ecogradients

a public voice for interdisciplinary educators, artists, writers, and thinkers. based in New York City & broadcasting on electrostatic frequencies worldwide...

“Adaptation as Occupation: Tim Burtons’s Adaption of Washington Irving’s Tale, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” by Clarissa Dayton. 

chestnut

-Washington Irving’s 300 year old Horse Chestnut.

Among the more popular American ghost tales is The Legend of Sleepy Hollow — the story of Ichabod Crane and the town people of Sleepy Hollow, a small, sleepy Dutch colonial village nestled on the banks of the Hudson River.  The village still exists today and neighbors the town of Tarrytown, NY – the hometown of the story’s author, Washington Irving.  His home, Sunnyside, still stands on Irving’s originally purchased land.  The great American author designed Sunnyside himself and lived there from the 1830’s until his death in 1859.  It is now a historic home and museum site where docents, dressed in period costumes of the 1850’s, offer tours to pubic groups and school children.   

Sunnyside had also served as a research site for Tim Burton’s 1999 movie entitled, Sleepy Hollow, starring Johnny Depp.   The titles may be quite similar; however, Burton’s interpretation of the ghost story differ considerably from that of Irving’s in terms of character depth and story line — which leads us to wonder whether or not the docents would validate Tim Burton’s production by incorporating into their tours as a useful learning tool.  Would trained experts on Washington Irving be willing to give their historical presentation an update by incorporating modern film adaptation based on classic and/or historic literature?  Does a historic living museum, need to live only in its designated historic period in order to help school children better understand the accomplishments of those who lived there centuries ago or can it step into the 21st century to enhance a child’s learning?  

To find out, the author talked with the docents – asking them what they thought of Burton’s modern day interpretation.  Docent training at Sunnyside has traditionally been paper-based in its entirety.  All research is conducted using an onsite library, which did not have a computer until approximately 2009.  With no exposure or consciousness toward cinematic or computerized imagery, how can an educational institution educate children who use media inside and outside the classroom on a daily basis?

Working with a group of historical interpreters, I feared most of them would not be open to Burton’s modern narrative.  Wearing period costumes of the 1850’s, the docents are steeped in tradition. As traditionalists, would they insist on a more orthodox delivery of the tale?  I discovered my fears were wrong.  The docents accepted the modern interpretation and embraced the contrasts offered by Burton’s dark cinematic narrative.  As one docent said, “Both Irving and Burton are interpreting the same story within their own contemporary social narratives.  Burton is the modern day Irving!”

Katherine

Katherine, a college student from New York stated,  

Tim Burton’s story line was not very similar to Irving’s classic tale.  I think Burton’s purpose was different than Irving’s.  Burton’s interpretation was trying to tell a scary tale, I don’t think that was Irving’s intention.” When asked if she thought the movie could be used as an educational tool at Sunnyside, Katherine responded, “I think it could be.”

Anne

Other staff members had similar and interesting responses to the questions. Sunnyside Site Manager, Anne, noted its potential educational significance:

The storyline was very dissimilar to Irving’s tale.  Burton did not capture Irving’s intended interpretation of the tale due to the extreme variation of the storyline.  That being said, Irving’s classic tale was in itself an interpretation of local folklore he heard as a boy spending time in the Tarrytown area.  In a sense, Tim Burton was following Irving’s example by giving the story his own spin. 

She added,

“I think it could be used if only to spark an interest in Irving and the 19th century. Tim Burton’s version of the story does pose an interesting contrast to Irving’s story, which can be a useful lesson in writing.”

Robert

Robert, from Yonkers had much to say.  He saw the film, enjoyed it and also had a keen interpretation of the image narratives, as he explained,

In a way, it was similar because there was a closed off and isolated sense of community that was shown by Burton and reflective in Irving’s original tale.  Irving wrote that the town’s people were closed off.  They didn’t want Ichabod around.  Burton gave a menacing look to the town.  The movie is very ‘Irvinian.’

There were differences, but Burton celebrated those differences.  Burton captured the darkness of the tale that Irving had devised and did away with overly descriptive narrative that is typical of 19th century depictions of various things such as a dinner table laden with food.  However, there’s one major inaccuracy in Burton’s setting – the Hudson is on the wrong side!”

Robert also added,

I think the film could be utilized as a learning tool here at Sunnyside because if students see the movie and they find out more about Irving and who he is, we will be able to introduce more information to the children.

We should ask ourselves this — would Irving be upset with this movie?  I don’t think so. I think Burton was doing the same thing as Irving.  He [Irving] used a certain social context to made a comfortable life for himself and his family. Irving would most likely approve of Burton’s interpretation because it’s Burton’s own utilization of the modern social context of his day.  Simply stating, Burton uses a modern interpretation. Today in the Sleepy Hollow area, people regard Irving as a deity. However, both Irving and Burton are using the social contexts of their day to tell the same story.

Bethany

Bethany, from Cortland Manor, also saw the movie and like the others, noted its distinct contrasts. When discussing the educational aspects of the film at Sunnyside, she reflected on the following:

Overall I think it is a great tool for children.  It is always good for them to get a reference to the present.  The movie can be used that way.  Some references are correct from book to film.  I already discuss the film in my tours.  Children light up when they hear me talk about Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They can relate to it and it excites them. Nineteenth century Romanticism may not be the most exciting topic for a 10 year old, but when you mention Burton’s film, they get hungry for more information.

The docents were open to Burton’s modern interpretation of the story’s main characters. They felt Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Ichabod Crane, although distinctly different from that of Irving’s, showed an interesting contrast, while Christina Ricci’s depiction of Katrina had a feminist quality they found intriguing.   Yet the docents felt that Christopher Walken’s portrayal of the Headless Horseman failed to have the mystique of Irving’s original apparition, due to the frightening facial images depicted in the movie.

Their perception of the film’s feasibility of incorporation into their school tour shows that they recognize the educational value of Burton’s contrasts.  Interpretations of history at historic sites may not only be restricted to antiquated methodologies. Modern interpretations, with their contrasting images and concepts can be just as effective. The docents understand that the 1999 horror film can serve as a modern media gateway to children’s curiosity.

Burton’s ‘otherness” of modern darkness and the macabre makes the story stand out for children and adolescents, allowing them to become a receptive community to further explore Irving and his time.  Moreover, a good number of docents believed Burton’s personal process using his own social context to tell the tale gives a sense of authenticity to the story.  Despite considerable contrasts, many docents saw an acceptable balance of Irving’s story dynamics kept intact within Burton’s adaptation, which makes for successful adaptation of popular literature.

If we ask whether or not a 20th/ 21st century film interpretation, with its modified storyline, can deliver the same thematic messages found in a highly regarded piece of classic literature, the answer appears to be “mostly yes.”  Various facets of modern cinematic interpretation with its “otherness” may be utilized as an educational tool in a historic setting to help define a classic literary work as long as the central interrelationships and dynamics of the original story are balanced. 

The docents did not agree on everything.  One docent (a senior), showed a resistance toward Burton’s modern interpretation and dismissed the film, yet the other seven docents were open to it.  With this, it may be argued that a modern film adaptation does not need to follow traditional storyline orthodoxy in order to effectively represent the text found in any literary classic – and in doing so, such media may be utilized as an effective educational tool, and allow history to embrace the future.
Feb 27

“Quite Handsomely Manifest: noticing what one’s noticing notices for to more fully reside within the immediate wor(l)d” by Patrick Scanlon.  Photos, “Downtown Bklyn” by Blake Seidenshaw.

“Moreover, this power [that language has to hide itself] which language exercises by communicating to us the illusion of immediacy when in fact it gives us only the habitual, makes us believe that the immediate is familiar (… as not the most terrible thing which out to overwhelm us).”  -Maurice Blanchot (The Space of Literature).

Part I:  The Subsequent Ignoring

With boredom, one is often considered unoccupied.  Typically, this state appears to reflect some manner of passivity on the part of this or that particular person.  There seems to be an emptiness that may be, I imagine, fairly accurate.  What is more difficult to distinguish is whether this lack is an endpoint or rather a symptom, the result of a specific positioning, a stance toward oneself and the surrounding phenomena. Although students do not have a monopoly on boredom, they do seem to utilize this term more frequently than other groups.  Or perhaps, they have, with more devotion, made it their rallying cry.  I have seen it function as both a call for help and as a chastisement for a particular lecture or assignment.  Due to the term’s ambiguity, perhaps a result of students’ innumerable uses, their frequency of use, I have begun to study the situation in which one finds oneself bored.  Toward this end, I am trying to discover by what mechanism one finds his or herself unoccupied, hoping to locate the precise place of the (un)occupation. 

Actually, this last statement is not entirely true.  I just sort of made that up.  I am not, however, entirely unpleased with it. More accurately, I have worked backwards, beginning with what might be considered the opposite of boredom: fascination.  And, really even this is not quite true either.  Perhaps the inaccuracy does not matter.  I guess there was a faulty intent and as a result a subsequent difficulty in laying out this premise.  Truth be told (as much truth that can be told in this brief lingual expression) I secretly teach poetry to my composition classes at a community college in Syracuse NY.  It is through both the secrecy, about which I am totally half joking, and the implications of the poetic that boredom has surfaced.  The main issue toward which I employ poetry involves the invisibility of language, and the subsequent ignoring of all that to which the words refer.  Boredom seemed to surface primarily as a lack of access to our thoughts, to our work, to our words, and to our world. 

The lack of occupation, which boredom implies, signifies not a simple emptiness or passivity regarding one’s agency or capacity to act, but rather a hyper occupation of one’s external (and internal) situation. What is the mechanism by which the surrounding phenomena – including one’s internal sensations, breath, thought, heartbeat, tiredness – become closed, and unable to provide any interest, nor any room for participation?  It is my opinion that language, or more precisely the habitual employment of language, may be the most significant factor.  What is language believed to be? What is it believed to do?  The previous question certainly requires much more space than this brief essay has at its disposal.  This fact is not a problem for the most relevant answer is brief anyhow: typically, according to my students (and even the ones with facility), language is NOT believed to be. It is, to varying degrees, invisible.  In the words of the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Language is marvelous in that it makes us forget it” (Cultural Politics of Tel Quel p. 82).

“I am the face.  She has to know me.  I’m dressed up better than anyone within a mile.”  -“Jimmy” (from Pete Townsend’s Quadraphenia).

Part II: In Elongated Look

In order to consider the second question, What is language believed to do?, I will enlist another French philosopher, another Maurice.  According to Maurice Blanchot,

“Language acts as if we were able to see the thing from all sides.”

He continues,

“And then begins the perversion.  Speech no longer presents itself as speech, but as sight freed from the limitations of sight … The novelist lifts up the rooftops and gives his characters over to a penetrating gaze.  His error is to take language as not just another vision but an absolute one” (The Infinite Conversation p. 28-29). 

Once Blanchot has brought attention to the embedded assumption of speech/writing as absolute sight, he offers another sphere in which sight functions differently, or where the event of sight expresses more openly the complexities of sight and their effect on understanding, literally and metaphorically. 

This other sphere is dreaming.  As in the relationship described above, speech seems to do what sight does, or be what sight is: it works in the distance between what sees and what is seen.  Blanchot explains

“Seeing pre-supposes only a measured and measurable separation: to see is certainly always to see at a distance, but by allowing distance to give back what it removes from us” (28). 

But the dream, according to Blanchot,

“reveals by re-veiling… It implies a reversal of the possibility of seeing.  To see in a dream is to be fascinated, and fascination arises when, far from apprehending from a distance, we are apprehended by this distance.”

Here, distance is not so easily assumed; it not only remains, passively, but delights, inspires curiosity: Ah the perceptive faculty in elongated look, the remnants of which are expressed in the re/telling of the dream – large eyes searching, head shaking off what seems impossible arrangements of meaning. Dreaming may suspend or confuse the typical relationships between word and idea/thing.  As a result, one may not so automatically transcend the material word (signifier) and proceed uninhibited to its referent (signified).

I am not recommending for one to push dreaming and waking life together, to force some illusionary sameness, for I wonder if waking life would be tolerable or could even function if it were as confused and blurry as dreams often seem.  Rather, the bizarre and strange of dreaming (the fascination and non-recoupable distance) if allowed, might expose the bizarre and strange inherent to more typical, yet less obvious instances of language use.  The strangeness that stretches perception, and implies the truly otherness and unknown of that which faces one creates, with brilliant shine and shear, a surface. This surface testifies to the fact that one cannot, especially through basic functions of language like naming and recognizing, assume any complex understanding/understanding of the entity and thus, one cannot consume it.  The result of this difficulty may be a greater chance to embody the space and distance, to realize more authentic separation and distinction.  I am finding in my classes that our capacity to differentiate is less and less developed.  The following questions, fundamental for not only scholastic endeavors, but perhaps even for becoming healthy and happy individuals, require an effort and skill that is lacking: What is me? What is not me? Where do I begin and the other (the collection of lovers, mothers, brothers, things, saints and sinners) end?

“One should have more respect for the bashfulness with which nature has hidden behind riddles and iridescent uncertainties.  Perhaps truth is a woman who has reasons for not letting us see her reasons? …  Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live.  What is required for that is to stop courageously at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms, tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial – out of profundity.”  -Nietzsche (from Sarah Kofman’s Camera Obscura of Ideology).

Part III: Allegiance to the Known

However unfortunate and detrimental, this inaccessibility does seem reasonable in light of the necessary, though compulsive emphasis that elementary/secondary schooling places on naming and identifying as end goals.  The fixity of the familiar, or the assumption of knowledge that the familiar represents, can prevent access to the more complex and particular relationships embedded in the text/self/scene. This allegiance to the known, and limited conception of what is required for something to be known, seldom elicits the curiosity and mystery necessary for any sincere scholastic endeavor. Once “known,” or assumed, the text/self/world is too easily consumed: the flux and pulse, the reciprocal relationship between these fields is solidified, frozen and ultimately no longer worth any attention. 

In addition to what I have just characterized (in broad sense) as passivity to the conditions that order composition, the my classes simultaneously exhibit a more active desire to transcend those “ordinary” or “casual” concepts of knowledge that we have built throughout our education.  In other words, there is also the belief that the “correct” or “deep” or “desirable” answer is other:  It is not in the words of the story facing us, nor in the words that constitute our casual interpretation, in that language that we’ve worked so hard to acquire.  Certainly there is some truth to the otherness of insight; however, as William James contends, all knowledge (even of the past) is held within the experience of the present (A primer for the gradual understanding of Gertrude Stein p. 43). And this experience of the present is, to a significant degree, constituted through language. The question that has helped us work to embody our speech has been “What do we notice?” No matter how basic our answer to this question, it helps us begin to differentiate and make decisions: the “no” necessary for to “know.”  The next question that follows and usual leads to some of the most interesting dialogue is “What does our noticing notice?” 

Poetry, at least certain types, embraces or even, more actively, makes language strange, stretches one’s attention.  It creates space between the word and the world, or at least operates in that territory before and around the thing.  According to Steve McCaffrey, “Language Poet,” this quality of being strange, mysterious, and not easily or totally understood generates “A presentness promoted by diminished consumption” (The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book, p. 162).  Faced with a poem and its treatment of phenomena, we must look again, must come to a halt before them, and maybe even return to ourselves, the source of our perception.  For when our attention finds and stays with a surface, it may be reflected back toward us revealing our own boundaries and make-up. To be attentive to the surface is not to preclude the possibility of intimacy, of union, of depth but rather to be attuned and available to the inherent dignity and decency of the forms and shapes within which we move. And if, we are invited to touch the surface, to wade in it, then we will “enter” with greater equivalence and consciousness.

“Secret meaning is not a hidden layer, but a hidden organization of the surface. Not latent, but quite handsomely manifest.” -Bruce Andrews (Paradise and Method).

Part IV:  Deliberately Almost

And in this case, what constitutes the fine surface before you,
covering the real, was formerly ordering a field of leaves into a
line whose current index—the result of wrapping leaf over leaf,
thin spiny bands attached sequentially—enlists roundness itself.

The snake eating its tail: a circle whose obviousness cannot stand
in this wind succumbing to the movement of attention and intention,
turning and returning slightly stranger – at times deliberately almost
and thus must, with increasing precision, admit the most open of
secrets: the circle remains, always already, in full spiral.

Out of generosity we are converted through the curves in
conversation and subsequent contact have become lit, as it were,
traveling indefinitely by virtue of heat’s light and of light’s advice
until met, in this case, with a forest of sorts recently reamed and
shelved for to collect the general resonance of education proper.

And now, considering the schooly slumber, this particular scene
of vibratory comfort, through incidental or courteous means, may
eventually demonstrate, as a composition what’s required of us, as
a composition.  Here, vulnerable to our own specific manners of
operation, our combinatory frequencies we invigorate while being
distributed more willingly, in fluid stretch, in interruption.
Feb 25

“Drugged Out Nation” by Alexandra Margevich.

Have a headache? Take an Advil. Feeling blue? Take a Prozac. Feeling shy? Take a Xanax. Having trouble focusing? Take an Adderall. There is a drug for almost everything these days. The line between over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medications is receding. Obtaining prescription drugs is easier than ever. The ease of popping a pill is often preferred to the lengthy process of therapy. Drugs are also often used for purposes other than that for which they were designed. It is about time we stop, take a step back, and consider the reasons for the over-prescription, misuse and overuse of various pharmaceuticals. We need to think more carefully about what (and why) we are putting into our bodies.

