and the idea that “symbolic creativity” is necessary in everyday life because if symbols are not being reused and remade by the youth than a culture as a whole starts to decay. Willis asserts that this process is “the work of culture by culture” (212). Thus this process is both timeless and universal.
The process of grounded aesthetics leads to the concept of universalism which is an awareness of the future and what possibilities may arise from it. Willis proclaims that grounded aesthetics have uses which are “energizing, developing, and focusing of vital human powers on to the world in concrete and practical ways” (213). The result of this process can be wide spread or very personal and act as a treatment for the “injuries of life.” Willis explores the dangers of the above process if it is allowed to result in a text or artifact. He remarks that these material results maybe too narrow in their range of symbolic resources. The “artist” of the symbolic work may focus on the end result instead of meditating and enjoying the process itself. Finally, “Human receivers are allowed no creative life of their own” (213). This last point seems to tie into his over-arching theme that being, symbolic creativity should be enjoyed and that any material result is secondary to the process itself.
Willis sums up his argument by returning his introduction in which “official arts” are removed from the symbolic process and are displaced by time and true and original meaning. When official art loses its underlining context in which it was conceived it becomes merely a “commercial cultural commodity’ and loses the essence of its creation. Willis supports the idea that common culture with time becomes the culture and seeing the results of such an occurrence is what makes life worth living.
Willis begins his article by questioning the institutions of art and what it stands for. Willis proposes that art is not merely a collection of artifacts that we peruse on occasion but something that we engage in everyday by using symbolic creativity. Willis points to how young people engage in symbolic creativity in a multitude of ways because they are shut out of the world of “high culture” art. Willis points out that “symbolic creativity is not only part of everyday activity, but also a necessary part” (207).
Willis defines the many manifestations of “symbolic creativity” can take and how it can be an individual act or a collective effort. Willis then explains what is produced and gained by symbolic creativity. He also explains why “symbolic creativity” should be considered a grounded aesthetic because it raises and creates the culture around it. Willis concludes by saying that a culture should not be defined by art in the form of artifacts but by pure activity and imagination.
Key Terms:
Symbolic Creativity
Grounded Aesthetics
Universalism
Commercial Cultural Commodities
Comments and Questions:
Willis starts his article by calling for a reform in what we should consider art. He states that art and creativity should be examined for what cultural significance it carries for the whole of humanity. Willis states his goal “is to uncover, explore, and present symbolic creativity in everyday life” (207). Willis believes that not only is symbolic creativity present in our everyday lives but that it is a necessary part. It is after this part that my support wavers especially when he says symbolic creativity is “essential to ensure the daily production and reproduction of human existence” (207). While I do believe that symbolic creativity is present in our everyday lives I don’t think human existence would end without it although it would be very dull. Willis discusses that it is through “symbolic work” we produce meanings and learn to communicate to our eternal essence and to the collective group as well.
The following section is where Willis really excels at defining what “necessary symbolic work” entails and what is produced from these endeavors. Willis explains that it is through the practice of language and our capacity to control it that we find “interaction and solidarity with others” (208). We realize our impact on ourselves and others by engaging in symbolic creativity. The second point he makes is that through our active bodies we produce symbolic resources such as singing and feeling. Willis points out that when we engage in “drama as practice” we are able to communicate to others through performing roles and rituals. Such examples of this principle are dancing, story-telling, and making jokes. His forth point is on symbolic creativity itself. By engaging in symbolic creativity we produce new meanings that are “attracted to feeling, to energy, to excitement, and psychic movement” (208). Willis encourages us to see these actions as “realities rather than as potentials” (208). This is an interesting idea and contributes to the idea that while these activities don’t create artifacts they create the reality of our everyday lives. Being human “the human-be-ing-ness means to be creative in the sense of remaking the world for ourselves as we make and find our own place and identity “(208). This statement summarizes why he thinks symbolic creativity is so important and why it should be recognized by the whole institution of art.
Willis then goes into explaining what is produced by symbolic work and creativity. He reintegrates that symbolic creativity forms individual identity and helps the individual make meaning. He then points out that, “Identities do not stand alone above history, beyond history. They are related in time, place and things” (209). While these creative efforts may different dependent on physical environment, time, and a particular culture they produce similar “products.” These products are dance, singing, cooking, jokes, and other similar everyday activities. Lastly Willis says “symbolic work and especially creativity develop and affirm our active senses of our own vital capacities, the powers of the self and how they might be applied to the cultural world” (209). He explains that by participating in these activities it helps the individual make cultural sense of how to manipulate and use symbolic forms in their everyday lives.
Willis asserts that it is this process that helps young people culturally survive and have power to change the world in some small way. It is in the everyday symbolic work that young people contribute to society as a whole. Willis seems to drift out of focus when talking about young working-class women and their lack of power and how they reclaim power by symbolic works. This example while making sense seems to be lackluster in the demonstration of how symbolic works actually function. Willis goes on to explore why youth culture is so important. He says they can “forge new resistant, resilient and independent ones to survive in and find alternatives to the impoverished roles proffered by modern state bureaucracies and rationalized industry” (210). Willis fails to mention how this reformation might be created in real terms which weaken his argument as a whole. Willis goes on to say “symbolic creativity’ is an abstract concept designing a human capacity almost in general. It only exists, however, in contexts and, in particular, sensuous living processes” (211).
Willis discusses the concept of grounded aesthetics which is “the creative element in a process whereby meanings are attributed to symbols and practices and where symbols and practices are selected, reselected, highlighted and recomposed to resonate further appropriated and particularized meanings” (211). Basically, young people are creating their own meanings to old ideas and symbols thus reclaiming power for themselves. Willis says “Grounded aesthetics are the yeast of common culture” (211). This idea makes sense when we reflect back to the beginning of the essay and the idea that “symbolic creativity” is necessary in everyday life because if symbols are not being reused and remade by the youth than a culture as a whole starts to decay. Willis asserts that this process is “the work of culture by culture” (212). Thus this process is both timeless and universal.
The process of grounded aesthetics leads to the concept of universalism which is an awareness of the future and what possibilities may arise from it. Willis proclaims that grounded aesthetics have uses which are “energizing, developing, and focusing of vital human powers on to the world in concrete and practical ways” (213). The result of this process can be wide spread or very personal and act as a treatment for the “injuries of life.” Willis explores the dangers of the above process if it is allowed to result in a text or artifact. He remarks that these material results maybe too narrow in their range of symbolic resources. The “artist” of the symbolic work may focus on the end result instead of meditating and enjoying the process itself. Finally, “Human receivers are allowed no creative life of their own” (213). This last point seems to tie into his over-arching theme that being, symbolic creativity should be enjoyed and that any material result is secondary to the process itself.
Willis sums up his argument by returning his introduction in which “official arts” are removed from the symbolic process and are displaced by time and true and original meaning. When official art loses its underlining context in which it was conceived it becomes merely a “commercial cultural commodity’ and loses the essence of its creation. Willis supports the idea that common culture with time becomes the culture and seeing the results of such an occurrence is what makes life worth living.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
“Meaning and Ideology”
Abstract of “Meaning and Ideology” by Judith Williamson
Abstract by Diane Neu
I. Description of Article
Williamson explains how advertising has created objects that are now an interchangeable piece of human culture. Instead of saying “I love you,” we give flowers. Instead of recycling and reducing consumerism, we buy a new Prius. Advertising has created “structures of meaning” where the good or object is now a stand-in for human language and action (188).
II. Comments and Questions
Williamson argues that advertisements are one of the major factors influencing our culture today, in addition to being the major cultural mirror “reflecting our life today” (188). Advertising is so pervasive in our culture because of its status as “a vast superstructure with an apparently autonomous existence and an immense influence” (188). You cannot easily counteract a force that is so rooted and ingrained in our culture that most people do not even recognize it for what it is. Williamson clarifies that her purpose is not to measure the influence of advertising but rather to analyze “what can be seen in advertisements” (188). She continues to explain that while part of advertising’s obvious function “is to sell things to us,” it also functions as a modern day replacement for art and religion in that it “creates structures of meaning” (188).
Advertising creates meaning through its ability to “translate statements from the world of things […] into a form that means something in terms of people” (189). Williamson gives two examples of automobile advertisements. If a company is trying to sell a car that gets good gas mileage, they might portray the buyer of such a car as economical or eco-conscious. If they were trying to sell a car with low gas mileage, they might portray the buyer as someone who is too cool and wealthy to care about something like gas mileage. Advertising takes the product and creates a relatable story or meaning that we, the consumer, can connect to. Williamson points out that this aspect of advertising shows that advertising is not a “single ‘language’ ” (189). Instead, advertising can be seen as “capable of transforming the language of objects to that of people” (189). One set of advertisements that comes to mind is the new “healthy” McDonald’s campaign. They have these commercials with a hip, young mom and her beautiful toddler spending a wonderful day together – and then they finish the day by having a healthy meal at McDonald’s. The mom gets her salad (with Paul Newman dressing, natch), and the kid gets all white-meat chicken nuggets with milk and apple slices. Mmmmmm. Now you can eat Fast Food Nation style and presumably not get cancer. Of course, this whole campaign has nothing to do with McDonald’s actually caring about the food they serve – they just know that this is a great opportunity to capitalize on the whole organic, Whole-Foods movement.
Advertising does not always reduce “people to the status of things,” but it happens quite frequently when both the object and the person “are used symbolically” (189). This happens when the object becomes interchangeable with the person or human act – the object becomes a physical stand-in for emotion or human connection. Williamson uses the example of how diamond rings have become the ubiquitous symbol for true and enduring love. The diamond isn’t just associated with love – it is love. This immediately reminded me of the engagement ring ads for Scott Kay. Their slogan is, “Never compromise when asking someone to spend the rest of their life with you,” indicating that no matter how heart-felt or genuine the proposal, it just won’t mean anything without a Scott Kay diamond. The word “compromise” holds two meanings for me in this ad. The more obvious connotation is that the person who proposes without a Scott Kay diamond would be striking a compromise between cost/benefit. They have compromised and decided to not spring for the giant, platinum-set diamond. The other, more striking, meaning is that the person who proposes without a Scott Kay diamond would be compromising their relationship. They would be sending the message that the receiver of the ring means little to the giver. There is no love without a Scott Kay diamond. Williamson summarizes this phenomenon by pointing out that these kinds of ads “are selling us something else besides consumer goods: in providing us with a structure in which we, and those goods, are interchangeable, they are selling us ourselves” (190).
People are no longer “identified with what they produce” in a culture where advertising invokes “false categories” of class in order to “obscure the real structure of society by replacing class with the distinctions made by the consumption of particular goods” (190). We are no longer associated by what we can create, produce, and contribute; we become what we consume. Our identity and class status becomes inextricably linked to “what we are able to buy” (190). I remember one time reading this article where they were interviewing the marketing executives at Pottery Barn. They were commenting that while it is true that a lot of people can’t afford a $5,000 sofa, a lot of people can afford $20 Egyptian cotton towels. They are still purchasing a luxury item, but it is an affordable luxury that makes them feel like they are participating in a higher level of consumer culture. It makes them feel like they belong in that social class. That’s why you can now spend $20 on Kate Spade branded pencils. You might not be able to afford one of her purses, but if you use the pencils, everyone will think that you can.