Misplaced Faith

As a nation, we are jaded by a blind faith in drug advertising, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for drug approval, and published reports in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) about the latest and greatest drugs.  Although standards for medical and clinical research are enforced by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other ethics agencies, many results fail to be replicated or are contradicted in later research. One study looked at 49 commonly referenced clinical research trials to examine the interpretability of published research results. Dr. John Ioannidis concluded that, “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes.” This is a bit unsettling to the common understanding of medical research. We tend to trust that when the New York Times tells us that a rigorous study published in a well-respected journal revealed the efficacy of a new miracle drug for some physical or mental ailment, we can take the results at face value. Apparently this is not so. In many published studies, benefits may also be overemphasized while costs are underemphasized.

Another point of concern is who is funding the studies we read about. Published positive outcomes are more commonly found in studies in which funding was provided by the manufacturer of the drug under study. This is inherently biased. In a similar vein, drug companies can selectively choose not to publish results that are not favorable towards the use of their drug. Politics influences what is and what is not published. The safety of the consumer is not always the main consideration. Pharmaceutical companies are also allowed to pay doctors to endorse their drugs. Patients need to be aware of these caveats.

The Food and Drug Administration is another culprit in the overuse of drugs by our nation. The FDA is responsible for regulating an advertising tactic known as direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. This form of advertising is exactly as it sounds: advertising aimed at the consumer rather than the medical professionals. This is the type of advertising most of us are familiar with. When you see an ad for Zoloft on TV, you are witnessing DTC advertising. It channels its influence through various forms of publicly accessible media. Unfortunately, these advertisements may put too much control in the hands of the consumer and paint incomplete pictures of the drugs they are marketing. It is not uncommon for patients to present to a doctor with a request for a name-brand drug they saw in an ad. DTC advertising standards need to be more stringent to reflect our nation’s pattern of drug (mis)use.

A different issue takes place when consumers use drugs that were not tested for the use for which they are taking the drug. For example, people who experience normal levels of sadness may take serious doses of anti-depressants to improve their mood. Anti-depressants are not tested on sub-clinical populations; they tend to be tested on moderately to severely depressed persons. Therefore, all conclusions about the efficacy and cost-benefit analysis of the drug’s usage are only relevant to those populations. Giving a strong drug to an individual who is not clinically depressed changes the cost-benefit ratio. In the case of drugs like Prozac, suicides may be more likely in these populations. The manufacturers of Prozac and other similar medications have come under fire in the past decade for their overuse and negative consequences (e.g., youth suicides).

Substance Use, Abuse and Dependence

Substance misuse may be experienced as a personal issue, but it is taking place at an increasingly societal level. The use of any substance can occur along a continuum, ranging from use to dependence. Dependence (what most people are referring to when they use the term ‘addiction’) is the worst form of substance misuse, because it connotes a physical need for drug consumption. Persons become tolerant of the substance, and must take more and more to achieve the desired effect. When drug use is ceased, users go into withdrawal, and in extreme cases, their systems are so shocked by the absence of the active chemicals that they die.

The consequences of using and misusing drugs do not always reach this point, but the fact that this possibility exists with any active drug should be cause enough for concern. People tend to believe that addiction is most commonly associated with alcohol or illegal narcotics, such as cocaine, heroine and ecstasy to name a few. However, people abuse a number of prescription (e.g., pain relievers) and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. I went to a CVS pharmacy in suburban New Jersey the other day to buy Dayquil for a cold, and was shocked when the cashier asked for my ID. When I asked why she needed my ID, she responded that you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase this medication. Apparently, kids between the ages of 12 and 17 have increasingly been using cough and cold medications to get high. I could not believe what was happening. I have been ID’d for cigarettes, for club entry, for alcohol purchase, and now, for Dayquil.

This anecdote seems like a bad joke, but it illustrates the potential for any medication to be misused. In this instance, the misuse the pharmacy was attempting to deter was of an intentional nature; kids were choosing to dope up on cough medicine. But in the instances I mentioned in the previous section, misuse can often be a result of inappropriate endorsement, advertising, and misplaced faith in government agencies and medical journals. Whichever the path, the end is wrought with danger.

The Pharmakon

There is no such thing as a completely benign drug. Medicine is like a double-edged sword: it can heal and it can harm. In Jacques Derrida’s essay, Plato’s Pharmacy, Derrida introduces the reader to the concept of the pharmakon. This Greek term holds two meanings: “cure/medicine” and “poison.” We can meaningfully apply the idea of the pharmakon to the modern use of pharmaceuticals.

This essay is not meant to vilify the use of drugs. Nay, when used properly, medicine provides a huge benefit to the sick. My mother, for example, has Lupus. She needs to take corticosteroids and a slew of other medications every day. If she did not have these medications at her disposal, it would be incredibly difficult for her to manage her illness.

The problem, as I have highlighted throughout this essay, is when people fail to use drugs properly. This may include abuse, over-reliance on the efficacy of medicine, and the over-prescription of drugs. In these cases, drugs shift from being a blessing to a curse. They become an unnecessary crutch for society, an easy fix to complex problems.

The issue we face in setting more rigorous standards for the advertisement and usage of medications is understanding who sets the standards. Who determines when it is normal to take medication? Who determines how much we should take? More importantly, who decides the cutoff between hurting and harming?

The solution to these questions does not lie in the power of a singular agency such as the FDA (although policy makers might like to believe so).  Society plays a huge role in delineating the normal from the abnormal. We are in an age in which the zeitgeist supports the heavy reliance upon medications. Any meaningful change needs to be made not just at the political level, but at the societal level. The public needs to be better educated about the risks of the overuse and misuse of prescription and OTC drugs. These issues do not take the forefront. When you watch the news or read a newspaper, rarely will you read about the overuse of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. What you are more likely to read about is drug trafficking, and the use of illegal narcotics. The misuse of ‘normal’ drugs by ‘normal’ people needs to receive more media attention for people to understand the real issue at hand.

Why We Love Drugs

Life moves at a fast pace. Modern times have brought increasing responsibilities to the average citizen. These burdens are only accentuated in times of financial duress. Between 1967 and 1997, the ability to adjust to major life events has become 45% more difficult (according to a study cited by USA Today). As the average lifespan increases so too do our expenses. Children remain in school longer, and are financially dependent on their parents for longer periods of time. Simultaneously, adults must consider how to manage their finances for mortgage payments, college tuition, medical insurance, and retirement. My parents often joke that they are waiting for me to become financially independent so that they can afford to retire. As much as it pains me to admit, these jokes are clearly a guise for their serious concerns about dealing with the stress of their jobs longer than they were planning so that they can support their 23 year old daughter. Life is tough!With so much time dedicated to making ends meet, it is easy to see how a quick-fix mentality comes to rise. For persons with serious mental issues, attending weekly therapy sessions may not be an option. Therapy costs money and time. These are two things many people cannot afford to sacrifice.  Swallowing a pill once daily is a very appealing option for these persons; pills may cost money, but they do not cost time. The problem is that many of these people need not only pills, but also therapy. Psychopharmaceuticals are meant to be used as an addendum to therapy. It is the therapy that seeks to work out the underlying affective, behavioral and cognitive deficits that perpetuate the illness. If you are only taking pills for your problems and decide to cease usage after experiencing symptom relief, your problems are likely to return. Many people fail to understand this fact. 

Another problem is the self-perpetuating nature of pharmaceutical usage. The more people who use and abuse prescription and OTC drugs, the more normalized the practice becomes. We are becoming a generation of pill poppers. It is no coincidence that younger doctors tend to prescribe medications more readily. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have infiltrated popular culture. 

The Attainability of Perfection

People not only bear the burden of increasing financial demands in modern times, but also bear demands of the individual psyche. Although there is a general understanding that being a little bit quiet, introverted, or shy is a normal part of human behavior, it does not fall along the more desired end of this supposed normal spectrum. Being an extrovert, or an incredibly gregarious and outgoing person, gives you a competitive edge. These qualities are coveted by employers, colleagues, potential mates, etc. It is understandable that people would strive for these traits.

Fortunately, we do not live in an age in which you have to deal with being shy. There are pills for that! People with acute instances of shyness and social anxiety often resort to the use of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. Some people truly do experience levels of social anxiety that are debilitating, and taking medication (at the proper dosage and in conjunction with therapy) is the only way that they can build the courage to interact with others. In this case, medication is necessary and helpful.

However, other people are merely trying to become better versions of themselves. Why deal with being a little bit shy when you can take a Prozac or a Xanax. They cannot accept the fact that they were handed an unfair card in life, that it is not quite as easy for them to be sociable. Changing such an inherent part of their personalities through self-work is not a particularly appealing option. But there are many non-medical solutions to overcoming shyness. Considering all of the work that people must do to get by in society, it is sad that they are not willing (or able) to direct the same effort towards themselves.

Others also use drugs to inoculate themselves against the hardships of everyday life. Sometimes, feeling nothing seems a better option than feeling too much. Anxiolytics can produce a numbing effect when taken unnecessarily or in too high of a dosage. These misuses of drugs to either improve yourself towards some cultural ideal or to numb yourself to the pain of reality are very disconcerting. Medications are used for many reasons. What we need to think about is when we really need them, and when we are taking them for the wrong reasons.

Moving Forward

I hope that this essay has made you think a little bit harder about who we place our faith in, and why we are so quick to accept medication as a solution to innumerable problems. Medicine can be a wonderful thing, and has saved lives. But when used with the level of frivolity that is so common in today’s society, these same helpful drugs can become very dangerous.

We need to rethink our repertoire of problem solving. The easy way isn’t always the best or safest way. Pharmacology is both a blessing and a curse; drugs have helped to cure many diseases and helped people who were on the brink of suicide; but when overprescribed, or inappropriately used, potential costs can outweigh the potential benefits. Consumers need to exert more caution in the substances they put into their bodies; pharmacists and doctors need to make sure drugs will help, and not harm their patients. It is also the responsibility of the patient to make sure that they understand what they are being prescribed, and why they are being prescribed that particular medicine. Until we rethink our consumption of medications, we are destined to remain a drugged out nation.
Feb 25
“Drugged Out Nation” by Alexandra Margevich. Have a headache? Take an Advil. Feeling blue? Take a Prozac. Feeling shy? Take a Xanax. Having trouble focusing? Take an Adderall. There is a drug for almost everything these days. The line between over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medications is receding. Obtaining prescription drugs is easier than ever. The ease of popping a pill is often preferred to the lengthy process of therapy. Drugs are also often used for purposes other than that for which they were designed. It is about time we stop, take a step back, and consider the reasons for the over-prescription, misuse and overuse of various pharmaceuticals. We need to think more carefully about what (and why) we are putting into our bodies. Misplaced Faith As a nation, we are jaded by a blind faith in drug advertising, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for drug approval, and published reports in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) about the latest and greatest drugs.  Although standards for medical and clinical research are enforced by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other ethics agencies, many results fail to be replicated or are contradicted in later research. One study looked at 49 commonly referenced clinical research trials to examine the interpretability of published research results. Dr. John Ioannidis concluded that, “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes.” This is a bit unsettling to the common understanding of medical research. We tend to trust that when the New York Times tells us that a rigorous study published in a well-respected journal revealed the efficacy of a new miracle drug for some physical or mental ailment, we can take the results at face value. Apparently this is not so. In many published studies, benefits may also be overemphasized while costs are underemphasized. Another point of concern is who is funding the studies we read about. Published positive outcomes are more commonly found in studies in which funding was provided by the manufacturer of the drug under study. This is inherently biased. In a similar vein, drug companies can selectively choose not to publish results that are not favorable towards the use of their drug. Politics influences what is and what is not published. The safety of the consumer is not always the main consideration. Pharmaceutical companies are also allowed to pay doctors to endorse their drugs. Patients need to be aware of these caveats. The Food and Drug Administration is another culprit in the overuse of drugs by our nation. The FDA is responsible for regulating an advertising tactic known as direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. This form of advertising is exactly as it sounds: advertising aimed at the consumer rather than the medical professionals. This is the type of advertising most of us are familiar with. When you see an ad for Zoloft on TV, you are witnessing DTC advertising. It channels its influence through various forms of publicly accessible media. Unfortunately, these advertisements may put too much control in the hands of the consumer and paint incomplete pictures of the drugs they are marketing. It is not uncommon for patients to present to a doctor with a request for a name-brand drug they saw in an ad. DTC advertising standards need to be more stringent to reflect our nation’s pattern of drug (mis)use. A different issue takes place when consumers use drugs that were not tested for the use for which they are taking the drug. For example, people who experience normal levels of sadness may take serious doses of anti-depressants to improve their mood. Anti-depressants are not tested on sub-clinical populations; they tend to be tested on moderately to severely depressed persons. Therefore, all conclusions about the efficacy and cost-benefit analysis of the drug’s usage are only relevant to those populations. Giving a strong drug to an individual who is not clinically depressed changes the cost-benefit ratio. In the case of drugs like Prozac, suicides may be more likely in these populations. The manufacturers of Prozac and other similar medications have come under fire in the past decade for their overuse and negative consequences (e.g., youth suicides). Substance Use, Abuse and Dependence Substance misuse may be experienced as a personal issue, but it is taking place at an increasingly societal level. The use of any substance can occur along a continuum, ranging from use to dependence. Dependence (what most people are referring to when they use the term ‘addiction’) is the worst form of substance misuse, because it connotes a physical need for drug consumption. Persons become tolerant of the substance, and must take more and more to achieve the desired effect. When drug use is ceased, users go into withdrawal, and in extreme cases, their systems are so shocked by the absence of the active chemicals that they die. The consequences of using and misusing drugs do not always reach this point, but the fact that this possibility exists with any active drug should be cause enough for concern. People tend to believe that addiction is most commonly associated with alcohol or illegal narcotics, such as cocaine, heroine and ecstasy to name a few. However, people abuse a number of prescription (e.g., pain relievers) and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. I went to a CVS pharmacy in suburban New Jersey the other day to buy Dayquil for a cold, and was shocked when the cashier asked for my ID. When I asked why she needed my ID, she responded that you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase this medication. Apparently, kids between the ages of 12 and 17 have increasingly been using cough and cold medications to get high. I could not believe what was happening. I have been ID’d for cigarettes, for club entry, for alcohol purchase, and now, for Dayquil. This anecdote seems like a bad joke, but it illustrates the potential for any medication to be misused. In this instance, the misuse the pharmacy was attempting to deter was of an intentional nature; kids were choosing to dope up on cough medicine. But in the instances I mentioned in the previous section, misuse can often be a result of inappropriate endorsement, advertising, and misplaced faith in government agencies and medical journals. Whichever the path, the end is wrought with danger. The Pharmakon There is no such thing as a completely benign drug. Medicine is like a double-edged sword: it can heal and it can harm. In Jacques Derrida’s essay, Plato’s Pharmacy, Derrida introduces the reader to the concept of the pharmakon. This Greek term holds two meanings: “cure/medicine” and “poison.” We can meaningfully apply the idea of the pharmakon to the modern use of pharmaceuticals. This essay is not meant to vilify the use of drugs. Nay, when used properly, medicine provides a huge benefit to the sick. My mother, for example, has Lupus. She needs to take corticosteroids and a slew of other medications every day. If she did not have these medications at her disposal, it would be incredibly difficult for her to manage her illness. The problem, as I have highlighted throughout this essay, is when people fail to use drugs properly. This may include abuse, over-reliance on the efficacy of medicine, and the over-prescription of drugs. In these cases, drugs shift from being a blessing to a curse. They become an unnecessary crutch for society, an easy fix to complex problems. The issue we face in setting more rigorous standards for the advertisement and usage of medications is understanding who sets the standards. Who determines when it is normal to take medication? Who determines how much we should take? More importantly, who decides the cutoff between hurting and harming? The solution to these questions does not lie in the power of a singular agency such as the FDA (although policy makers might like to believe so).  Society plays a huge role in delineating the normal from the abnormal. We are in an age in which the zeitgeist supports the heavy reliance upon medications. Any meaningful change needs to be made not just at the political level, but at the societal level. The public needs to be better educated about the risks of the overuse and misuse of prescription and OTC drugs. These issues do not take the forefront. When you watch the news or read a newspaper, rarely will you read about the overuse of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. What you are more likely to read about is drug trafficking, and the use of illegal narcotics. The misuse of ‘normal’ drugs by ‘normal’ people needs to receive more media attention for people to understand the real issue at hand. Why We Love Drugs Life moves at a fast pace. Modern times have brought increasing responsibilities to the average citizen. These burdens are only accentuated in times of financial duress. Between 1967 and 1997, the ability to adjust to major life events has become 45% more difficult (according to a study cited by USA Today). As the average lifespan increases so too do our expenses. Children remain in school longer, and are financially dependent on their parents for longer periods of time. Simultaneously, adults must consider how to manage their finances for mortgage payments, college tuition, medical insurance, and retirement. My parents often joke that they are waiting for me to become financially independent so that they can afford to retire. As much as it pains me to admit, these jokes are clearly a guise for their serious concerns about dealing with the stress of their jobs longer than they were planning so that they can support their 23 year old daughter. Life is tough!With so much time dedicated to making ends meet, it is easy to see how a quick-fix mentality comes to rise. For persons with serious mental issues, attending weekly therapy sessions may not be an option. Therapy costs money and time. These are two things many people cannot afford to sacrifice.  Swallowing a pill once daily is a very appealing option for these persons; pills may cost money, but they do not cost time. The problem is that many of these people need not only pills, but also therapy. Psychopharmaceuticals are meant to be used as an addendum to therapy. It is the therapy that seeks to work out the underlying affective, behavioral and cognitive deficits that perpetuate the illness. If you are only taking pills for your problems and decide to cease usage after experiencing symptom relief, your problems are likely to return. Many people fail to understand this fact.  Another problem is the self-perpetuating nature of pharmaceutical usage. The more people who use and abuse prescription and OTC drugs, the more normalized the practice becomes. We are becoming a generation of pill poppers. It is no coincidence that younger doctors tend to prescribe medications more readily. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have infiltrated popular culture.  The Attainability of Perfection People not only bear the burden of increasing financial demands in modern times, but also bear demands of the individual psyche. Although there is a general understanding that being a little bit quiet, introverted, or shy is a normal part of human behavior, it does not fall along the more desired end of this supposed normal spectrum. Being an extrovert, or an incredibly gregarious and outgoing person, gives you a competitive edge. These qualities are coveted by employers, colleagues, potential mates, etc. It is understandable that people would strive for these traits. Fortunately, we do not live in an age in which you have to deal with being shy. There are pills for that! People with acute instances of shyness and social anxiety often resort to the use of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. Some people truly do experience levels of social anxiety that are debilitating, and taking medication (at the proper dosage and in conjunction with therapy) is the only way that they can build the courage to interact with others. In this case, medication is necessary and helpful. However, other people are merely trying to become better versions of themselves. Why deal with being a little bit shy when you can take a Prozac or a Xanax. They cannot accept the fact that they were handed an unfair card in life, that it is not quite as easy for them to be sociable. Changing such an inherent part of their personalities through self-work is not a particularly appealing option. But there are many non-medical solutions to overcoming shyness. Considering all of the work that people must do to get by in society, it is sad that they are not willing (or able) to direct the same effort towards themselves. Others also use drugs to inoculate themselves against the hardships of everyday life. Sometimes, feeling nothing seems a better option than feeling too much. Anxiolytics can produce a numbing effect when taken unnecessarily or in too high of a dosage. These misuses of drugs to either improve yourself towards some cultural ideal or to numb yourself to the pain of reality are very disconcerting. Medications are used for many reasons. What we need to think about is when we really need them, and when we are taking them for the wrong reasons. Moving Forward I hope that this essay has made you think a little bit harder about who we place our faith in, and why we are so quick to accept medication as a solution to innumerable problems. Medicine can be a wonderful thing, and has saved lives. But when used with the level of frivolity that is so common in today’s society, these same helpful drugs can become very dangerous. We need to rethink our repertoire of problem solving. The easy way isn’t always the best or safest way. Pharmacology is both a blessing and a curse; drugs have helped to cure many diseases and helped people who were on the brink of suicide; but when overprescribed, or inappropriately used, potential costs can outweigh the potential benefits. Consumers need to exert more caution in the substances they put into their bodies; pharmacists and doctors need to make sure drugs will help, and not harm their patients. It is also the responsibility of the patient to make sure that they understand what they are being prescribed, and why they are being prescribed that particular medicine. Until we rethink our consumption of medications, we are destined to remain a drugged out nation.