Williamson concludes by pointing out that advertising can be elusive because while it “speaks to us in a language we can recognize,” it uses “a voice we can never identify” (190). This is due to the fact that “advertising has no ‘subject’ ” (190). There are people that produce these advertisements, but the ad never comes out and says, “This is Bill Jones, senior advertising executive, and I am here to sell you…” This leaves “a space, a gap left where the speaker should be” (190). As consumer, we are “drawn in to fill that gap” (190). Advertising sets up the social structure and meaning for us, and we are left to consume and distribute that meaning. Williamson reasons that if we could take back the “relationship and human meaning appropriated by advertising,” we “could radically change the society we live in” (191).
III. Key Terms and Links
Advertisements
Structures of meaning
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/moms.html
http://www.scottkay.com/bridal/index.aspx
http://elizabethslittleblog.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/may-a-curse-fall-upon-the-house-of-pottery-barn-trying-to-want-less/
Abstract by Diane Neu
I. Description of Article
Williamson explains how advertising has created objects that are now an interchangeable piece of human culture. Instead of saying “I love you,” we give flowers. Instead of recycling and reducing consumerism, we buy a new Prius. Advertising has created “structures of meaning” where the good or object is now a stand-in for human language and action (188).
II. Comments and Questions
Williamson argues that advertisements are one of the major factors influencing our culture today, in addition to being the major cultural mirror “reflecting our life today” (188). Advertising is so pervasive in our culture because of its status as “a vast superstructure with an apparently autonomous existence and an immense influence” (188). You cannot easily counteract a force that is so rooted and ingrained in our culture that most people do not even recognize it for what it is. Williamson clarifies that her purpose is not to measure the influence of advertising but rather to analyze “what can be seen in advertisements” (188). She continues to explain that while part of advertising’s obvious function “is to sell things to us,” it also functions as a modern day replacement for art and religion in that it “creates structures of meaning” (188).
Advertising creates meaning through its ability to “translate statements from the world of things […] into a form that means something in terms of people” (189). Williamson gives two examples of automobile advertisements. If a company is trying to sell a car that gets good gas mileage, they might portray the buyer of such a car as economical or eco-conscious. If they were trying to sell a car with low gas mileage, they might portray the buyer as someone who is too cool and wealthy to care about something like gas mileage. Advertising takes the product and creates a relatable story or meaning that we, the consumer, can connect to. Williamson points out that this aspect of advertising shows that advertising is not a “single ‘language’ ” (189). Instead, advertising can be seen as “capable of transforming the language of objects to that of people” (189). One set of advertisements that comes to mind is the new “healthy” McDonald’s campaign. They have these commercials with a hip, young mom and her beautiful toddler spending a wonderful day together – and then they finish the day by having a healthy meal at McDonald’s. The mom gets her salad (with Paul Newman dressing, natch), and the kid gets all white-meat chicken nuggets with milk and apple slices. Mmmmmm. Now you can eat Fast Food Nation style and presumably not get cancer. Of course, this whole campaign has nothing to do with McDonald’s actually caring about the food they serve – they just know that this is a great opportunity to capitalize on the whole organic, Whole-Foods movement.
Advertising does not always reduce “people to the status of things,” but it happens quite frequently when both the object and the person “are used symbolically” (189). This happens when the object becomes interchangeable with the person or human act – the object becomes a physical stand-in for emotion or human connection. Williamson uses the example of how diamond rings have become the ubiquitous symbol for true and enduring love. The diamond isn’t just associated with love – it is love. This immediately reminded me of the engagement ring ads for Scott Kay. Their slogan is, “Never compromise when asking someone to spend the rest of their life with you,” indicating that no matter how heart-felt or genuine the proposal, it just won’t mean anything without a Scott Kay diamond. The word “compromise” holds two meanings for me in this ad. The more obvious connotation is that the person who proposes without a Scott Kay diamond would be striking a compromise between cost/benefit. They have compromised and decided to not spring for the giant, platinum-set diamond. The other, more striking, meaning is that the person who proposes without a Scott Kay diamond would be compromising their relationship. They would be sending the message that the receiver of the ring means little to the giver. There is no love without a Scott Kay diamond. Williamson summarizes this phenomenon by pointing out that these kinds of ads “are selling us something else besides consumer goods: in providing us with a structure in which we, and those goods, are interchangeable, they are selling us ourselves” (190).
People are no longer “identified with what they produce” in a culture where advertising invokes “false categories” of class in order to “obscure the real structure of society by replacing class with the distinctions made by the consumption of particular goods” (190). We are no longer associated by what we can create, produce, and contribute; we become what we consume. Our identity and class status becomes inextricably linked to “what we are able to buy” (190). I remember one time reading this article where they were interviewing the marketing executives at Pottery Barn. They were commenting that while it is true that a lot of people can’t afford a $5,000 sofa, a lot of people can afford $20 Egyptian cotton towels. They are still purchasing a luxury item, but it is an affordable luxury that makes them feel like they are participating in a higher level of consumer culture. It makes them feel like they belong in that social class. That’s why you can now spend $20 on Kate Spade branded pencils. You might not be able to afford one of her purses, but if you use the pencils, everyone will think that you can.
Williamson concludes by pointing out that advertising can be elusive because while it “speaks to us in a language we can recognize,” it uses “a voice we can never identify” (190). This is due to the fact that “advertising has no ‘subject’ ” (190). There are people that produce these advertisements, but the ad never comes out and says, “This is Bill Jones, senior advertising executive, and I am here to sell you…” This leaves “a space, a gap left where the speaker should be” (190). As consumer, we are “drawn in to fill that gap” (190). Advertising sets up the social structure and meaning for us, and we are left to consume and distribute that meaning. Williamson reasons that if we could take back the “relationship and human meaning appropriated by advertising,” we “could radically change the society we live in” (191).