(hear the rest of the album here.)

When the oceans turn to salt
And the mountains into plains
The Earth will grieve its dying groan
In yr name…

When the lion falls asleep
And the lamb accepts its pain
The vulture turns into the sky
In yr name…

When the family holds its breath
As the mother ends her days
Down the block a child is born
In yr name…

When parents come up short
And children are left out of the frame
Each will play their role to the line
In yr name…

So I do what my body does
‘Cause it never has to explain.
And I do my best not to do any harm
In yr name…

And no matter where I go
And whoever I try to save
Even those that refuse me
They refuse me
In yr name…

So when I’m far from home
Please for me do the same.
When I cross every line you have drawn
I will do it
In yr name…
Feb 25
Feb 25

♫

“Mirror Stages” - text by Blake Seidenshaw, photos by Yossi Zur.

1. What is the Society of the Spectacle?

     The transformation of events into commodities.  This mechanism (commodification) allows the SotS to assimilate all opposition to itself.  How does this transformation occur?  Thru the transcription, the writing, of events; their inscription into a system of commensurabilities; a language. 

     The consolidation of power (Capital) is mirrored by a consolidation of language, of communicability.  But spaces of encryption, codes, languages, can never be definitively consolidated (consolidation is a relative, rather than absolute, determination; a +/- vector).  Changes in the modes of production, in the structures and forms of techniques and their produce, are perpetually opening this gap, augmenting the imperfections of these consolidations, however gradually, intangibly, almost-imperceptibly.    

     To the extent of this reflection’s imperfection, productive events will be incomensurable, ineffable, & almost inscrutable to the Spectacular ‘Eye of Mordor’, which will be unable to focus on them.  This results in the ‘blemish’ in the specular field called objet a by Lacan.

devilhead

2.  Detournement, or “Why do my (perverse) attempts at ‘benevolent (teacherly) egalitarianism’ not always work?”

     Correcting social, or sociostructural (ideological) inequity is not as simple as merely: a) recognizing the complicity implied by one’s ‘role’, and b) ceasing to ‘play’ said role.  Because ‘not playing’ is spectacularly indistinguishable from ‘playing poorly’ (quitting =/= losing).

     If it’s not enough merely to quit, then perhaps one should play not merely for victory, but for transformation; to change the game.  But how?  Step a), recognizing one’s role, is still viable, but we cannot stop there, deceiving ourselves by imagining that we have discovered the truth (via some mystical insight into the ephemeral, divine nature of the self, i.e…); we should rather push this insight further, to examine the inter-supportive structure of identities in all that we observe.  Here we should look for what we could call the ‘fractal dimension’; the ‘seam’ of the game.  This is the axis along which it can be aligned with sub- and super- games with which it shares elements.  Superlative strategies are those with simultaneous (micro & macro) applicabilities.  Selecting such strategies (not identifying them in the abstract, but assuming them within the structure of one’s own behavior).  Such strategies allow one to succeed while consolidating effort and affect.  More energy confers greater perspicuity and resolution, which in turn confer more clues leading to further consolidations. 

congruent quanta

3.  Staging the Spectacle.

     The greatest asset of Occupy Wall St. has been its ambiguity. 

     The Spectacular apparatus is sadomasochistically oriented.  It loves to devour events by transforming them into caricatures.  The bigger the event, the more satisfying it is to assimilate.  But events can only grow & thrive outside of the wasteland of this Spectacular mechanism of transfixion and incorporation.  The Spectacle thus cultivates events in just the same way that Ego cultivates jouissance.  The Nietzschean sadism of Freud’s Pleasure Principle is therefore always being deferred, derailed, misplaced, perverted, and rerouted; detourned by its implacable, complimentary doppleganger, the Death Drive. 

     If the pleasure principle is the law of the Universal (and tendentially divine and omniscient) Subject, that sovereign deity of Enlightenment, which organizes around itself the flawless, Althusserian ideological field such that each interpellated subject will see hirself reflected in hir surroundings (Hobbes), the death drive is the gap in this correspondence, the flaw in the topos, the tain in the mirror.  The pleasure principle is the subject seeking the self-knowledge of a subjectivity that would be full; ‘more myself than I am!’  The death drive is the fascination with the reciprocal: ‘why am I not (already) that?; ‘why am I not me?’

4.  Desiring-Production.

     Capitalist society is organized around the imperative to maximize the pleasure principle and minimize the death drive.  The twin trends of consolidating capital and maximizing profit together represent a vector of increase in the reach and efficiency of the pleasure principle.  Markets are driven by consumption, which is in turn driven by the imperative to satisfy desire.  But desire (being constitutive of the subject ‘in the first place’), is of course unsatiable; it can only be augmented or diminished (‘thinking in terms of tendencies’, Stiegler calls this), and desire’s perpetual diminishment via consumption eventually creates the paradoxical reversal-by-extension of its desire for augmentation.  This is the death drive: the perverse desire for instability, imbalance, imprecision, and innovation; the derivation of events from the disruption of pattern; form from transformation (cf. Malabou).

     This jouissance is like some kind of pure affect, and it is less a psychic than a physiosocial phenomenon.  Inasmuch as the pleasure principle reaffirms the subjective identity, the death drive dissolves it, ruptures it, & transforms it.  The event, as the vehicle of this jouissance, is by definition then traumatic, but its affective determination (i.e. pain as enduring or suffering; catastrophe as comedy or tragedy) is only affixed retroactively (retrospectacularly).  During the ‘untimeliness’ of its unfolding it appears as a radical opening up of possibility; Utopia as Atopia (Bey’s T.A.Z.)!

desiring-production

5.  Form and Structure.

     If Lacan’s Image can be likened to Barthes’ Form, then the Lacanian Symbolic would correspond to Barthesian Structure.  The form/image is, in both cases, necessarily incomplete; in other words, its appearance of completeness is precisely correlable with its degree of dissimilitude.  A ‘perfect’ image/form could have no meaning, because the signified is always of a ‘higher’ (finer) resolution  than its signifier.  Take for example the form of a circle: O -its referent, ‘circularity’, is at once more general & more abstract than its representation.  The ‘circularity’ gestured to by a given circle can accommodate many such gestures, none of which can capture it exhaustively (the map is not the territory).

     The pseudophilosophical speculation as to whether or not ‘perfect’ (Platonic) forms ‘truly exist’ misses the point regarding the functionality of their representatives (it isn’t, and can’t be, clear whether we would have any access to an idea of circularity without ever seeing any gestures that referred us thereto…). 

    The image itself, therefore, effectively contains both its form and its shortfall therefrom.  If the image were in a mirror, this structure would be one of self-identification.

buck dunny

6.  Aporeality.

     The (mirror) image is both the thing and not the thing, the self and not the self.  Subjectification is therefore always dual: part of me sees myself (my ego-ideal) in the Althusserian mirror of reproduction & takes up the position I am called to assume (Narcissus!), while another part, noticing the discrepancy (which is also to say, noticing myself!), moves to close the gap (Echo!); their interplay motivating the ongoing process of transformative re-interpellation, and erupting (drunkenly) into symptomatic expression when repressed.
    While this transformative movement must itself remain inscrutable, the field in which it moves is highly structured, organized according to implicit logics and their incommensurabilities (Foucault’s ‘discourses’).  Here again we come to this point of intersection between the pure affect of experience, the object of Deleuze’s ‘transcendental empiricism’ -the ‘inside’ which is not ‘within’ anything; which is presubjective; not even yet vectoral with desire (which already implies a subject)- and the pure structure of an interformal logic; syntax & grammar; logico-libidinal economies; the omniextensive ‘outside’ which contains nothing; no inside…

     When we see the impossibility of this articulation -this trans-structural & inaeffective conjunction or coupling between omniextensity & immanentensity (which is also to say, between recollection & understanding, between thinking & knowing)- we come closest to an understanding of it…

False Mirror

7.  Tactical Strategies.

     This Situation (which we sometimes call ‘life’) is inherently & profoundly ambivalent.  Because its identification accompanies its conclusion, it is often misunderstood as a process (of) seeking self-identification (Hegel, Nietzsche).  In truth, as much as it seeks itself, it seeks to avoid finding itself, because it is in the act of searching that it is most true to itself; this jouissance reflects the mortal condition: the indissociability of the bright pleasures of existence from their shadows of pain and death.

     The event is therefore perhaps nothing more than a vehicle for feeling, but under the conditions of spectacular capitalism, the simple deferrals of identification that this entails take on momentous proportions, and express extremely high intensities of tactical genius. 

     Tactical as opposed to strategic (more or less following Certeau), because here we mustn’t risk the misunderstanding that we are speaking of a plan that would organize collective actions by pre-specifying them.  Rather, ‘tactics’ would refer to a ‘micropolitical’ (Foucault-wise) sensitivity to semiotic conditions and contexts, without being paralyzed by their complexities.  Intelligence exists at these intersections, whose impossibilities open up onto possibilities that resist calculation and figuration, or even imagination.  Tactical patterns and syntaxes which emerge at this juncture are thus fundamentally unpredictable with regard to scale, speed, and resolvability, and therefore the mimetic mechanism of ‘grassroots’ psychosocial coordination could never yield to capture or control…
Feb 24

“Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.” by Alice Yang. 

          If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton…), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians. 

          Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the  consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim? 

          For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.

          What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V—-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)

          I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)—-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.

          Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.

          But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.

          ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.

          Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.

          This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)

          And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait—she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.

          Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom … comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]… the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?

          As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian).

“We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.

          Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following.

Works Cited:

Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.

Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.” Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13 2011. <http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311>

Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red & Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13 2011.

Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” <http://www.shaviro.com/>

Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.
Feb 24
&#8220;Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.&#8221; by Alice Yang.            If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton&#8230;), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians.            Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the  consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim?            For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.           What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V&#8212;-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)           I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)&#8212;-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.           Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.           But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.           ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.           Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.           This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)           And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait&#8212;she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.           Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom &#8230; comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]&#8230; the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?           As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian). “We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.           Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following. Works Cited: Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.&#8221; Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13&#160;2011. &lt;http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311&gt; Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red &amp; Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13&#160;2011. Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” &lt;http://www.shaviro.com/&gt; Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.

“All the Right Choices: Situated Autonomy in Juno and Precious.” by Courtney Zehnder.

          In her book Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century, Anita Harris critiques two contrasting categories that society currently utilizes to understand and deal with young women, those categories being the “can-do girl” and the “at-risk girl.” In this paper, I seek to analyze two films through Harris’ “can-do” and “at-risk” categories—2007’s Juno and 2009’s Precious. In taking my analysis into the realm of the imaginary—film—I hope to further destabilize the concept of “future girl” that Harris focuses on in her work, painting it as always fictional, constructed, scripted, and directed by societal forces.

          Embedded in both the “can-do” and “at-risk” conceptions of young girls lies an emphasis on the importance of personal choice: the “can-do” girl makes good choices that lead her down a path of health, beauty, and career/economic success while “at-risk” girls make bad choices that limit their options and put them in danger. Valerie Walkerdine warns against relying on this Marxist binary of the ever-powerful and the powerless in her work “Sex, Power, and Pedagogy.” For society, “success and failure are constructed as though they were dependent on strategic effort and good personal choices” (Harris 32). In most respects, one would be quick to put the character of Juno in the “can-do” category, with her embracing of girlpower (16), tenacity, consumption skills, and strong familial support; one would also be quick to put Precious in the category of “at-risk,” with her socio-economic status, low test scores, unsupportive family, propensity for violence, and HIV status. I would argue, however, that our tendency to see Juno and Precious in these ways stems from misconceiving of concepts like choice and autonomy.

          Anita Harris comments on our problematic construction of choice and autonomy in the introduction to her book:

Young women have been encouraged to believe that ‘girls can do anything’ and ‘girls are powerful.’ These ideas about choice and freedom are central to contemporary notions of individuality. In today’s risk society individuals are expected to be flexible, adaptable, resilient, and ultimately responsible for their own ability to manage their lives successfully. (8)

          In saying that “girls can do anything” and making that the marker of freedom and success, we are operating under a modernist, humanist perspective of autonomy—that a person is only a truly free individual if they can “do anything,” while making choices of their own volition that rid them of oppression. In this framework, someone like Precious is forever doomed to the category of “at-risk” because she is systematically cut off from certain desirable choices or options. She is starting off from such a disadvantage that she seems immediately excluded from the discourse of “the girl who can do anything.” Harris laments society’s unwillingness to recognize this when labeling girls as “can-do” and “at-risk,” noting that “the consequences of the sexual and economic exploitation of these young women are not confronted” and their “circumstances are labeled ‘failure,’ and this is attributed to poor choices…” (9).

          The truth is, however, that “can-do” girls realistically cannot “do anything,” either. Those girls, including Juno, still exist within a social and historical reality that has limitations; they still exist in a world in which, a la Foucault, power has not just repressive but positive aspects that shape the subject and one is influenced in such all-encompassing ways that it is impossible to tell whether one made a choice because they wanted to or because they were convinced they wanted to.  The message that girls can “do anything” and that they are personally responsible for their own success or future devalues or even masks the choices that girls labeled as “at-risk” do make in their daily lives. It is clear in Precious that the lead character is making just as many positive, life-affirming choices as Juno; they just do not get her as far because her starting point is different.

          In looking at some of the choices Precious makes in the film and comparing them with Juno’s, I hope to challenge in a broad sense the way in which society is constructing the notions of choice and autonomy. I will then address two specific kinds of choice made in both films: the choice to fantasize and the choice to delay motherhood, both in ways that differ from the common understanding of the concept, in the hop of illuminating new choices of merit.