III. Key Terms and Links
Advertisements
Structures of meaning
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/moms.html
http://www.scottkay.com/bridal/index.aspx
http://elizabethslittleblog.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/may-a-curse-fall-upon-the-house-of-pottery-barn-trying-to-want-less/
Meaning and Ideology abstract
I. Summary
"Meaning and Ideology" by Judith Williamson deconstructs the meaning-making of the advertising world. The main tenet of her argument is that the advertising world does not operate within the static confines of a 'language,' but rather, molds a structure through which it can transform "the language of objects to that of people"(189). Advertisers create links between certain objects and certain characteristics of people and then those objects take on a symbolic nature. This was apparent in our discussion of the many sub-cultures that are a part of Boise--each culture was represented by the objects that are consumed within that culture.
A couple of my favorite lines that incapsulate Williamson's argument: "Advertisements are selling us something else besides consumer goods: in providing us with a structure in which we, and those goods, are interchangeable, they are selling us ourselves"(190).
"Thus instead of being identified by what they produce, people are made to identify themselves with what they consume"(190).
"Advertising gives goods a social meaning so that two needs are crossed, and neither is adequately filled."
I had never considered before Williamson's ingenious commentary that in the world of advertising there is "a gap left where the speaker should be" and so "we are drawn in to fill that gap, so that we become both listener and speaker, subject and object"(190). In other words, the authority of advertising comes from ourselves! We consume the symbolic objects that best typify the 'social place' we wish to find ourselves in, or the social attributes we believe we possess or wish to possess.
II. Analysis
A class structure of social place based on consumption rather than production is an interesting phenomenon. What about knock-offs? Products that try to offer the same symbolic resonance of an object at a more affordable price to the masses? Do they in fact have the same results? What about those who believe they can see past the advertising hype--that they are not "consumerists"? Are they complicite (sp?) in the system in another way?
It is my perception that Williamson believes the structure of the advertising world to be a reality independent of any one group of people. I don't know if I buy this. Obviously in our capitalist society there are more products and advertisements than any one person can control, but I wonder if there is not a nucleus of people that sort of determines the direction of trends in the advertising world--and profits thereby.
III. Question
Why does Williamson say that material and non-material needs are crossed, neither is adequately filled? I agree that a material object does not have the power to fulfil a non-material need, but can't that object at least satisfy the material need?
"Meaning and Ideology" by Judith Williamson deconstructs the meaning-making of the advertising world. The main tenet of her argument is that the advertising world does not operate within the static confines of a 'language,' but rather, molds a structure through which it can transform "the language of objects to that of people"(189). Advertisers create links between certain objects and certain characteristics of people and then those objects take on a symbolic nature. This was apparent in our discussion of the many sub-cultures that are a part of Boise--each culture was represented by the objects that are consumed within that culture.
A couple of my favorite lines that incapsulate Williamson's argument: "Advertisements are selling us something else besides consumer goods: in providing us with a structure in which we, and those goods, are interchangeable, they are selling us ourselves"(190).
"Thus instead of being identified by what they produce, people are made to identify themselves with what they consume"(190).
"Advertising gives goods a social meaning so that two needs are crossed, and neither is adequately filled."
I had never considered before Williamson's ingenious commentary that in the world of advertising there is "a gap left where the speaker should be" and so "we are drawn in to fill that gap, so that we become both listener and speaker, subject and object"(190). In other words, the authority of advertising comes from ourselves! We consume the symbolic objects that best typify the 'social place' we wish to find ourselves in, or the social attributes we believe we possess or wish to possess.
II. Analysis
A class structure of social place based on consumption rather than production is an interesting phenomenon. What about knock-offs? Products that try to offer the same symbolic resonance of an object at a more affordable price to the masses? Do they in fact have the same results? What about those who believe they can see past the advertising hype--that they are not "consumerists"? Are they complicite (sp?) in the system in another way?
It is my perception that Williamson believes the structure of the advertising world to be a reality independent of any one group of people. I don't know if I buy this. Obviously in our capitalist society there are more products and advertisements than any one person can control, but I wonder if there is not a nucleus of people that sort of determines the direction of trends in the advertising world--and profits thereby.
III. Question
Why does Williamson say that material and non-material needs are crossed, neither is adequately filled? I agree that a material object does not have the power to fulfil a non-material need, but can't that object at least satisfy the material need?
Jameson's "Postmodernism and Consumer Society"
Bill Schnupp
Abstract: “Postmodernism and Consumer Society”
I. Summary
Jameson opens his piece with an admission of the ambiguity that surrounds postmodernism, a concept that encompasses many forms of media: literature, visual and plastic arts, architecture, music, film, and “theoretical discourse,” that interdisciplinary and amorphous mode of inquiry popularized by Foucault and others. Jameson elaborates that postmodernism is a reaction against high modernism, forms of expression found irreverent and vulgar by the preceding generation, but which are now the “standard” against which the current generation rails. Similar to the ideas of Raymond Williams, Jameson cites a lack of division between high and low culture.
The author proceeds to offer two concepts that, for him, link postmodernism to late capitalism: pastiche and schizophrenia. Pastiche is essentially parody without the comic element, a form of “blank parody.” The idea of pastiche leads to a discussion of the death of the subject, which has two distinct perspectives: first, that in the ascension of the bourgeoisie as the hegemonic social class, individualism may have existed, but is no more in contemporary, homogenous society; second, that individualism is not only dead, but instead never existed—it is a myth. The conclusion Jameson leads to from this discussion is that modern art is dead; there is no originality, only perpetual copies of pre-existing elements and forms, or, pastiche, “to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum” (196).