          Precious makes the difficult choice to go to an alternative high school, after being asked to leave her original school, even though her mother is vehemently against it. Her mother threatens her with violence over the decision, insisting she should instead be “going down the welfare line” to bring in more income for the family. Precious has no reason to believe education holds any real promise for her, seeing tests as devices to construct her as “dumb, as less than dumb,” but she makes the difficult decision nonetheless. Juno, in contrast, is never asked to leave her high school despite her pregnancy and does not have to make any real choices about her education; she appears to be in high school because that is what “normal” teenagers do, not because she made some real decision about it. Juno’s level of education and enrollment in a traditional school still leave her with more options than Precious, though, even though Precious was the one who really embraced and fought for her education. If society was really evaluating girls on the choices they made, Precious would shine as embodying the “can-do” attitude, fighting for her right to be educated despite being pregnant, HIV+, and living in a home that does not value education. I would argue, though, that society is really judging where one ends up in life, not all the difficult decisions one made towards progress; to quote Harris again, “structural disadvantage is recast as poor personal choices, laziness, and incompetent family practices” (25).

          So, in a world where making good choices cannot be guaranteed to get one the life that he or she desires, what role can fantasy come to play? Michelle Fine has consistently noted in her work (like “Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing After All These Years”) that discourses about female youth desire are missing from discussions about sexuality; yet, in Precious, desire is ever present and something she is very much in touch with. It seems as though there is an implicit conflicting discourse embedded within the idea that “girls can do anything,” which manifests as the shaming of unrealistic thinking or dreaming. Society is simultaneously telling girls that anything is possible but to think realistically. In Precious, the film is structured in such a way that her fantasies are put forth as a sad mockery of her real life. When men abuse her, she fantasizes about men desiring and loving her; when her life seems hopeless to her, she fantasizes about being glamorous and famous. Fantasies need not be interpreted as the sad delusions of a girl unwilling to live in reality, though. They can be reconstructed as choices to acknowledge another possible self, choices that then provide the strength to make other important, life-affirming decisions. For example, the day before Precious is supposed to go to her new, alternative school, she fantasizes about having a mother who loves her and wants her to get an education. This is not a delusion (Precious does not think this version of her mother is actually real) but rather a choice to move forward in her education. When her father is raping her, Precious fantasizes about being somewhere else. Could this not be conceived of as a choice to protect herself by refusing to participate in what is happening? By choosing not to be mentally or emotionally present for certain abusive moments in her life, Precious refuses to exist solely as a body, as physical space.

          Though it is not as central to the plot as in Precious, Juno alludes to the possibility of fantasy as choice, constructing it as a choosing to forget. When she informs her parents that she is pregnant and will be giving the baby up for adoption, she asks whether or not they all could just “pretend this never happened” after she gives birth. Later in the film, when she meets the couple she will be giving the baby to, she asks for a closed adoption, showing again that she would, in some sense, like to erase this experience from her memory. In choosing to forget, Juno exerts agency, deciding how and in what ways she will define herself.

          This choosing to forget brings us to another important concept in Harris’ work, that being delayed motherhood. Implicit in the conception of delayed motherhood is not simply that one will wait to have children but that one will also wait to get pregnant. Harris’ treatment of the topic is rife with the phrase “teenage mother,” but it is not simply motherhood that gets one labeled as “at-risk;” being pregnant too early will land someone in that category as well. One could argue that Juno’s unwavering conviction to not be a mother excludes her from the category of “at-risk.” Just because she was once pregnant, does not mean she failed to delay motherhood.

          I believe Precious serves as an even more interesting example of how to reconceive of delayed motherhood. Though she did not give her first child up for adoption, the child does not live with her but rather with Precious’s grandmother. Precious does not have the financial or time-related responsibility of caring for this child and the child in no way hinders Precious’s ability to attend school or do school related work. It is possible, then, to conceive of her as delaying motherhood for all intents and purposes. The major concern over teenage motherhood is that young women “stop breeding and start earning” (32). So if Precious can give birth to a child and that child’s existence does not disrupt her schooling, she does not perfectly fit into the “at-risk” category either.

          An individual always makes choices within a limited framework. We should not be punishing women who work hard to make “good” choices but still cannot break free of their disadvantaged situation. By taking a closer look at Harris’ work and these two films, I believe we can begin to reconceive of autonomy, choice, and the limited categories of “at-risk” and “can-do.”

Works Cited

Fine, Michelle. “Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing After All These Years.”  American Journal of Sexuality Education. 76.3 (2006): 297-338.

Harris, Anita. Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Juno. Dir. Jason Reitman. Perf. Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman. Fox Searchlight, 2007. DVD.

Precious. Dir. Lee Daniels. Perf. Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton. Lionsgate, 2009. DVD.

Walkerdine, Valerie. “Sex, Power, and Pedagogy”. Schoolgirl Fictions. New York: Verso, 1990.
Feb 24

Chris Moffett, “Occupying Academe” and “Lecture Hall” (pinhole photograph, 2008).

Grove of Plato

          -The Grove of Academus, Site of Plato’s Academy.

Sitting here, late at night, in a tower of Academe, I am writing about the occupation of Wall Street, thinking about how the trope of “occupation” has found such a strong resonance. I imagine it is in no small part because we have been raised on the images of education. Not the images within education, but the images of some hypothetical education, images that allow us to know where we fit and how we are to navigate the “real world.” Among other things, we Race to the Top, Leaving No Child Left Behind, and so it should be no surprise that when these tropes fall flat, we are left to wonder what it means to occupy something that doesn’t exist, or to occupy the pathways themselves. Enacting stories of being on the move, we find ourselves in the midst of things.

What is it that we are occupying ourselves with while we are there? And if this is bound up with the story of education, what is it that we are learning?

Interestingly enough, the story of Academus is a story of a person inextricably in relationship to a place. And this connection, over time, comes to stand for an odd bargain sparing things from occupation. As Plutarch would have it, Helen of Troy has been abducted, and her brothers are on the move, looking for where she might be concealed:

At first, then, they did no harm, but simply demanded back their sister. When, however, the people of the city replied that they neither had the girl nor knew where she had been left, they resorted to war. But Academus, who had learned in some way or other of her concealment at Aphidnae, told them where she was hidden. For this reason he was honored during his life by the Tyndaridae, and often afterwards when the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica and laid waste all the country round about, they spared the Academy, for the sake of Academus. —Plutarch, Theseus, 32.

What is the pact that the Academy must make to have it’s space spared, what secrets must it reveal of another place? And since we find ourselves there, what does it mean to occupy a space that is protected from occupation?

As the imagery of occupation shows its wild unwillingness to stay still, searching perhaps as it is for Helen, it finds itself everywhere or anywhere. But before we too quickly set out to Occupy Education, we should be careful to reflect on it as a question. What are we doing when we occupy the groves of the Academy? We should also be careful, however, to not treat it as a question for mere reflection, as only academics can do. A subject for suitable inquiry. Instead we have to realize the place that is this question is busy being occupied. We have been busy occupying ourselves in it. We are Lacedaemonians and Greeks alike. And the challenge we face is to see whether we can not just inhabit the difficult place we are in, but to do so as an active question, a question of activity.

[also cf. the comments on the original post -ed.]
Feb 24
Chris Moffett, &#8220;Occupying Academe&#8221; and &#8220;Lecture Hall&#8221; (pinhole photograph, 2008).           -The Grove of Academus, Site of Plato&#8217;s Academy. Sitting here, late at night, in a tower of Academe, I am writing about the occupation of Wall Street, thinking about how the trope of “occupation” has found such a strong resonance. I imagine it is in no small part because we have been raised on the images of education. Not the images within education, but the images of some hypothetical education, images that allow us to know where we fit and how we are to navigate the “real world.” Among other things, we Race to the Top, Leaving No Child Left Behind, and so it should be no surprise that when these tropes fall flat, we are left to wonder what it means to occupy something that doesn’t exist, or to occupy the pathways themselves. Enacting stories of being on the move, we find ourselves in the midst of things. What is it that we are occupying ourselves with while we are there? And if this is bound up with the story of education, what is it that we are learning? Interestingly enough, the story of Academus is a story of a person inextricably in relationship to a place. And this connection, over time, comes to stand for an odd bargain sparing things from occupation. As Plutarch would have it, Helen of Troy has been abducted, and her brothers are on the move, looking for where she might be concealed: At first, then, they did no harm, but simply demanded back their sister. When, however, the people of the city replied that they neither had the girl nor knew where she had been left, they resorted to war. But Academus, who had learned in some way or other of her concealment at Aphidnae, told them where she was hidden. For this reason he was honored during his life by the Tyndaridae, and often afterwards when the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica and laid waste all the country round about, they spared the Academy, for the sake of Academus. —Plutarch, Theseus, 32. What is the pact that the Academy must make to have it’s space spared, what secrets must it reveal of another place? And since we find ourselves there, what does it mean to occupy a space that is protected from occupation? As the imagery of occupation shows its wild unwillingness to stay still, searching perhaps as it is for Helen, it finds itself everywhere or anywhere. But before we too quickly set out to Occupy Education, we should be careful to reflect on it as a question. What are we doing when we occupy the groves of the Academy? We should also be careful, however, to not treat it as a question for mere reflection, as only academics can do. A subject for suitable inquiry. Instead we have to realize the place that is this question is busy being occupied. We have been busy occupying ourselves in it. We are Lacedaemonians and Greeks alike. And the challenge we face is to see whether we can not just inhabit the difficult place we are in, but to do so as an active question, a question of activity. [also cf. the comments on the original post -ed.]

“Lightness” by Stephen Andrus.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera explores the philosophical concept of “lightness.” Lightness is understood as the opposite of Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence which Kundera explores in the beginning of the novel. To him we have only one life to live.

Lightness encapsulates the German expression, Einmal ist keinmal – once is never, that life is insignificant and might as well not have happened. However, this insignificance can cause great personal suffering and thus, the unbearable lightness of being. It is existentially unbearable for people searching for their lives to have a transcendent meaning. Life is weighed by irrevocable choices and the swirls of fortuitous and unfortuitous events.

These photographs have no beginning and no end.  There is no source of the “lightness.” They exist in the existential space of everywhere and nowhere, between the empyreal stars and the longing of our imagination. They inhabit the time and space of dreams, dreams that can be seen and felt but never realized – knowing that life without dreams is no life at all. But perhaps this is the very point Kundera was trying to convey.

What I have tried to do is as simple, and not as simple as what Pablo Picasso did when he created the “Bull’s Head” sculpture in 1944. He mounted a pair of bicycle handle bars on top of a bicycle seat and transformed it into a bull’s head. That was his leap of imagination. What I have done is, in a sense, along the same lines of his “found objects.” I wander the netherworld of New York City late at night, searching out its dark places and hidden corners.

I walk the sidewalks, always separated by the glass of windows from what is on the other side (the land of dreams). I can only see from one side out of my darkness and have no control over anything. I cannot change the position, the setting, the background, or lighting. Everything is fixed except for my imagination and my own unbearable lightness of being. What I have done is to take what I see and turn it upside down, creating a new reality, a new liberating existence. It has been like that in my dreams all my life.
Feb 24

“What does it mean to occupy the body?” by Mitchell Gold.

                      Look at the body as the place from which to begin.  If life can be said to be a stage of growth and learning, then the body is the platform from which this investigation is launched.  The premise here is that we are better equipped for inquiry of any kind if we can first find ease and stability with our own physical form.  And, conversely, we may find ourselves hampered if we extend ourselves into the theoretical realms and analytical without first bringing equilibrium to the body.

                      This view is so obvious as to leave one wondering whether it needs stating.  Every day we discover new avenues of communication, new elements of composition and new methods of measurement related to the body.  We become immersed in the complexity and beauty of a system as viewed and parsed through increasingly sophisticated analytics.  Well, what of the physicality of the person performing the calculations?  How comfortably does each person rest in this same structure that they are studying?  And to what extent does discomfort affect their ability to perform a task in the finer strata of excellence, much less enjoy their day?

                      What does it mean to ‘occupy the body’?  How does one live within one’s structure, and at what level of perfection / imperfection?  Is this question qualitative and the answer, of necessity, purely subjective?  And, if so, is it of any less value - to the individual, and to their community?

                      Perhaps we can avoid the existential physical dilemma by freezing movement out of the equation - e.g. by sitting behind a desk in a singular position every day, every week and every year.  Perhaps by refusing to move we can forget the physical sensations which arise when head to the vending machine.  That is if we are sufficiently concentrated, and capable of being at ease in stasis.

                      On the other hand, perhaps there is some level of felt pain within us at all times.  And maybe the volume of this pain will become so great, or our belief in relief will become so strong, that we overcome the admonitions of our community as to the pain’s normalcy and we ‘go see someone’.

                      Perhaps we are bequeathed with a prescription for pharmaceuticals to help diminish our awareness of the pain.  Or, we are the happy recipient of a surgical procedure eliminating the problematic physical constituent from our system.  Yet, what if the ‘noise’ of the pain persists, moving from the background to the forefront of our awareness?

                     When does our inability to manage physical discomfort spread into other areas of our awareness?  How do we deal with underlying levels of anxiety caused by an imbalance on the physical level?  Maybe we ought to pull back from the physical and hole up in the intellect, in the theoretical and the analytical.

                     Alternatively our intent might be to explore our physicality - in essence, to ‘occupy the body’.  Rather than remove ourselves from our own spatial delimiters, we might address discomfort through an inquiry into balance and stability.  From a position of stability, then, we might efficiently and comfortably extend our sensibilities into the multiple external and internal dimensions that awaken our curiosity.

                    How would one describe ‘stability’?  Let us consider this as a dynamic equilibrium in which each element of the physical structure plays a vital role.  Consider this as a spatial position with no time component - a structural equilibrium in which all components are constantly moving and recalibrating to define balance in the moment. This is not a state to be found, and held.  Stability is a state to be discovered, and re-discovered again.

                    On a gross level one can identify elements of structure which must be fundamental to our concept of stability.  For example:  the arches of the foot affect hinging in the knee, affecting balance across the hips, providing a foundation for the spine, on top of which balances - precariously - the cranium, from which through the portal of the eyes we observe and judge what surrounds us.

                    Distortion in the arch of the foot will result in compensation at some other level of the structure.  If we compensate adequately, we will find balance at the macro level overlaying a structure with local distortion.  Assuming multiple distortions by the time we have climbed upward through the multitudinous hand-offs to the level of one’s eye, we find that we must rely on the input of senses housed within a patchwork of ‘fixes’.  And make no mistake, each fix imparts an impression on a structural level as well as a psychological one.  The compressed lower back challenges us physically and strains us emotionally.

                     Knees don’t operate as well.  Hips become ‘stuck’.  Lower back pain becomes an underlying background subtext.  Our ability to find balance and poise in the moment is forfeited for patterned stances - locking our knees, leaning against the wall, thrusting hips to the side - in an effort to find a moment of physical relief rather than one of equilibrium. What would be provided assuming we could discover a state of greater equilibrium? 

                     We might find a greater sense of ease.  Imagine:  if our knees didn’t hurt and our back didn’t ache and our jaw was no longer fixed, we might discover a greater joy in the play of our children.  Imagine:  greater balance could lead to greater poise, and with poise might arrive quiet presence - to enjoy what is around us.

                     Equilibrium in structure enables verticality.  Verticality and stability in movement indicate an enhanced ability to respond to change.  Heightened ability to respond to challenges in the environment suggests a growth in power.  Equilibrium without strain - with ease - brings the possibility of  movement with grace.

                    Internal and external sensibilities expand as the mechanism is more fine-tuned.  When we were once crippled by the kink in our neck and the ache behind our eyes, we are now free to expand the uncluttered avenues of the mind.  We might explore and extend the realms of our senses - the keys of a piano, the smells of good cooking  - the reaches of our intellect, or something outside the two.