A prominent example of pastiche is the “nostalgia film,” films about the past and generational moments of that past. In a discussion that ranges from American Graffiti and Star Wars to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Chinatown, Jameson points out that nostalgia films are often less about the past and more about a false realism in which the past is sought through pop images and stereotypes of the past, with the original perpetually unattainable through our “incapability of achieving aesthetic representations of our current experience” (198).
Jameson then shifts his focus from nostalgia film to architecture,
a mutation in built space itself. . .the human subjects who happen into this new space, have not kept
pace with that evolution. . .we do not as yet possess the perceptual equipment to match this new
hyperspace, as I will call it, in part because our perceptual habits were formed in that older kind of space
I have called the space of high modernism (198)
The specific example is the Bonaventure Hotel, a space that seeks to speak the sign system (Barthes anyone?) of the surrounding urban area. The Bonaventure is a total and enclosed space, with a reflective, disjunctive exterior and escalators/elevators that not only replace movement but serve as reflexive signs of movement. Jameson ends this discussion with a return to his definition of architecture, and uses it as a metaphor for the way human beings are caught in the “global and decentered communicational network.”
The piece concludes with the idea that postmodernism is necessary because it chronologically traces the break from a prior form. This break is not so much the emergence of new ideas, but rather a restructuring of preexisting elements; this displacement of the dominant by the secondary is important in the postmodern context because it has become the center of cultural production. Contemporary society finds little scandalous or repellent, central to high modernism. Moreover, what high modernists would have found repellent enjoys commercial success. Postmodernism is a product of post WWII capitalism, and a part of this production is the function of the media to relegate experience into the past as quickly as possible, as well as an open-ended questioning about the place and value of post-modern art.
II. Analysis
Let me start by saying that I find Jameson’s discussion of the two conceptions of the death of the subject to be incredibly depressing. There is no way that all possible combinations of elements and media have been used and are only recycled. I take his point to be more that operating within the hegemonic code may yield a finite limitation of elements and forms (though even that seems doubtful). What about Hall’s idea of the oppositional code, or the notion of infinite readings of a text we encountered in Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture? Conversely, I do find myself agreeing with Jameson’s idea of pastiche and nostalgia films—I’d wager we have all let our minds wander back to some over-idealized notion of our past at the behest of some particular film
I find myself questioning why we are so accepting of media forms that would have offended the previous generation. If we play along with Jameson’s definition of postmodernism as a restructuring of preexisting elements (reminds me a little of Johnson’s discussion of the breaks), it seems to me the reason postmodern society is so accepting of previously offensive forms of media seems obvious: they are not new, only old elements juxtaposed. It makes sense, but makes me question boundaries. How far can the limits be pushed? Or, if everything is only a matter of restructuring elements, has the boundary already been reached?
Honestly, I’m having some difficulty settling on what qualifies as Jameson’s discussion of his concept of schizophrenia: is it that we are so disjointed in out perception of time, either in the case of the nostalgia film, or our media’s contribution to our loss of past? Or, is it the great divergence in media forms that fall under the postmodern label? Can anybody help me here?
I also find Jameson’s choice of examples interesting, as he makes some interesting leaps; this rhetorical decision seems to effectively echo his assertion about the ambiguity and resistance surrounding postmodernism’s multi-media form.
III. Questions and Further Reading
1. How do you respond to Jameson’s two perspectives on the death of the subject?
2. Why do you think postmodern society is so much more tolerant of traditionally offensive media forms?
3. How do you respond to Jameson’s idea that the postmodern era is rooted in post WWII capitalism?
Links:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm
Abstract: “Postmodernism and Consumer Society”
I. Summary
Jameson opens his piece with an admission of the ambiguity that surrounds postmodernism, a concept that encompasses many forms of media: literature, visual and plastic arts, architecture, music, film, and “theoretical discourse,” that interdisciplinary and amorphous mode of inquiry popularized by Foucault and others. Jameson elaborates that postmodernism is a reaction against high modernism, forms of expression found irreverent and vulgar by the preceding generation, but which are now the “standard” against which the current generation rails. Similar to the ideas of Raymond Williams, Jameson cites a lack of division between high and low culture.
The author proceeds to offer two concepts that, for him, link postmodernism to late capitalism: pastiche and schizophrenia. Pastiche is essentially parody without the comic element, a form of “blank parody.” The idea of pastiche leads to a discussion of the death of the subject, which has two distinct perspectives: first, that in the ascension of the bourgeoisie as the hegemonic social class, individualism may have existed, but is no more in contemporary, homogenous society; second, that individualism is not only dead, but instead never existed—it is a myth. The conclusion Jameson leads to from this discussion is that modern art is dead; there is no originality, only perpetual copies of pre-existing elements and forms, or, pastiche, “to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum” (196).
A prominent example of pastiche is the “nostalgia film,” films about the past and generational moments of that past. In a discussion that ranges from American Graffiti and Star Wars to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Chinatown, Jameson points out that nostalgia films are often less about the past and more about a false realism in which the past is sought through pop images and stereotypes of the past, with the original perpetually unattainable through our “incapability of achieving aesthetic representations of our current experience” (198).
Jameson then shifts his focus from nostalgia film to architecture,
a mutation in built space itself. . .the human subjects who happen into this new space, have not kept
pace with that evolution. . .we do not as yet possess the perceptual equipment to match this new
hyperspace, as I will call it, in part because our perceptual habits were formed in that older kind of space
I have called the space of high modernism (198)
The specific example is the Bonaventure Hotel, a space that seeks to speak the sign system (Barthes anyone?) of the surrounding urban area. The Bonaventure is a total and enclosed space, with a reflective, disjunctive exterior and escalators/elevators that not only replace movement but serve as reflexive signs of movement. Jameson ends this discussion with a return to his definition of architecture, and uses it as a metaphor for the way human beings are caught in the “global and decentered communicational network.”
The piece concludes with the idea that postmodernism is necessary because it chronologically traces the break from a prior form. This break is not so much the emergence of new ideas, but rather a restructuring of preexisting elements; this displacement of the dominant by the secondary is important in the postmodern context because it has become the center of cultural production. Contemporary society finds little scandalous or repellent, central to high modernism. Moreover, what high modernists would have found repellent enjoys commercial success. Postmodernism is a product of post WWII capitalism, and a part of this production is the function of the media to relegate experience into the past as quickly as possible, as well as an open-ended questioning about the place and value of post-modern art.
II. Analysis
Let me start by saying that I find Jameson’s discussion of the two conceptions of the death of the subject to be incredibly depressing. There is no way that all possible combinations of elements and media have been used and are only recycled. I take his point to be more that operating within the hegemonic code may yield a finite limitation of elements and forms (though even that seems doubtful). What about Hall’s idea of the oppositional code, or the notion of infinite readings of a text we encountered in Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture? Conversely, I do find myself agreeing with Jameson’s idea of pastiche and nostalgia films—I’d wager we have all let our minds wander back to some over-idealized notion of our past at the behest of some particular film
I find myself questioning why we are so accepting of media forms that would have offended the previous generation. If we play along with Jameson’s definition of postmodernism as a restructuring of preexisting elements (reminds me a little of Johnson’s discussion of the breaks), it seems to me the reason postmodern society is so accepting of previously offensive forms of media seems obvious: they are not new, only old elements juxtaposed. It makes sense, but makes me question boundaries. How far can the limits be pushed? Or, if everything is only a matter of restructuring elements, has the boundary already been reached?
Honestly, I’m having some difficulty settling on what qualifies as Jameson’s discussion of his concept of schizophrenia: is it that we are so disjointed in out perception of time, either in the case of the nostalgia film, or our media’s contribution to our loss of past? Or, is it the great divergence in media forms that fall under the postmodern label? Can anybody help me here?
I also find Jameson’s choice of examples interesting, as he makes some interesting leaps; this rhetorical decision seems to effectively echo his assertion about the ambiguity and resistance surrounding postmodernism’s multi-media form.
III. Questions and Further Reading
1. How do you respond to Jameson’s two perspectives on the death of the subject?
2. Why do you think postmodern society is so much more tolerant of traditionally offensive media forms?
3. How do you respond to Jameson’s idea that the postmodern era is rooted in post WWII capitalism?
Links:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm
Monday, October 22, 2007
"Postmodernism and consumer society" By Fredric Jameson
“Postmodernism and consumer society” by Fredric Jameson
Abstract by Patricia Little
Description
The essay entitled “Postmodernism and consumer society” by Fredric Jameson, attempts to clarify the concept of postmodernism. Jameson’s goal in this essay is to show how postmodernism is opposed to modernism in not just themes of art and literature, but also how these differences show themselves in the general culture.
For Jameson the postmodern has two main characteristics. Firstly, he believes that the postmodern is directly influenced by the negation of its previous epoch, modernism. In order for something to be postmodern it, “Emerge[s] as specific reaction against established forms of high modernism…This means that there will be as many different forms of postmodernism as there were high modernisms in place, since the former are at least initially specific and local reactions against those models” (192). And secondly, a key feature of postmodernism is that the lines between high and popular culture are gone or at least beginning to fade. This incorporation of high and mass culture can also be seen in other areas of discourse from philosophy to literature, where normal discourse theory has been replaced by “a kind of writing simply called ‘theory’ which is all or none of those things at once” (193). Jameson considers this phenomenon (which he calls ‘theoretical discourse’) to be a sign of postmodernism and an example of the merging culture.
In order to clarify his point he says he will discuss two examples that he labels “pastiche” and “schizophrenia”. He first undertakes to clarify the term pastiche from its closely related cousin parody. He plainly explains their difference as such, “Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a particular or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language; but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody’s ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic” (195).
Pastiche reflects postmodernism and our current social atmosphere by examining “death of the subject”, which is what Jameson refers to in his definition of pastiche being a humorless imitation of dead language. He explains that the modernists felt like they were doing something new, something individual. Jameson states, and he says many agree with him, that this sense of the individual in the postmodern is gone. This theory, that there is no longer individualism, has two main positions. First, because we are in an age of corporate capitalism, the “older bourgeois individual subject no longer exists” (195). This is in contrast with competitive capitalism that allowed for a sense of individualism in the modernist era. The second position is that the idea of individuality didn’t even exist in the past or in the modern era, it in fact never existed at all. The idea of the individual “is merely a philosophical and cultural mystification which sought to persuade people that they ‘had’ individual subjects and possessed this unique personal identity” (195).
Jameson feels that these two positions are beside the point. Regardless of these positions, if there is no longer individualism, then, Jameson feels, “it is no longer clear what artists and writers of the present period are supposed to be doing”(196). Everything that can be said has already been said. Artists today must only comment or reproduce past art. This will inevitably be a bad time for art, or as he puts it, “the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past” (196).
To further his point he gives examples in film. He wants to make it clear that he is not just talking about high culture being dead, but also mass culture. To do this, he talks about nostalgia film, which he sees as remaking the past, namely pastiche. This is not only represented in what we would consider historical-type films. He gives the example of Star Wars, explaining that this is pastiche because the general construct of the film is directly mimicking the plots and provoking the same emotions of older films and TV shows of the 1930’s-1950’s.