                   Begin with the body as home base.  This is where we incubate our potential.  This is where we learn the concepts of internal and external, distant and near.  And this is the tool of learning - the vehicle for information collection, knowledge extrusion and communication.  Develop stability and balance to create an able platform for inquiry and expression.  We can go beyond the body, though remember we are tethered to it.
Feb 24
“What does it mean to occupy the body?” by Mitchell Gold.                      Look at the body as the place from which to begin.  If life can be said to be a stage of growth and learning, then the body is the platform from which this investigation is launched.  The premise here is that we are better equipped for inquiry of any kind if we can first find ease and stability with our own physical form.  And, conversely, we may find ourselves hampered if we extend ourselves into the theoretical realms and analytical without first bringing equilibrium to the body.                      This view is so obvious as to leave one wondering whether it needs stating.  Every day we discover new avenues of communication, new elements of composition and new methods of measurement related to the body.  We become immersed in the complexity and beauty of a system as viewed and parsed through increasingly sophisticated analytics.  Well, what of the physicality of the person performing the calculations?  How comfortably does each person rest in this same structure that they are studying?  And to what extent does discomfort affect their ability to perform a task in the finer strata of excellence, much less enjoy their day?                      What does it mean to ‘occupy the body’?  How does one live within one’s structure, and at what level of perfection / imperfection?  Is this question qualitative and the answer, of necessity, purely subjective?  And, if so, is it of any less value - to the individual, and to their community?                      Perhaps we can avoid the existential physical dilemma by freezing movement out of the equation - e.g. by sitting behind a desk in a singular position every day, every week and every year.  Perhaps by refusing to move we can forget the physical sensations which arise when head to the vending machine.  That is if we are sufficiently concentrated, and capable of being at ease in stasis.                      On the other hand, perhaps there is some level of felt pain within us at all times.  And maybe the volume of this pain will become so great, or our belief in relief will become so strong, that we overcome the admonitions of our community as to the pain’s normalcy and we ‘go see someone’.                       Perhaps we are bequeathed with a prescription for pharmaceuticals to help diminish our awareness of the pain.  Or, we are the happy recipient of a surgical procedure eliminating the problematic physical constituent from our system.  Yet, what if the ‘noise’ of the pain persists, moving from the background to the forefront of our awareness?                     When does our inability to manage physical discomfort spread into other areas of our awareness?  How do we deal with underlying levels of anxiety caused by an imbalance on the physical level?  Maybe we ought to pull back from the physical and hole up in the intellect, in the theoretical and the analytical.                      Alternatively our intent might be to explore our physicality - in essence, to ‘occupy the body’.  Rather than remove ourselves from our own spatial delimiters, we might address discomfort through an inquiry into balance and stability.  From a position of stability, then, we might efficiently and comfortably extend our sensibilities into the multiple external and internal dimensions that awaken our curiosity.                    How would one describe ‘stability’?  Let us consider this as a dynamic equilibrium in which each element of the physical structure plays a vital role.  Consider this as a spatial position with no time component - a structural equilibrium in which all components are constantly moving and recalibrating to define balance in the moment. This is not a state to be found, and held.  Stability is a state to be discovered, and re-discovered again.                     On a gross level one can identify elements of structure which must be fundamental to our concept of stability.  For example:  the arches of the foot affect hinging in the knee, affecting balance across the hips, providing a foundation for the spine, on top of which balances - precariously - the cranium, from which through the portal of the eyes we observe and judge what surrounds us.                     Distortion in the arch of the foot will result in compensation at some other level of the structure.  If we compensate adequately, we will find balance at the macro level overlaying a structure with local distortion.  Assuming multiple distortions by the time we have climbed upward through the multitudinous hand-offs to the level of one’s eye, we find that we must rely on the input of senses housed within a patchwork of ‘fixes’.  And make no mistake, each fix imparts an impression on a structural level as well as a psychological one.  The compressed lower back challenges us physically and strains us emotionally.                      Knees don’t operate as well.  Hips become ‘stuck’.  Lower back pain becomes an underlying background subtext.  Our ability to find balance and poise in the moment is forfeited for patterned stances - locking our knees, leaning against the wall, thrusting hips to the side - in an effort to find a moment of physical relief rather than one of equilibrium. What would be provided assuming we could discover a state of greater equilibrium?                       We might find a greater sense of ease.  Imagine:  if our knees didn’t hurt and our back didn’t ache and our jaw was no longer fixed, we might discover a greater joy in the play of our children.  Imagine:  greater balance could lead to greater poise, and with poise might arrive quiet presence - to enjoy what is around us.                      Equilibrium in structure enables verticality.  Verticality and stability in movement indicate an enhanced ability to respond to change.  Heightened ability to respond to challenges in the environment suggests a growth in power.  Equilibrium without strain - with ease - brings the possibility of  movement with grace.                     Internal and external sensibilities expand as the mechanism is more fine-tuned.  When we were once crippled by the kink in our neck and the ache behind our eyes, we are now free to expand the uncluttered avenues of the mind.  We might explore and extend the realms of our senses - the keys of a piano, the smells of good cooking  - the reaches of our intellect, or something outside the two.                    Begin with the body as home base.  This is where we incubate our potential.  This is where we learn the concepts of internal and external, distant and near.  And this is the tool of learning - the vehicle for information collection, knowledge extrusion and communication.  Develop stability and balance to create an able platform for inquiry and expression.  We can go beyond the body, though remember we are tethered to it.

“The Vertical Dimension” by Cynthia Dantzic.

The cryptic clues to your current topic were most intriguing, particularly the reference to verticality as a dimension, which brought to mind my current photographic essay, a study of one avocado seed as it seeks to rise from a dormant state, pursuing a struggle to attain its full growth and stature by slowly working to attain the full measure of its verticality.

From its near comatose position, held by three toothpicks in a glass of water, motionless for over a month, it suddenly sprouted a small brownish bump, then a thin green shoot, and slowly, slowly proceeded to lengthen and rise, until it demanded to be placed in a large pot surrounded by warm nurturing earth. Then it took off, like a moon shot, straight up and up, and continues to do so to this very day.

If you doubt the existence of a vertical dimension, look no further than the world of plants, each individual growing perpendicular to the horizon, each tree seeking the heavens, straight up, right from the start.
Feb 24

“Navigating the Technologized Campus Environment” by Peter Zhang.  Images by Mark Dzula.

It’s unthinkable nowadays to function as a college student without a laptop computer. The technological environment of the university presupposes that we are equipped with certain gadgets. And for God’s sake, we do end up having them.

We pay a price for being linked up with the World Wide Web. Everybody is deeply involved in and constantly distracted by everybody else’s business. The smart phone only aggravates the situation. “I haven’t checked my email” is no longer a good excuse.

The cell phone seems to make the wristwatch obsolescent. Yet some have discovered that after buying a watch, they no longer need to look at the cell phone as much. The watch seems to be coming back, partly to address our nostalgia for the disciplinary society of old when we are living in a control society. “Those were the days,” as the song goes.

The idea of a universal human fate is a fallacy. The more we venture out of campus, the more we realize that there’s much technological diversity in society. As a highly technologized enclave, the campus keeps us from imagining other habits, other daily routines. In a way, we college students are lame ducks in the eye of gadget marketers. We already buy into a particular picture of the good life before we buy specific gadgets.

An interesting way of using texting is to have a sideline conversation with one of the group members while doing group work.

How many of us have realized that Twitter can be appropriated for a poetic use. It’s good for composing haiku, for crafting aphorisms. Has there been a rise in aphorisms and aphorists in the culture, though? Maybe there’s no aphorist in the culture anymore because everybody is one. We will have to see about that.

Each time the gadget buzzes, we are at its service. McLuhan calls media extensions of man. It’s now time to reverse the formulation: contemporary man is the extension of media, a servomechanism, a happy wreck. To be hooked on video games is to be enslaved by electronic codes. There’s no point forcing the rhythms of our flesh and blood to contest with artificial rhythms, regardless of the fact that play and game keep us human and sane.

When TV came to the scene, people’s taste for clothing went from “visual” to “tactile.” The TV medium was also the formal cause of pointillism in painting. Nowadays, people are interaction-averse because, almost by default, communication means mediated communication. It’s already platitudinous to talk about the typical living room scenario during the Thanksgiving break: everybody is on something.

In case you don’t believe literary invention takes time and needs to be a process of slow cooking, simply listen to today’s lyrics (take the Kesha song “Tick Tock”). They are getting increasingly literal. Literalness is a disease, a cultural syndrome.

The No Child Left Behind Act didn’t seem to have helped much. SAT scores have hit a historical low. People seem to find literacy to be artificial and out of place in their right-hemisphere world. They can’t read prose. They can’t read poetry, either. I am sure somewhere someone has written an essay entitled “Digital Natives Come to College.” The time is ripe for such a piece to be written.

Social media is so addictive and paralyzing that some have found it necessary to ask a friend to change their passwords for them so they can’t log in. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

A power outage gets us to see what we normally wouldn’t see. Try and get unplugged for a day and see what happens. The everyday is invisible and incorrigible. On the other hand, it’s also the wellspring of new possibilities of life. Kenneth Burke advocates “planned incongruity.” We need “planned inconvenience.” We need to be protected from ourselves.

When we speak of technology, we tend to think of the latest communications gadgets. How many of us think of the spoken word – humanity’s very first technology, the birth of which coincided with the birth of humanity itself? Language is a technology that separates us permanently from nature. Humanity as such has never had an unmediated encounter with nature. What we experience is our interpretation. Language at once enables and cripples, enlightens and blinds.

We are hopelessly figure-oriented when we think of technology, focusing on the equipment installed in a classroom instead of the classroom itself. Insofar as it still has a layout, the classroom itself constitutes a technology, the logic of which is not unlike that of the courtroom. The rituals of usage give some parties relative power over other parties. Prior to anybody actually entering the space, the logic is already embedded within the spatial layout. A classroom without a front, or without desks, is a radical departure from what we are used to. McLuhan talks about classrooms without walls in the TV era. Nowadays, the classroom has become saturated with built-in and un-built-in devices for telereality and teleaction, to use Paul Virilio’s terminology.

Although the gadget as a figure is visible and tangible, the ground it creates is not. It’s in the latter sense that McLuhan talks about media, and media literacy – an awareness of the psychic and social consequences of the hidden ground. This hidden ground is the formal cause of many things, including what we choose to do and the way we do it. Oriental people traditionally tend to be more ground-aware: not eating livers in the springtime for the sake of homeostasis in accordance with the principles of yin and yang. Westerners prefer to turn their habitat into an artifice, a figure detached from its ground. How often do we see sprinklers working when it’s raining and pouring! This figure orientation is uneconomical and unsustainable.

Much can be said about the schedule as a technology, the planner as a technology, the grade book as a technology, and the list goes on. Yet by far the most virulent technologies are software programs. Software is not “soft” at all. It’s full of teeth, and subjugates us this way and that. It positions us as its captives and instruments. It’s true software may make our day more efficient, but how many thinking people want to be made more efficient? Jeremy Rifkin’s “Times Wars” is a must-read. Each time a new “system” is installed in our environment in the name of Progress, we are faced with a new ethical situation, ethics being the pursuit of the good life. It is the task of thinking people to invent new weapons of resistance, as Gilles Deleuze poignantly points out.

Media literacy on the part of the demos will make “the power that be” and corporate interests fear and tremble. I’m talking about media literacy in a mediumistic sense here. Not every scholar or student of media is aware that there are two traditions in media studies: content orientation and medium orientation. I have the latter in mind when I say “mediumistic.”

One metamessage the movie “Inception” enacts is weightlessness. In our optoelectronic and electroacoustic age, the significance of gravity is being displaced. The movie precisely addresses the anxiety that has resulted. Another way to put it: “Inception” takes “The Matrix” to a more intense level. In case we don’t see our somnambulism, the movie lays it bare for us. As we sit in the movie theater, we are sutured into layers upon layers of dreams. Is there still a “real”? Yes, it is called paralysis.
Feb 24

“I won’t wear anything from now on” by Annelisse.  Photos by E.S. Fletchinger.

lichtenstein

What does it mean to wear a moment? Awhile ago I saw colors that couldn’t be mimicked, couldn’t be put back together, and I thought oh I’ll never be able to create that…but can I wear it? Can I wear the countryside at 7pm, can I wear an ocean sunset? But then, what does that even mean, to wear it? To wear anything.

(I’m going to go this alone, Jacob, I’m not going to quote texts, just know Merleau Ponty’s still on my mind and Alexander McQueen, and Mariko the way I imagine her feeling when she’s impeccably dressed, and Oasa when she said you just have to be open.)

I wanted to wear the  moments caught in Lichtenstein’s film loop because I knew I could not reconstruct them, but I didn’t want them to go away.   And to wear is to inhabit something,  just beyond your skin, touching.  No matter what, you’ll feel it.  I wanted to feel it.   So I wanted to wear it.  But what  can you wear, can you wear your skin?   To know what it means to wear do we need to know where we begin and end? I am at the least my body up until my body becomes mine. I cannot possess what I am.  Is to wear to posses?

When I desire to wear a moment, I am asking can I place that moment unchanging  around and against me, can it mold to me and I to it? We would address each other, but others would go on addressing me, though me, impeccably dressed. In this symbiotic relationship the model remains the dominant figure. The dress is mine but not me. Possession is unending desire, it creates it and simultaneously, creates the impossibility of satiating that desire because possession is division.*

1

I don’t want to possess anymore. I want to be open.  It’s like when the Native Americans thought it was a joke to sell the land and the way Cappi said, isn’t it weird how much we care what we accomplish as individuals. Yes, it is. It’s weird to consider the earth as something to be divided, and parceled out, because it doesn’t actually change, it’s all elaborately performed by us and the earth remains as is. We divide ourselves too, you forget I am you and you’re me.

I don’t want to be aware of the world in parts.  I don’t like it any more when the world becomes a simulated abstraction, like a translucent copy of the earth superimposed and shattered, and while our bodies move through the mud and heat our minds sift through shattered abstractions, trying to understand.   As intricate and sometimes helpful as these products of our constituting minds might be, they aren’t what is. They aren’t ice and dirt and flesh, your eyelashes pressed into his neck.

2

I don’t want to wear moments anymore. I don’t want to want to wear them. I don’t want to understand that they exist apart. I’ll no longer divide, not even to understand. I don’t want to understand any more. I’m not pleading for ignorance, I want to take in everything. But I want to be baffled when you try to explain just one piece because I’ll be you so much, I’ll be everything so much, so that you and yours won’t make sense to me. I won’t make sense to me. I won’t wear moments anymore, I don’t want to wear anything.

3
Feb 24
&#8220;I won&#8217;t wear anything from now on&#8221; by Annelisse.  Photos by E.S. Fletchinger. What does it mean to wear a moment? Awhile ago I saw colors that couldn’t be mimicked, couldn’t be put back together, and I thought oh I’ll never be able to create that…but can I wear it? Can I wear the countryside at 7pm, can I wear an ocean sunset? But then, what does that even mean, to wear it? To wear anything. (I’m going to go this alone, Jacob, I’m not going to quote texts, just know Merleau Ponty’s still on my mind and Alexander McQueen, and Mariko the way I imagine her feeling when she’s impeccably dressed, and Oasa when she said you just have to be open.) I wanted to wear the  moments caught in Lichtenstein’s film loop because I knew I could not reconstruct them, but I didn’t want them to go away.   And to wear is to inhabit something,  just beyond your skin, touching.  No matter what, you’ll feel it.  I wanted to feel it.   So I wanted to wear it.  But what  can you wear, can you wear your skin?   To know what it means to wear do we need to know where we begin and end? I am at the least my body up until my body becomes mine. I cannot possess what I am.  Is to wear to posses? When I desire to wear a moment, I am asking can I place that moment unchanging  around and against me, can it mold to me and I to it? We would address each other, but others would go on addressing me, though me, impeccably dressed. In this symbiotic relationship the model remains the dominant figure. The dress is mine but not me. Possession is unending desire, it creates it and simultaneously, creates the impossibility of satiating that desire because possession is division.* I don’t want to possess anymore. I want to be open.  It’s like when the Native Americans thought it was a joke to sell the land and the way Cappi said, isn’t it weird how much we care what we accomplish as individuals. Yes, it is. It’s weird to consider the earth as something to be divided, and parceled out, because it doesn’t actually change, it’s all elaborately performed by us and the earth remains as is. We divide ourselves too, you forget I am you and you’re me. I don’t want to be aware of the world in parts.  I don’t like it any more when the world becomes a simulated abstraction, like a translucent copy of the earth superimposed and shattered, and while our bodies move through the mud and heat our minds sift through shattered abstractions, trying to understand.   As intricate and sometimes helpful as these products of our constituting minds might be, they aren’t what is. They aren’t ice and dirt and flesh, your eyelashes pressed into his neck. I don’t want to wear moments anymore. I don’t want to want to wear them. I don’t want to understand that they exist apart. I’ll no longer divide, not even to understand. I don’t want to understand any more. I’m not pleading for ignorance, I want to take in everything. But I want to be baffled when you try to explain just one piece because I’ll be you so much, I’ll be everything so much, so that you and yours won’t make sense to me. I won’t make sense to me. I won’t wear moments anymore, I don’t want to wear anything.

Danny Castro, “Can the story of you be like the furniture?” Souljerky Research Labs, 2010.
Feb 24

Check out the rest of the album here!
Feb 19
Feb 19

♫

ecogradients

Posted on Monday February 27th 2012 at 07:42am. Its tags are listed below.

“Adaptation as Occupation: Tim Burtons’s Adaption of Washington Irving’s Tale, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” by Clarissa Dayton. 

chestnut

-Washington Irving’s 300 year old Horse Chestnut.

Among the more popular American ghost tales is The Legend of Sleepy Hollow — the story of Ichabod Crane and the town people of Sleepy Hollow, a small, sleepy Dutch colonial village nestled on the banks of the Hudson River.  The village still exists today and neighbors the town of Tarrytown, NY – the hometown of the story’s author, Washington Irving.  His home, Sunnyside, still stands on Irving’s originally purchased land.  The great American author designed Sunnyside himself and lived there from the 1830’s until his death in 1859.  It is now a historic home and museum site where docents, dressed in period costumes of the 1850’s, offer tours to pubic groups and school children.   

Sunnyside had also served as a research site for Tim Burton’s 1999 movie entitled, Sleepy Hollow, starring Johnny Depp.   The titles may be quite similar; however, Burton’s interpretation of the ghost story differ considerably from that of Irving’s in terms of character depth and story line — which leads us to wonder whether or not the docents would validate Tim Burton’s production by incorporating into their tours as a useful learning tool.  Would trained experts on Washington Irving be willing to give their historical presentation an update by incorporating modern film adaptation based on classic and/or historic literature?  Does a historic living museum, need to live only in its designated historic period in order to help school children better understand the accomplishments of those who lived there centuries ago or can it step into the 21st century to enhance a child’s learning?  