Jameson further explains that this nostalgia/pastiche, as a representation of postmodernism, reflects a problem with the current cultures inability to represent their own time. We cannot see and feel our current existence for what it is, but are only able to relate to it through the past. Jameson says, “If there is any realism left here it is a ‘realism’ which springs from the shock of grasping that confinement and of realizing that, for whatever peculiar reasons, we seem condemned to seek the historical past through our own pop images and stereotypes about the past, which itself remains forever out of reach” (198).
From the discussion of pastiche and his film examples, Jameson moves to a critique of postmodern buildings. He is here trying to show that the same inability to feel the present as represented in nostalgia films, can be shown in our inability to relate to postmodern architecture.
As a result of our not being able to move into our new era, Jameson believes we are unable to match the “originality of postmodernist space” (198). The ability to have anything original in the postmodern era seems to contrast his previous point. However, Jameson makes his point, stating, “My implication is that we ourselves, the human subjects who happen into this new space, have not kept pace with that evolution; there has been a mutation in the object, unaccompanied as yet by any equivalent mutation in the subject; we do not yet possess the perceptual equipment to match this new hyperspace, as I will call it, in part because our perceptual habits were formed in that older kind of space I have called the space of high modernism” (198).
He illustrates this point with the example of the Bonaventure Hotel. Using the example of this ultra post-modern space he explains the various complexities and comments on how we just don’t get it. The result of this inability to understand the space results in it being changed, “recently, colour coding and directional signals have been added in a pitiful and revealing, rather desperate attempt to restore the coordinates of an older space” (201), one in which we would be more able to understand.
Jameson next moves to what he calls the new machine. In this example he uses the novel Dispatches by Michael Herr. He remarks that the novel, being highly innovative, remains postmodern. He uses this novel to explain a different space, postmodern warfare, that is equally innovative, and possibly we are to assume as misunderstood, as Portman’s building. His conclusion is, “In this new machine (shown in a Dispatches text example), which does not, like the older modernist machinery of the locomotive or the airplane, represent motion, but which can only be represented in motion something of the mystery of the new postmodernist space is concentrated” (203).
In conclusion, Jameson tries to tie all of his ideas of modernism and postmodernism to cultural production and consumer society. In his conclusion he argues that the main components that made modernism what it was, was that it was outwardly dismissed and hated by the masses. It was not part of the mass culture and was therefore able to be honest and real and showcase the individual. He seems to be saying that because current culture is marketed to the masses, this type of realism is not longer attainable. He says, “I believe that the emergence of postmodernism is closely related to the emergence of this new moment of late, consumer or multinational capitalism” (204). He is clearly dissatisfied with current culture and its constant obliging to the masses. Modernism was described as “critical, negative, contestatory, subversive, oppositional and the like” (205). Jameson wonders, and really hopes, that post modernism can find a way to do the same. If the current cultural trends were more subversive, it might allow for more individualism.
Comments
The definition that Jameson is able to construct of postmodernism is a very interesting one. This seems to be a time of various ideas of postmodernism, so it is nice to read an article that tries to both explain the concept and relate it to the general society. While it is nice get a theory, this one is definitely depressing. To actually believe that there is no original thought in our own era is incredibly depressing. While I am trying to fight this definition, while reading this essay and writing this abstract, I was not really able to think of anything current that could not be considered a remake or had it’s origin in the past. I am not giving up! While I may be entirely wrong, there just has to be some hope or some example of original thought. Can we think of any?
The essay itself is a bit difficult to understand and follow. I believe the reason for this is shown in the first endnote, “The present text combines elements of two previously published essays” (205). I don’t really know if the author put this together himself, or if it was done for him. However, after having read this note, the obvious structural problems of the essay seem to make more sense. The essay is generally hard to follow after “The nostalgia mode” section. Also, at the end of the first section he promises to give the description of his topic using two key features, pastiche and schizophrenia. We hear a lot of pastiche, but that is the last time we see the word schizophrenia.
Questions
Did anyone else find the structure or his examples a little difficult to understand under his general thesis?
Do we buy the idea that the postmodern can be basically described as not having an individual voice?
Does the problem really lie in the fact that our current culture seems to be permissive of about anything? That there not being a real point of contesting is the main problem?
Abstract by Patricia Little
Description
The essay entitled “Postmodernism and consumer society” by Fredric Jameson, attempts to clarify the concept of postmodernism. Jameson’s goal in this essay is to show how postmodernism is opposed to modernism in not just themes of art and literature, but also how these differences show themselves in the general culture.
For Jameson the postmodern has two main characteristics. Firstly, he believes that the postmodern is directly influenced by the negation of its previous epoch, modernism. In order for something to be postmodern it, “Emerge[s] as specific reaction against established forms of high modernism…This means that there will be as many different forms of postmodernism as there were high modernisms in place, since the former are at least initially specific and local reactions against those models” (192). And secondly, a key feature of postmodernism is that the lines between high and popular culture are gone or at least beginning to fade. This incorporation of high and mass culture can also be seen in other areas of discourse from philosophy to literature, where normal discourse theory has been replaced by “a kind of writing simply called ‘theory’ which is all or none of those things at once” (193). Jameson considers this phenomenon (which he calls ‘theoretical discourse’) to be a sign of postmodernism and an example of the merging culture.
In order to clarify his point he says he will discuss two examples that he labels “pastiche” and “schizophrenia”. He first undertakes to clarify the term pastiche from its closely related cousin parody. He plainly explains their difference as such, “Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a particular or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language; but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody’s ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic” (195).