To find out, the author talked with the docents – asking them what they thought of Burton’s modern day interpretation.  Docent training at Sunnyside has traditionally been paper-based in its entirety.  All research is conducted using an onsite library, which did not have a computer until approximately 2009.  With no exposure or consciousness toward cinematic or computerized imagery, how can an educational institution educate children who use media inside and outside the classroom on a daily basis?

Working with a group of historical interpreters, I feared most of them would not be open to Burton’s modern narrative.  Wearing period costumes of the 1850’s, the docents are steeped in tradition. As traditionalists, would they insist on a more orthodox delivery of the tale?  I discovered my fears were wrong.  The docents accepted the modern interpretation and embraced the contrasts offered by Burton’s dark cinematic narrative.  As one docent said, “Both Irving and Burton are interpreting the same story within their own contemporary social narratives.  Burton is the modern day Irving!”

Katherine

Katherine, a college student from New York stated,  

Tim Burton’s story line was not very similar to Irving’s classic tale.  I think Burton’s purpose was different than Irving’s.  Burton’s interpretation was trying to tell a scary tale, I don’t think that was Irving’s intention.” When asked if she thought the movie could be used as an educational tool at Sunnyside, Katherine responded, “I think it could be.”

Anne

Other staff members had similar and interesting responses to the questions. Sunnyside Site Manager, Anne, noted its potential educational significance:

The storyline was very dissimilar to Irving’s tale.  Burton did not capture Irving’s intended interpretation of the tale due to the extreme variation of the storyline.  That being said, Irving’s classic tale was in itself an interpretation of local folklore he heard as a boy spending time in the Tarrytown area.  In a sense, Tim Burton was following Irving’s example by giving the story his own spin. 

She added,

“I think it could be used if only to spark an interest in Irving and the 19th century. Tim Burton’s version of the story does pose an interesting contrast to Irving’s story, which can be a useful lesson in writing.”

Robert

Robert, from Yonkers had much to say.  He saw the film, enjoyed it and also had a keen interpretation of the image narratives, as he explained,

In a way, it was similar because there was a closed off and isolated sense of community that was shown by Burton and reflective in Irving’s original tale.  Irving wrote that the town’s people were closed off.  They didn’t want Ichabod around.  Burton gave a menacing look to the town.  The movie is very ‘Irvinian.’

There were differences, but Burton celebrated those differences.  Burton captured the darkness of the tale that Irving had devised and did away with overly descriptive narrative that is typical of 19th century depictions of various things such as a dinner table laden with food.  However, there’s one major inaccuracy in Burton’s setting – the Hudson is on the wrong side!”

Robert also added,

I think the film could be utilized as a learning tool here at Sunnyside because if students see the movie and they find out more about Irving and who he is, we will be able to introduce more information to the children.

We should ask ourselves this — would Irving be upset with this movie?  I don’t think so. I think Burton was doing the same thing as Irving.  He [Irving] used a certain social context to made a comfortable life for himself and his family. Irving would most likely approve of Burton’s interpretation because it’s Burton’s own utilization of the modern social context of his day.  Simply stating, Burton uses a modern interpretation. Today in the Sleepy Hollow area, people regard Irving as a deity. However, both Irving and Burton are using the social contexts of their day to tell the same story.

Bethany

Bethany, from Cortland Manor, also saw the movie and like the others, noted its distinct contrasts. When discussing the educational aspects of the film at Sunnyside, she reflected on the following:

Overall I think it is a great tool for children.  It is always good for them to get a reference to the present.  The movie can be used that way.  Some references are correct from book to film.  I already discuss the film in my tours.  Children light up when they hear me talk about Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They can relate to it and it excites them. Nineteenth century Romanticism may not be the most exciting topic for a 10 year old, but when you mention Burton’s film, they get hungry for more information.

The docents were open to Burton’s modern interpretation of the story’s main characters. They felt Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Ichabod Crane, although distinctly different from that of Irving’s, showed an interesting contrast, while Christina Ricci’s depiction of Katrina had a feminist quality they found intriguing.   Yet the docents felt that Christopher Walken’s portrayal of the Headless Horseman failed to have the mystique of Irving’s original apparition, due to the frightening facial images depicted in the movie.

Their perception of the film’s feasibility of incorporation into their school tour shows that they recognize the educational value of Burton’s contrasts.  Interpretations of history at historic sites may not only be restricted to antiquated methodologies. Modern interpretations, with their contrasting images and concepts can be just as effective. The docents understand that the 1999 horror film can serve as a modern media gateway to children’s curiosity.

Burton’s ‘otherness” of modern darkness and the macabre makes the story stand out for children and adolescents, allowing them to become a receptive community to further explore Irving and his time.  Moreover, a good number of docents believed Burton’s personal process using his own social context to tell the tale gives a sense of authenticity to the story.  Despite considerable contrasts, many docents saw an acceptable balance of Irving’s story dynamics kept intact within Burton’s adaptation, which makes for successful adaptation of popular literature.

If we ask whether or not a 20th/ 21st century film interpretation, with its modified storyline, can deliver the same thematic messages found in a highly regarded piece of classic literature, the answer appears to be “mostly yes.”  Various facets of modern cinematic interpretation with its “otherness” may be utilized as an educational tool in a historic setting to help define a classic literary work as long as the central interrelationships and dynamics of the original story are balanced. 

The docents did not agree on everything.  One docent (a senior), showed a resistance toward Burton’s modern interpretation and dismissed the film, yet the other seven docents were open to it.  With this, it may be argued that a modern film adaptation does not need to follow traditional storyline orthodoxy in order to effectively represent the text found in any literary classic – and in doing so, such media may be utilized as an effective educational tool, and allow history to embrace the future.

ecogradients

Posted on Saturday February 25th 2012 at 11:19pm. Its tags are listed below.

“Quite Handsomely Manifest: noticing what one’s noticing notices for to more fully reside within the immediate wor(l)d” by Patrick Scanlon.  Photos, “Downtown Bklyn” by Blake Seidenshaw.

“Moreover, this power [that language has to hide itself] which language exercises by communicating to us the illusion of immediacy when in fact it gives us only the habitual, makes us believe that the immediate is familiar (… as not the most terrible thing which out to overwhelm us).”  -Maurice Blanchot (The Space of Literature).

Part I:  The Subsequent Ignoring

With boredom, one is often considered unoccupied.  Typically, this state appears to reflect some manner of passivity on the part of this or that particular person.  There seems to be an emptiness that may be, I imagine, fairly accurate.  What is more difficult to distinguish is whether this lack is an endpoint or rather a symptom, the result of a specific positioning, a stance toward oneself and the surrounding phenomena. Although students do not have a monopoly on boredom, they do seem to utilize this term more frequently than other groups.  Or perhaps, they have, with more devotion, made it their rallying cry.  I have seen it function as both a call for help and as a chastisement for a particular lecture or assignment.  Due to the term’s ambiguity, perhaps a result of students’ innumerable uses, their frequency of use, I have begun to study the situation in which one finds oneself bored.  Toward this end, I am trying to discover by what mechanism one finds his or herself unoccupied, hoping to locate the precise place of the (un)occupation. 

Actually, this last statement is not entirely true.  I just sort of made that up.  I am not, however, entirely unpleased with it. More accurately, I have worked backwards, beginning with what might be considered the opposite of boredom: fascination.  And, really even this is not quite true either.  Perhaps the inaccuracy does not matter.  I guess there was a faulty intent and as a result a subsequent difficulty in laying out this premise.  Truth be told (as much truth that can be told in this brief lingual expression) I secretly teach poetry to my composition classes at a community college in Syracuse NY.  It is through both the secrecy, about which I am totally half joking, and the implications of the poetic that boredom has surfaced.  The main issue toward which I employ poetry involves the invisibility of language, and the subsequent ignoring of all that to which the words refer.  Boredom seemed to surface primarily as a lack of access to our thoughts, to our work, to our words, and to our world. 

The lack of occupation, which boredom implies, signifies not a simple emptiness or passivity regarding one’s agency or capacity to act, but rather a hyper occupation of one’s external (and internal) situation. What is the mechanism by which the surrounding phenomena – including one’s internal sensations, breath, thought, heartbeat, tiredness – become closed, and unable to provide any interest, nor any room for participation?  It is my opinion that language, or more precisely the habitual employment of language, may be the most significant factor.  What is language believed to be? What is it believed to do?  The previous question certainly requires much more space than this brief essay has at its disposal.  This fact is not a problem for the most relevant answer is brief anyhow: typically, according to my students (and even the ones with facility), language is NOT believed to be. It is, to varying degrees, invisible.  In the words of the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Language is marvelous in that it makes us forget it” (Cultural Politics of Tel Quel p. 82).

“I am the face.  She has to know me.  I’m dressed up better than anyone within a mile.”  -“Jimmy” (from Pete Townsend’s Quadraphenia).

Part II: In Elongated Look

In order to consider the second question, What is language believed to do?, I will enlist another French philosopher, another Maurice.  According to Maurice Blanchot,

“Language acts as if we were able to see the thing from all sides.”

He continues,

“And then begins the perversion.  Speech no longer presents itself as speech, but as sight freed from the limitations of sight … The novelist lifts up the rooftops and gives his characters over to a penetrating gaze.  His error is to take language as not just another vision but an absolute one” (The Infinite Conversation p. 28-29). 

Once Blanchot has brought attention to the embedded assumption of speech/writing as absolute sight, he offers another sphere in which sight functions differently, or where the event of sight expresses more openly the complexities of sight and their effect on understanding, literally and metaphorically. 

This other sphere is dreaming.  As in the relationship described above, speech seems to do what sight does, or be what sight is: it works in the distance between what sees and what is seen.  Blanchot explains

“Seeing pre-supposes only a measured and measurable separation: to see is certainly always to see at a distance, but by allowing distance to give back what it removes from us” (28). 

But the dream, according to Blanchot,

“reveals by re-veiling… It implies a reversal of the possibility of seeing.  To see in a dream is to be fascinated, and fascination arises when, far from apprehending from a distance, we are apprehended by this distance.”

Here, distance is not so easily assumed; it not only remains, passively, but delights, inspires curiosity: Ah the perceptive faculty in elongated look, the remnants of which are expressed in the re/telling of the dream – large eyes searching, head shaking off what seems impossible arrangements of meaning. Dreaming may suspend or confuse the typical relationships between word and idea/thing.  As a result, one may not so automatically transcend the material word (signifier) and proceed uninhibited to its referent (signified).

I am not recommending for one to push dreaming and waking life together, to force some illusionary sameness, for I wonder if waking life would be tolerable or could even function if it were as confused and blurry as dreams often seem.  Rather, the bizarre and strange of dreaming (the fascination and non-recoupable distance) if allowed, might expose the bizarre and strange inherent to more typical, yet less obvious instances of language use.  The strangeness that stretches perception, and implies the truly otherness and unknown of that which faces one creates, with brilliant shine and shear, a surface. This surface testifies to the fact that one cannot, especially through basic functions of language like naming and recognizing, assume any complex understanding/understanding of the entity and thus, one cannot consume it.  The result of this difficulty may be a greater chance to embody the space and distance, to realize more authentic separation and distinction.  I am finding in my classes that our capacity to differentiate is less and less developed.  The following questions, fundamental for not only scholastic endeavors, but perhaps even for becoming healthy and happy individuals, require an effort and skill that is lacking: What is me? What is not me? Where do I begin and the other (the collection of lovers, mothers, brothers, things, saints and sinners) end?

“One should have more respect for the bashfulness with which nature has hidden behind riddles and iridescent uncertainties.  Perhaps truth is a woman who has reasons for not letting us see her reasons? …  Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live.  What is required for that is to stop courageously at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms, tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial – out of profundity.”  -Nietzsche (from Sarah Kofman’s Camera Obscura of Ideology).

Part III: Allegiance to the Known

However unfortunate and detrimental, this inaccessibility does seem reasonable in light of the necessary, though compulsive emphasis that elementary/secondary schooling places on naming and identifying as end goals.  The fixity of the familiar, or the assumption of knowledge that the familiar represents, can prevent access to the more complex and particular relationships embedded in the text/self/scene. This allegiance to the known, and limited conception of what is required for something to be known, seldom elicits the curiosity and mystery necessary for any sincere scholastic endeavor. Once “known,” or assumed, the text/self/world is too easily consumed: the flux and pulse, the reciprocal relationship between these fields is solidified, frozen and ultimately no longer worth any attention. 

In addition to what I have just characterized (in broad sense) as passivity to the conditions that order composition, the my classes simultaneously exhibit a more active desire to transcend those “ordinary” or “casual” concepts of knowledge that we have built throughout our education.  In other words, there is also the belief that the “correct” or “deep” or “desirable” answer is other:  It is not in the words of the story facing us, nor in the words that constitute our casual interpretation, in that language that we’ve worked so hard to acquire.  Certainly there is some truth to the otherness of insight; however, as William James contends, all knowledge (even of the past) is held within the experience of the present (A primer for the gradual understanding of Gertrude Stein p. 43). And this experience of the present is, to a significant degree, constituted through language. The question that has helped us work to embody our speech has been “What do we notice?” No matter how basic our answer to this question, it helps us begin to differentiate and make decisions: the “no” necessary for to “know.”  The next question that follows and usual leads to some of the most interesting dialogue is “What does our noticing notice?” 

Poetry, at least certain types, embraces or even, more actively, makes language strange, stretches one’s attention.  It creates space between the word and the world, or at least operates in that territory before and around the thing.  According to Steve McCaffrey, “Language Poet,” this quality of being strange, mysterious, and not easily or totally understood generates “A presentness promoted by diminished consumption” (The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book, p. 162).  Faced with a poem and its treatment of phenomena, we must look again, must come to a halt before them, and maybe even return to ourselves, the source of our perception.  For when our attention finds and stays with a surface, it may be reflected back toward us revealing our own boundaries and make-up. To be attentive to the surface is not to preclude the possibility of intimacy, of union, of depth but rather to be attuned and available to the inherent dignity and decency of the forms and shapes within which we move. And if, we are invited to touch the surface, to wade in it, then we will “enter” with greater equivalence and consciousness.

“Secret meaning is not a hidden layer, but a hidden organization of the surface. Not latent, but quite handsomely manifest.” -Bruce Andrews (Paradise and Method).

Part IV:  Deliberately Almost

And in this case, what constitutes the fine surface before you,
covering the real, was formerly ordering a field of leaves into a
line whose current index—the result of wrapping leaf over leaf,
thin spiny bands attached sequentially—enlists roundness itself.

The snake eating its tail: a circle whose obviousness cannot stand
in this wind succumbing to the movement of attention and intention,
turning and returning slightly stranger – at times deliberately almost
and thus must, with increasing precision, admit the most open of
secrets: the circle remains, always already, in full spiral.

Out of generosity we are converted through the curves in
conversation and subsequent contact have become lit, as it were,
traveling indefinitely by virtue of heat’s light and of light’s advice
until met, in this case, with a forest of sorts recently reamed and
shelved for to collect the general resonance of education proper.

And now, considering the schooly slumber, this particular scene
of vibratory comfort, through incidental or courteous means, may
eventually demonstrate, as a composition what’s required of us, as
a composition.  Here, vulnerable to our own specific manners of
operation, our combinatory frequencies we invigorate while being
distributed more willingly, in fluid stretch, in interruption.

ecogradients

Posted on Saturday February 25th 2012 at 09:36pm. Its tags are listed below.

&#8220;Drugged Out Nation&#8221; by Alexandra Margevich. Have a headache? Take an Advil. Feeling blue? Take a Prozac. Feeling shy? Take a Xanax. Having trouble focusing? Take an Adderall. There is a drug for almost everything these days. The line between over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medications is receding. Obtaining prescription drugs is easier than ever. The ease of popping a pill is often preferred to the lengthy process of therapy. Drugs are also often used for purposes other than that for which they were designed. It is about time we stop, take a step back, and consider the reasons for the over-prescription, misuse and overuse of various pharmaceuticals. We need to think more carefully about what (and why) we are putting into our bodies. Misplaced Faith As a nation, we are jaded by a blind faith in drug advertising, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for drug approval, and published reports in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) about the latest and greatest drugs.  Although standards for medical and clinical research are enforced by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other ethics agencies, many results fail to be replicated or are contradicted in later research. One study looked at 49 commonly referenced clinical research trials to examine the interpretability of published research results. Dr. John Ioannidis concluded that, “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes.” This is a bit unsettling to the common understanding of medical research. We tend to trust that when the New York Times tells us that a rigorous study published in a well-respected journal revealed the efficacy of a new miracle drug for some physical or mental ailment, we can take the results at face value. Apparently this is not so. In many published studies, benefits may also be overemphasized while costs are underemphasized. Another point of concern is who is funding the studies we read about. Published positive outcomes are more commonly found in studies in which funding was provided by the manufacturer of the drug under study. This is inherently biased. In a similar vein, drug companies can selectively choose not to publish results that are not favorable towards the use of their drug. Politics influences what is and what is not published. The safety of the consumer is not always the main consideration. Pharmaceutical companies are also allowed to pay doctors to endorse their drugs. Patients need to be aware of these caveats. The Food and Drug Administration is another culprit in the overuse of drugs by our nation. The FDA is responsible for regulating an advertising tactic known as direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. This form of advertising is exactly as it sounds: advertising aimed at the consumer rather than the medical professionals. This is the type of advertising most of us are familiar with. When you see an ad for Zoloft on TV, you are witnessing DTC advertising. It channels its influence through various forms of publicly accessible media. Unfortunately, these advertisements may put too much control in the hands of the consumer and paint incomplete pictures of the drugs they are marketing. It is not uncommon for patients to present to a doctor with a request for a name-brand drug they saw in an ad. DTC advertising standards need to be more stringent to reflect our nation’s pattern of drug (mis)use. A different issue takes place when consumers use drugs that were not tested for the use for which they are taking the drug. For example, people who experience normal levels of sadness may take serious doses of anti-depressants to improve their mood. Anti-depressants are not tested on sub-clinical populations; they tend to be tested on moderately to severely depressed persons. Therefore, all conclusions about the efficacy and cost-benefit analysis of the drug’s usage are only relevant to those populations. Giving a strong drug to an individual who is not clinically depressed changes the cost-benefit ratio. In the case of drugs like Prozac, suicides may be more likely in these populations. The manufacturers of Prozac and other similar medications have come under fire in the past decade for their overuse and negative consequences (e.g., youth suicides). Substance Use, Abuse and Dependence Substance misuse may be experienced as a personal issue, but it is taking place at an increasingly societal level. The use of any substance can occur along a continuum, ranging from use to dependence. Dependence (what most people are referring to when they use the term ‘addiction’) is the worst form of substance misuse, because it connotes a physical need for drug consumption. Persons become tolerant of the substance, and must take more and more to achieve the desired effect. When drug use is ceased, users go into withdrawal, and in extreme cases, their systems are so shocked by the absence of the active chemicals that they die. The consequences of using and misusing drugs do not always reach this point, but the fact that this possibility exists with any active drug should be cause enough for concern. People tend to believe that addiction is most commonly associated with alcohol or illegal narcotics, such as cocaine, heroine and ecstasy to name a few. However, people abuse a number of prescription (e.g., pain relievers) and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. I went to a CVS pharmacy in suburban New Jersey the other day to buy Dayquil for a cold, and was shocked when the cashier asked for my ID. When I asked why she needed my ID, she responded that you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase this medication. Apparently, kids between the ages of 12 and 17 have increasingly been using cough and cold medications to get high. I could not believe what was happening. I have been ID’d for cigarettes, for club entry, for alcohol purchase, and now, for Dayquil. This anecdote seems like a bad joke, but it illustrates the potential for any medication to be misused. In this instance, the misuse the pharmacy was attempting to deter was of an intentional nature; kids were choosing to dope up on cough medicine. But in the instances I mentioned in the previous section, misuse can often be a result of inappropriate endorsement, advertising, and misplaced faith in government agencies and medical journals. Whichever the path, the end is wrought with danger. The Pharmakon There is no such thing as a completely benign drug. Medicine is like a double-edged sword: it can heal and it can harm. In Jacques Derrida’s essay, Plato’s Pharmacy, Derrida introduces the reader to the concept of the pharmakon. This Greek term holds two meanings: “cure/medicine” and “poison.” We can meaningfully apply the idea of the pharmakon to the modern use of pharmaceuticals. This essay is not meant to vilify the use of drugs. Nay, when used properly, medicine provides a huge benefit to the sick. My mother, for example, has Lupus. She needs to take corticosteroids and a slew of other medications every day. If she did not have these medications at her disposal, it would be incredibly difficult for her to manage her illness. The problem, as I have highlighted throughout this essay, is when people fail to use drugs properly. This may include abuse, over-reliance on the efficacy of medicine, and the over-prescription of drugs. In these cases, drugs shift from being a blessing to a curse. They become an unnecessary crutch for society, an easy fix to complex problems. The issue we face in setting more rigorous standards for the advertisement and usage of medications is understanding who sets the standards. Who determines when it is normal to take medication? Who determines how much we should take? More importantly, who decides the cutoff between hurting and harming? The solution to these questions does not lie in the power of a singular agency such as the FDA (although policy makers might like to believe so).  Society plays a huge role in delineating the normal from the abnormal. We are in an age in which the zeitgeist supports the heavy reliance upon medications. Any meaningful change needs to be made not just at the political level, but at the societal level. The public needs to be better educated about the risks of the overuse and misuse of prescription and OTC drugs. These issues do not take the forefront. When you watch the news or read a newspaper, rarely will you read about the overuse of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. What you are more likely to read about is drug trafficking, and the use of illegal narcotics. The misuse of ‘normal’ drugs by ‘normal’ people needs to receive more media attention for people to understand the real issue at hand. Why We Love Drugs Life moves at a fast pace. Modern times have brought increasing responsibilities to the average citizen. These burdens are only accentuated in times of financial duress. Between 1967 and 1997, the ability to adjust to major life events has become 45% more difficult (according to a study cited by USA Today). As the average lifespan increases so too do our expenses. Children remain in school longer, and are financially dependent on their parents for longer periods of time. Simultaneously, adults must consider how to manage their finances for mortgage payments, college tuition, medical insurance, and retirement. My parents often joke that they are waiting for me to become financially independent so that they can afford to retire. As much as it pains me to admit, these jokes are clearly a guise for their serious concerns about dealing with the stress of their jobs longer than they were planning so that they can support their 23 year old daughter. Life is tough!With so much time dedicated to making ends meet, it is easy to see how a quick-fix mentality comes to rise. For persons with serious mental issues, attending weekly therapy sessions may not be an option. Therapy costs money and time. These are two things many people cannot afford to sacrifice.  Swallowing a pill once daily is a very appealing option for these persons; pills may cost money, but they do not cost time. The problem is that many of these people need not only pills, but also therapy. Psychopharmaceuticals are meant to be used as an addendum to therapy. It is the therapy that seeks to work out the underlying affective, behavioral and cognitive deficits that perpetuate the illness. If you are only taking pills for your problems and decide to cease usage after experiencing symptom relief, your problems are likely to return. Many people fail to understand this fact.  Another problem is the self-perpetuating nature of pharmaceutical usage. The more people who use and abuse prescription and OTC drugs, the more normalized the practice becomes. We are becoming a generation of pill poppers. It is no coincidence that younger doctors tend to prescribe medications more readily. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have infiltrated popular culture.  The Attainability of Perfection People not only bear the burden of increasing financial demands in modern times, but also bear demands of the individual psyche. Although there is a general understanding that being a little bit quiet, introverted, or shy is a normal part of human behavior, it does not fall along the more desired end of this supposed normal spectrum. Being an extrovert, or an incredibly gregarious and outgoing person, gives you a competitive edge. These qualities are coveted by employers, colleagues, potential mates, etc. It is understandable that people would strive for these traits. Fortunately, we do not live in an age in which you have to deal with being shy. There are pills for that! People with acute instances of shyness and social anxiety often resort to the use of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. Some people truly do experience levels of social anxiety that are debilitating, and taking medication (at the proper dosage and in conjunction with therapy) is the only way that they can build the courage to interact with others. In this case, medication is necessary and helpful. However, other people are merely trying to become better versions of themselves. Why deal with being a little bit shy when you can take a Prozac or a Xanax. They cannot accept the fact that they were handed an unfair card in life, that it is not quite as easy for them to be sociable. Changing such an inherent part of their personalities through self-work is not a particularly appealing option. But there are many non-medical solutions to overcoming shyness. Considering all of the work that people must do to get by in society, it is sad that they are not willing (or able) to direct the same effort towards themselves. Others also use drugs to inoculate themselves against the hardships of everyday life. Sometimes, feeling nothing seems a better option than feeling too much. Anxiolytics can produce a numbing effect when taken unnecessarily or in too high of a dosage. These misuses of drugs to either improve yourself towards some cultural ideal or to numb yourself to the pain of reality are very disconcerting. Medications are used for many reasons. What we need to think about is when we really need them, and when we are taking them for the wrong reasons. Moving Forward I hope that this essay has made you think a little bit harder about who we place our faith in, and why we are so quick to accept medication as a solution to innumerable problems. Medicine can be a wonderful thing, and has saved lives. But when used with the level of frivolity that is so common in today’s society, these same helpful drugs can become very dangerous. We need to rethink our repertoire of problem solving. The easy way isn’t always the best or safest way. Pharmacology is both a blessing and a curse; drugs have helped to cure many diseases and helped people who were on the brink of suicide; but when overprescribed, or inappropriately used, potential costs can outweigh the potential benefits. Consumers need to exert more caution in the substances they put into their bodies; pharmacists and doctors need to make sure drugs will help, and not harm their patients. It is also the responsibility of the patient to make sure that they understand what they are being prescribed, and why they are being prescribed that particular medicine. Until we rethink our consumption of medications, we are destined to remain a drugged out nation.

“Drugged Out Nation” by Alexandra Margevich.

Have a headache? Take an Advil. Feeling blue? Take a Prozac. Feeling shy? Take a Xanax. Having trouble focusing? Take an Adderall. There is a drug for almost everything these days. The line between over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medications is receding. Obtaining prescription drugs is easier than ever. The ease of popping a pill is often preferred to the lengthy process of therapy. Drugs are also often used for purposes other than that for which they were designed. It is about time we stop, take a step back, and consider the reasons for the over-prescription, misuse and overuse of various pharmaceuticals. We need to think more carefully about what (and why) we are putting into our bodies.

Misplaced Faith

As a nation, we are jaded by a blind faith in drug advertising, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for drug approval, and published reports in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) about the latest and greatest drugs.  Although standards for medical and clinical research are enforced by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other ethics agencies, many results fail to be replicated or are contradicted in later research. One study looked at 49 commonly referenced clinical research trials to examine the interpretability of published research results. Dr. John Ioannidis concluded that, “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes.” This is a bit unsettling to the common understanding of medical research. We tend to trust that when the New York Times tells us that a rigorous study published in a well-respected journal revealed the efficacy of a new miracle drug for some physical or mental ailment, we can take the results at face value. Apparently this is not so. In many published studies, benefits may also be overemphasized while costs are underemphasized.

Another point of concern is who is funding the studies we read about. Published positive outcomes are more commonly found in studies in which funding was provided by the manufacturer of the drug under study. This is inherently biased. In a similar vein, drug companies can selectively choose not to publish results that are not favorable towards the use of their drug. Politics influences what is and what is not published. The safety of the consumer is not always the main consideration. Pharmaceutical companies are also allowed to pay doctors to endorse their drugs. Patients need to be aware of these caveats.

The Food and Drug Administration is another culprit in the overuse of drugs by our nation. The FDA is responsible for regulating an advertising tactic known as direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. This form of advertising is exactly as it sounds: advertising aimed at the consumer rather than the medical professionals. This is the type of advertising most of us are familiar with. When you see an ad for Zoloft on TV, you are witnessing DTC advertising. It channels its influence through various forms of publicly accessible media. Unfortunately, these advertisements may put too much control in the hands of the consumer and paint incomplete pictures of the drugs they are marketing. It is not uncommon for patients to present to a doctor with a request for a name-brand drug they saw in an ad. DTC advertising standards need to be more stringent to reflect our nation’s pattern of drug (mis)use.

A different issue takes place when consumers use drugs that were not tested for the use for which they are taking the drug. For example, people who experience normal levels of sadness may take serious doses of anti-depressants to improve their mood. Anti-depressants are not tested on sub-clinical populations; they tend to be tested on moderately to severely depressed persons. Therefore, all conclusions about the efficacy and cost-benefit analysis of the drug’s usage are only relevant to those populations. Giving a strong drug to an individual who is not clinically depressed changes the cost-benefit ratio. In the case of drugs like Prozac, suicides may be more likely in these populations. The manufacturers of Prozac and other similar medications have come under fire in the past decade for their overuse and negative consequences (e.g., youth suicides).

Substance Use, Abuse and Dependence

Substance misuse may be experienced as a personal issue, but it is taking place at an increasingly societal level. The use of any substance can occur along a continuum, ranging from use to dependence. Dependence (what most people are referring to when they use the term ‘addiction’) is the worst form of substance misuse, because it connotes a physical need for drug consumption. Persons become tolerant of the substance, and must take more and more to achieve the desired effect. When drug use is ceased, users go into withdrawal, and in extreme cases, their systems are so shocked by the absence of the active chemicals that they die.

The consequences of using and misusing drugs do not always reach this point, but the fact that this possibility exists with any active drug should be cause enough for concern. People tend to believe that addiction is most commonly associated with alcohol or illegal narcotics, such as cocaine, heroine and ecstasy to name a few. However, people abuse a number of prescription (e.g., pain relievers) and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. I went to a CVS pharmacy in suburban New Jersey the other day to buy Dayquil for a cold, and was shocked when the cashier asked for my ID. When I asked why she needed my ID, she responded that you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase this medication. Apparently, kids between the ages of 12 and 17 have increasingly been using cough and cold medications to get high. I could not believe what was happening. I have been ID’d for cigarettes, for club entry, for alcohol purchase, and now, for Dayquil.

This anecdote seems like a bad joke, but it illustrates the potential for any medication to be misused. In this instance, the misuse the pharmacy was attempting to deter was of an intentional nature; kids were choosing to dope up on cough medicine. But in the instances I mentioned in the previous section, misuse can often be a result of inappropriate endorsement, advertising, and misplaced faith in government agencies and medical journals. Whichever the path, the end is wrought with danger.

The Pharmakon

There is no such thing as a completely benign drug. Medicine is like a double-edged sword: it can heal and it can harm. In Jacques Derrida’s essay, Plato’s Pharmacy, Derrida introduces the reader to the concept of the pharmakon. This Greek term holds two meanings: “cure/medicine” and “poison.” We can meaningfully apply the idea of the pharmakon to the modern use of pharmaceuticals.

This essay is not meant to vilify the use of drugs. Nay, when used properly, medicine provides a huge benefit to the sick. My mother, for example, has Lupus. She needs to take corticosteroids and a slew of other medications every day. If she did not have these medications at her disposal, it would be incredibly difficult for her to manage her illness.

The problem, as I have highlighted throughout this essay, is when people fail to use drugs properly. This may include abuse, over-reliance on the efficacy of medicine, and the over-prescription of drugs. In these cases, drugs shift from being a blessing to a curse. They become an unnecessary crutch for society, an easy fix to complex problems.

The issue we face in setting more rigorous standards for the advertisement and usage of medications is understanding who sets the standards. Who determines when it is normal to take medication? Who determines how much we should take? More importantly, who decides the cutoff between hurting and harming?

The solution to these questions does not lie in the power of a singular agency such as the FDA (although policy makers might like to believe so).  Society plays a huge role in delineating the normal from the abnormal. We are in an age in which the zeitgeist supports the heavy reliance upon medications. Any meaningful change needs to be made not just at the political level, but at the societal level. The public needs to be better educated about the risks of the overuse and misuse of prescription and OTC drugs. These issues do not take the forefront. When you watch the news or read a newspaper, rarely will you read about the overuse of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. What you are more likely to read about is drug trafficking, and the use of illegal narcotics. The misuse of ‘normal’ drugs by ‘normal’ people needs to receive more media attention for people to understand the real issue at hand.

Why We Love Drugs

Life moves at a fast pace. Modern times have brought increasing responsibilities to the average citizen. These burdens are only accentuated in times of financial duress. Between 1967 and 1997, the ability to adjust to major life events has become 45% more difficult (according to a study cited by USA Today). As the average lifespan increases so too do our expenses. Children remain in school longer, and are financially dependent on their parents for longer periods of time. Simultaneously, adults must consider how to manage their finances for mortgage payments, college tuition, medical insurance, and retirement. My parents often joke that they are waiting for me to become financially independent so that they can afford to retire. As much as it pains me to admit, these jokes are clearly a guise for their serious concerns about dealing with the stress of their jobs longer than they were planning so that they can support their 23 year old daughter. Life is tough!With so much time dedicated to making ends meet, it is easy to see how a quick-fix mentality comes to rise. For persons with serious mental issues, attending weekly therapy sessions may not be an option. Therapy costs money and time. These are two things many people cannot afford to sacrifice.  Swallowing a pill once daily is a very appealing option for these persons; pills may cost money, but they do not cost time. The problem is that many of these people need not only pills, but also therapy. Psychopharmaceuticals are meant to be used as an addendum to therapy. It is the therapy that seeks to work out the underlying affective, behavioral and cognitive deficits that perpetuate the illness. If you are only taking pills for your problems and decide to cease usage after experiencing symptom relief, your problems are likely to return. Many people fail to understand this fact. 

Another problem is the self-perpetuating nature of pharmaceutical usage. The more people who use and abuse prescription and OTC drugs, the more normalized the practice becomes. We are becoming a generation of pill poppers. It is no coincidence that younger doctors tend to prescribe medications more readily. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have infiltrated popular culture. 

The Attainability of Perfection

People not only bear the burden of increasing financial demands in modern times, but also bear demands of the individual psyche. Although there is a general understanding that being a little bit quiet, introverted, or shy is a normal part of human behavior, it does not fall along the more desired end of this supposed normal spectrum. Being an extrovert, or an incredibly gregarious and outgoing person, gives you a competitive edge. These qualities are coveted by employers, colleagues, potential mates, etc. It is understandable that people would strive for these traits.

Fortunately, we do not live in an age in which you have to deal with being shy. There are pills for that! People with acute instances of shyness and social anxiety often resort to the use of anti-depressants or anxiolytics. Some people truly do experience levels of social anxiety that are debilitating, and taking medication (at the proper dosage and in conjunction with therapy) is the only way that they can build the courage to interact with others. In this case, medication is necessary and helpful.