Pastiche reflects postmodernism and our current social atmosphere by examining “death of the subject”, which is what Jameson refers to in his definition of pastiche being a humorless imitation of dead language. He explains that the modernists felt like they were doing something new, something individual. Jameson states, and he says many agree with him, that this sense of the individual in the postmodern is gone. This theory, that there is no longer individualism, has two main positions. First, because we are in an age of corporate capitalism, the “older bourgeois individual subject no longer exists” (195). This is in contrast with competitive capitalism that allowed for a sense of individualism in the modernist era. The second position is that the idea of individuality didn’t even exist in the past or in the modern era, it in fact never existed at all. The idea of the individual “is merely a philosophical and cultural mystification which sought to persuade people that they ‘had’ individual subjects and possessed this unique personal identity” (195).
Jameson feels that these two positions are beside the point. Regardless of these positions, if there is no longer individualism, then, Jameson feels, “it is no longer clear what artists and writers of the present period are supposed to be doing”(196). Everything that can be said has already been said. Artists today must only comment or reproduce past art. This will inevitably be a bad time for art, or as he puts it, “the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past” (196).
To further his point he gives examples in film. He wants to make it clear that he is not just talking about high culture being dead, but also mass culture. To do this, he talks about nostalgia film, which he sees as remaking the past, namely pastiche. This is not only represented in what we would consider historical-type films. He gives the example of Star Wars, explaining that this is pastiche because the general construct of the film is directly mimicking the plots and provoking the same emotions of older films and TV shows of the 1930’s-1950’s.
Jameson further explains that this nostalgia/pastiche, as a representation of postmodernism, reflects a problem with the current cultures inability to represent their own time. We cannot see and feel our current existence for what it is, but are only able to relate to it through the past. Jameson says, “If there is any realism left here it is a ‘realism’ which springs from the shock of grasping that confinement and of realizing that, for whatever peculiar reasons, we seem condemned to seek the historical past through our own pop images and stereotypes about the past, which itself remains forever out of reach” (198).
From the discussion of pastiche and his film examples, Jameson moves to a critique of postmodern buildings. He is here trying to show that the same inability to feel the present as represented in nostalgia films, can be shown in our inability to relate to postmodern architecture.
As a result of our not being able to move into our new era, Jameson believes we are unable to match the “originality of postmodernist space” (198). The ability to have anything original in the postmodern era seems to contrast his previous point. However, Jameson makes his point, stating, “My implication is that we ourselves, the human subjects who happen into this new space, have not kept pace with that evolution; there has been a mutation in the object, unaccompanied as yet by any equivalent mutation in the subject; we do not yet possess the perceptual equipment to match this new hyperspace, as I will call it, in part because our perceptual habits were formed in that older kind of space I have called the space of high modernism” (198).
He illustrates this point with the example of the Bonaventure Hotel. Using the example of this ultra post-modern space he explains the various complexities and comments on how we just don’t get it. The result of this inability to understand the space results in it being changed, “recently, colour coding and directional signals have been added in a pitiful and revealing, rather desperate attempt to restore the coordinates of an older space” (201), one in which we would be more able to understand.
Jameson next moves to what he calls the new machine. In this example he uses the novel Dispatches by Michael Herr. He remarks that the novel, being highly innovative, remains postmodern. He uses this novel to explain a different space, postmodern warfare, that is equally innovative, and possibly we are to assume as misunderstood, as Portman’s building. His conclusion is, “In this new machine (shown in a Dispatches text example), which does not, like the older modernist machinery of the locomotive or the airplane, represent motion, but which can only be represented in motion something of the mystery of the new postmodernist space is concentrated” (203).
In conclusion, Jameson tries to tie all of his ideas of modernism and postmodernism to cultural production and consumer society. In his conclusion he argues that the main components that made modernism what it was, was that it was outwardly dismissed and hated by the masses. It was not part of the mass culture and was therefore able to be honest and real and showcase the individual. He seems to be saying that because current culture is marketed to the masses, this type of realism is not longer attainable. He says, “I believe that the emergence of postmodernism is closely related to the emergence of this new moment of late, consumer or multinational capitalism” (204). He is clearly dissatisfied with current culture and its constant obliging to the masses. Modernism was described as “critical, negative, contestatory, subversive, oppositional and the like” (205). Jameson wonders, and really hopes, that post modernism can find a way to do the same. If the current cultural trends were more subversive, it might allow for more individualism.
Comments
The definition that Jameson is able to construct of postmodernism is a very interesting one. This seems to be a time of various ideas of postmodernism, so it is nice to read an article that tries to both explain the concept and relate it to the general society. While it is nice get a theory, this one is definitely depressing. To actually believe that there is no original thought in our own era is incredibly depressing. While I am trying to fight this definition, while reading this essay and writing this abstract, I was not really able to think of anything current that could not be considered a remake or had it’s origin in the past. I am not giving up! While I may be entirely wrong, there just has to be some hope or some example of original thought. Can we think of any?
The essay itself is a bit difficult to understand and follow. I believe the reason for this is shown in the first endnote, “The present text combines elements of two previously published essays” (205). I don’t really know if the author put this together himself, or if it was done for him. However, after having read this note, the obvious structural problems of the essay seem to make more sense. The essay is generally hard to follow after “The nostalgia mode” section. Also, at the end of the first section he promises to give the description of his topic using two key features, pastiche and schizophrenia. We hear a lot of pastiche, but that is the last time we see the word schizophrenia.
Questions
Did anyone else find the structure or his examples a little difficult to understand under his general thesis?
Do we buy the idea that the postmodern can be basically described as not having an individual voice?
Does the problem really lie in the fact that our current culture seems to be permissive of about anything? That there not being a real point of contesting is the main problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