However, other people are merely trying to become better versions of themselves. Why deal with being a little bit shy when you can take a Prozac or a Xanax. They cannot accept the fact that they were handed an unfair card in life, that it is not quite as easy for them to be sociable. Changing such an inherent part of their personalities through self-work is not a particularly appealing option. But there are many non-medical solutions to overcoming shyness. Considering all of the work that people must do to get by in society, it is sad that they are not willing (or able) to direct the same effort towards themselves.

Others also use drugs to inoculate themselves against the hardships of everyday life. Sometimes, feeling nothing seems a better option than feeling too much. Anxiolytics can produce a numbing effect when taken unnecessarily or in too high of a dosage. These misuses of drugs to either improve yourself towards some cultural ideal or to numb yourself to the pain of reality are very disconcerting. Medications are used for many reasons. What we need to think about is when we really need them, and when we are taking them for the wrong reasons.

Moving Forward

I hope that this essay has made you think a little bit harder about who we place our faith in, and why we are so quick to accept medication as a solution to innumerable problems. Medicine can be a wonderful thing, and has saved lives. But when used with the level of frivolity that is so common in today’s society, these same helpful drugs can become very dangerous.

We need to rethink our repertoire of problem solving. The easy way isn’t always the best or safest way. Pharmacology is both a blessing and a curse; drugs have helped to cure many diseases and helped people who were on the brink of suicide; but when overprescribed, or inappropriately used, potential costs can outweigh the potential benefits. Consumers need to exert more caution in the substances they put into their bodies; pharmacists and doctors need to make sure drugs will help, and not harm their patients. It is also the responsibility of the patient to make sure that they understand what they are being prescribed, and why they are being prescribed that particular medicine. Until we rethink our consumption of medications, we are destined to remain a drugged out nation.

ecogradients

Posted on Saturday February 25th 2012 at 08:15pm. Its tags are listed below.

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
Bob Doto
—  In Yr Name

(hear the rest of the album here.)

When the oceans turn to salt
And the mountains into plains
The Earth will grieve its dying groan
In yr name…

When the lion falls asleep
And the lamb accepts its pain
The vulture turns into the sky
In yr name…

When the family holds its breath
As the mother ends her days
Down the block a child is born
In yr name…

When parents come up short
And children are left out of the frame
Each will play their role to the line
In yr name…

So I do what my body does
‘Cause it never has to explain.
And I do my best not to do any harm
In yr name…

And no matter where I go
And whoever I try to save
Even those that refuse me
They refuse me
In yr name…

So when I’m far from home
Please for me do the same.
When I cross every line you have drawn
I will do it
In yr name…

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 08:11pm. Its tags are listed below.

“Mirror Stages” - text by Blake Seidenshaw, photos by Yossi Zur.

1. What is the Society of the Spectacle?

     The transformation of events into commodities.  This mechanism (commodification) allows the SotS to assimilate all opposition to itself.  How does this transformation occur?  Thru the transcription, the writing, of events; their inscription into a system of commensurabilities; a language. 

     The consolidation of power (Capital) is mirrored by a consolidation of language, of communicability.  But spaces of encryption, codes, languages, can never be definitively consolidated (consolidation is a relative, rather than absolute, determination; a +/- vector).  Changes in the modes of production, in the structures and forms of techniques and their produce, are perpetually opening this gap, augmenting the imperfections of these consolidations, however gradually, intangibly, almost-imperceptibly.    

     To the extent of this reflection’s imperfection, productive events will be incomensurable, ineffable, & almost inscrutable to the Spectacular ‘Eye of Mordor’, which will be unable to focus on them.  This results in the ‘blemish’ in the specular field called objet a by Lacan.

devilhead

2.  Detournement, or “Why do my (perverse) attempts at ‘benevolent (teacherly) egalitarianism’ not always work?”

     Correcting social, or sociostructural (ideological) inequity is not as simple as merely: a) recognizing the complicity implied by one’s ‘role’, and b) ceasing to ‘play’ said role.  Because ‘not playing’ is spectacularly indistinguishable from ‘playing poorly’ (quitting =/= losing).

     If it’s not enough merely to quit, then perhaps one should play not merely for victory, but for transformation; to change the game.  But how?  Step a), recognizing one’s role, is still viable, but we cannot stop there, deceiving ourselves by imagining that we have discovered the truth (via some mystical insight into the ephemeral, divine nature of the self, i.e…); we should rather push this insight further, to examine the inter-supportive structure of identities in all that we observe.  Here we should look for what we could call the ‘fractal dimension’; the ‘seam’ of the game.  This is the axis along which it can be aligned with sub- and super- games with which it shares elements.  Superlative strategies are those with simultaneous (micro & macro) applicabilities.  Selecting such strategies (not identifying them in the abstract, but assuming them within the structure of one’s own behavior).  Such strategies allow one to succeed while consolidating effort and affect.  More energy confers greater perspicuity and resolution, which in turn confer more clues leading to further consolidations. 

congruent quanta

3.  Staging the Spectacle.

     The greatest asset of Occupy Wall St. has been its ambiguity. 

     The Spectacular apparatus is sadomasochistically oriented.  It loves to devour events by transforming them into caricatures.  The bigger the event, the more satisfying it is to assimilate.  But events can only grow & thrive outside of the wasteland of this Spectacular mechanism of transfixion and incorporation.  The Spectacle thus cultivates events in just the same way that Ego cultivates jouissance.  The Nietzschean sadism of Freud’s Pleasure Principle is therefore always being deferred, derailed, misplaced, perverted, and rerouted; detourned by its implacable, complimentary doppleganger, the Death Drive. 

     If the pleasure principle is the law of the Universal (and tendentially divine and omniscient) Subject, that sovereign deity of Enlightenment, which organizes around itself the flawless, Althusserian ideological field such that each interpellated subject will see hirself reflected in hir surroundings (Hobbes), the death drive is the gap in this correspondence, the flaw in the topos, the tain in the mirror.  The pleasure principle is the subject seeking the self-knowledge of a subjectivity that would be full; ‘more myself than I am!’  The death drive is the fascination with the reciprocal: ‘why am I not (already) that?; ‘why am I not me?’

4.  Desiring-Production.

     Capitalist society is organized around the imperative to maximize the pleasure principle and minimize the death drive.  The twin trends of consolidating capital and maximizing profit together represent a vector of increase in the reach and efficiency of the pleasure principle.  Markets are driven by consumption, which is in turn driven by the imperative to satisfy desire.  But desire (being constitutive of the subject ‘in the first place’), is of course unsatiable; it can only be augmented or diminished (‘thinking in terms of tendencies’, Stiegler calls this), and desire’s perpetual diminishment via consumption eventually creates the paradoxical reversal-by-extension of its desire for augmentation.  This is the death drive: the perverse desire for instability, imbalance, imprecision, and innovation; the derivation of events from the disruption of pattern; form from transformation (cf. Malabou).

     This jouissance is like some kind of pure affect, and it is less a psychic than a physiosocial phenomenon.  Inasmuch as the pleasure principle reaffirms the subjective identity, the death drive dissolves it, ruptures it, & transforms it.  The event, as the vehicle of this jouissance, is by definition then traumatic, but its affective determination (i.e. pain as enduring or suffering; catastrophe as comedy or tragedy) is only affixed retroactively (retrospectacularly).  During the ‘untimeliness’ of its unfolding it appears as a radical opening up of possibility; Utopia as Atopia (Bey’s T.A.Z.)!

desiring-production

5.  Form and Structure.

     If Lacan’s Image can be likened to Barthes’ Form, then the Lacanian Symbolic would correspond to Barthesian Structure.  The form/image is, in both cases, necessarily incomplete; in other words, its appearance of completeness is precisely correlable with its degree of dissimilitude.  A ‘perfect’ image/form could have no meaning, because the signified is always of a ‘higher’ (finer) resolution  than its signifier.  Take for example the form of a circle: O -its referent, ‘circularity’, is at once more general & more abstract than its representation.  The ‘circularity’ gestured to by a given circle can accommodate many such gestures, none of which can capture it exhaustively (the map is not the territory).

     The pseudophilosophical speculation as to whether or not ‘perfect’ (Platonic) forms ‘truly exist’ misses the point regarding the functionality of their representatives (it isn’t, and can’t be, clear whether we would have any access to an idea of circularity without ever seeing any gestures that referred us thereto…). 

    The image itself, therefore, effectively contains both its form and its shortfall therefrom.  If the image were in a mirror, this structure would be one of self-identification.

buck dunny

6.  Aporeality.

     The (mirror) image is both the thing and not the thing, the self and not the self.  Subjectification is therefore always dual: part of me sees myself (my ego-ideal) in the Althusserian mirror of reproduction & takes up the position I am called to assume (Narcissus!), while another part, noticing the discrepancy (which is also to say, noticing myself!), moves to close the gap (Echo!); their interplay motivating the ongoing process of transformative re-interpellation, and erupting (drunkenly) into symptomatic expression when repressed.
    While this transformative movement must itself remain inscrutable, the field in which it moves is highly structured, organized according to implicit logics and their incommensurabilities (Foucault’s ‘discourses’).  Here again we come to this point of intersection between the pure affect of experience, the object of Deleuze’s ‘transcendental empiricism’ -the ‘inside’ which is not ‘within’ anything; which is presubjective; not even yet vectoral with desire (which already implies a subject)- and the pure structure of an interformal logic; syntax & grammar; logico-libidinal economies; the omniextensive ‘outside’ which contains nothing; no inside…

     When we see the impossibility of this articulation -this trans-structural & inaeffective conjunction or coupling between omniextensity & immanentensity (which is also to say, between recollection & understanding, between thinking & knowing)- we come closest to an understanding of it…

False Mirror

7.  Tactical Strategies.

     This Situation (which we sometimes call ‘life’) is inherently & profoundly ambivalent.  Because its identification accompanies its conclusion, it is often misunderstood as a process (of) seeking self-identification (Hegel, Nietzsche).  In truth, as much as it seeks itself, it seeks to avoid finding itself, because it is in the act of searching that it is most true to itself; this jouissance reflects the mortal condition: the indissociability of the bright pleasures of existence from their shadows of pain and death.

     The event is therefore perhaps nothing more than a vehicle for feeling, but under the conditions of spectacular capitalism, the simple deferrals of identification that this entails take on momentous proportions, and express extremely high intensities of tactical genius. 

     Tactical as opposed to strategic (more or less following Certeau), because here we mustn’t risk the misunderstanding that we are speaking of a plan that would organize collective actions by pre-specifying them.  Rather, ‘tactics’ would refer to a ‘micropolitical’ (Foucault-wise) sensitivity to semiotic conditions and contexts, without being paralyzed by their complexities.  Intelligence exists at these intersections, whose impossibilities open up onto possibilities that resist calculation and figuration, or even imagination.  Tactical patterns and syntaxes which emerge at this juncture are thus fundamentally unpredictable with regard to scale, speed, and resolvability, and therefore the mimetic mechanism of ‘grassroots’ psychosocial coordination could never yield to capture or control…

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 06:36pm. Its tags are listed below.

&#8220;Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.&#8221; by Alice Yang.            If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton&#8230;), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians.            Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the  consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim?            For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.           What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V&#8212;-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)           I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)&#8212;-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.           Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.           But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.           ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.           Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.           This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)           And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait&#8212;she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.           Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom &#8230; comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]&#8230; the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?           As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian). “We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.           Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following. Works Cited: Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.&#8221; Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13&#160;2011. &lt;http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311&gt; Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red &amp; Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13&#160;2011. Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” &lt;http://www.shaviro.com/&gt; Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.
&#8220;Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.&#8221; by Alice Yang.            If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton&#8230;), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians.            Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the  consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim?            For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.           What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V&#8212;-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)           I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)&#8212;-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.           Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.           But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.           ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.           Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.           This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)           And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait&#8212;she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.           Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom &#8230; comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]&#8230; the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?           As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian). “We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.           Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following. Works Cited: Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.&#8221; Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13&#160;2011. &lt;http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311&gt; Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red &amp; Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13&#160;2011. Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” &lt;http://www.shaviro.com/&gt; Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.

“Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.” by Alice Yang. 

          If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton…), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians. 

          Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the  consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim? 

          For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.

          What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V—-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)

          I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)—-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.

          Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.

          But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.

          ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.

          Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.

          This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)

          And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait—she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.

          Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom … comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]… the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?

          As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian).

“We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.

          Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following.

Works Cited:

Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.

Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.” Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13 2011. <http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311>

Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red & Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13 2011.

Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” <http://www.shaviro.com/>

Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 06:17pm. Its tags are listed below.

“All the Right Choices: Situated Autonomy in Juno and Precious.” by Courtney Zehnder.

          In her book Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century, Anita Harris critiques two contrasting categories that society currently utilizes to understand and deal with young women, those categories being the “can-do girl” and the “at-risk girl.” In this paper, I seek to analyze two films through Harris’ “can-do” and “at-risk” categories—2007’s Juno and 2009’s Precious. In taking my analysis into the realm of the imaginary—film—I hope to further destabilize the concept of “future girl” that Harris focuses on in her work, painting it as always fictional, constructed, scripted, and directed by societal forces.

          Embedded in both the “can-do” and “at-risk” conceptions of young girls lies an emphasis on the importance of personal choice: the “can-do” girl makes good choices that lead her down a path of health, beauty, and career/economic success while “at-risk” girls make bad choices that limit their options and put them in danger. Valerie Walkerdine warns against relying on this Marxist binary of the ever-powerful and the powerless in her work “Sex, Power, and Pedagogy.” For society, “success and failure are constructed as though they were dependent on strategic effort and good personal choices” (Harris 32). In most respects, one would be quick to put the character of Juno in the “can-do” category, with her embracing of girlpower (16), tenacity, consumption skills, and strong familial support; one would also be quick to put Precious in the category of “at-risk,” with her socio-economic status, low test scores, unsupportive family, propensity for violence, and HIV status. I would argue, however, that our tendency to see Juno and Precious in these ways stems from misconceiving of concepts like choice and autonomy.

          Anita Harris comments on our problematic construction of choice and autonomy in the introduction to her book:

Young women have been encouraged to believe that ‘girls can do anything’ and ‘girls are powerful.’ These ideas about choice and freedom are central to contemporary notions of individuality. In today’s risk society individuals are expected to be flexible, adaptable, resilient, and ultimately responsible for their own ability to manage their lives successfully. (8)

          In saying that “girls can do anything” and making that the marker of freedom and success, we are operating under a modernist, humanist perspective of autonomy—that a person is only a truly free individual if they can “do anything,” while making choices of their own volition that rid them of oppression. In this framework, someone like Precious is forever doomed to the category of “at-risk” because she is systematically cut off from certain desirable choices or options. She is starting off from such a disadvantage that she seems immediately excluded from the discourse of “the girl who can do anything.” Harris laments society’s unwillingness to recognize this when labeling girls as “can-do” and “at-risk,” noting that “the consequences of the sexual and economic exploitation of these young women are not confronted” and their “circumstances are labeled ‘failure,’ and this is attributed to poor choices…” (9).

          The truth is, however, that “can-do” girls realistically cannot “do anything,” either. Those girls, including Juno, still exist within a social and historical reality that has limitations; they still exist in a world in which, a la Foucault, power has not just repressive but positive aspects that shape the subject and one is influenced in such all-encompassing ways that it is impossible to tell whether one made a choice because they wanted to or because they were convinced they wanted to.  The message that girls can “do anything” and that they are personally responsible for their own success or future devalues or even masks the choices that girls labeled as “at-risk” do make in their daily lives. It is clear in Precious that the lead character is making just as many positive, life-affirming choices as Juno; they just do not get her as far because her starting point is different.

          In looking at some of the choices Precious makes in the film and comparing them with Juno’s, I hope to challenge in a broad sense the way in which society is constructing the notions of choice and autonomy. I will then address two specific kinds of choice made in both films: the choice to fantasize and the choice to delay motherhood, both in ways that differ from the common understanding of the concept, in the hop of illuminating new choices of merit.

          Precious makes the difficult choice to go to an alternative high school, after being asked to leave her original school, even though her mother is vehemently against it. Her mother threatens her with violence over the decision, insisting she should instead be “going down the welfare line” to bring in more income for the family. Precious has no reason to believe education holds any real promise for her, seeing tests as devices to construct her as “dumb, as less than dumb,” but she makes the difficult decision nonetheless. Juno, in contrast, is never asked to leave her high school despite her pregnancy and does not have to make any real choices about her education; she appears to be in high school because that is what “normal” teenagers do, not because she made some real decision about it. Juno’s level of education and enrollment in a traditional school still leave her with more options than Precious, though, even though Precious was the one who really embraced and fought for her education. If society was really evaluating girls on the choices they made, Precious would shine as embodying the “can-do” attitude, fighting for her right to be educated despite being pregnant, HIV+, and living in a home that does not value education. I would argue, though, that society is really judging where one ends up in life, not all the difficult decisions one made towards progress; to quote Harris again, “structural disadvantage is recast as poor personal choices, laziness, and incompetent family practices” (25).

          So, in a world where making good choices cannot be guaranteed to get one the life that he or she desires, what role can fantasy come to play? Michelle Fine has consistently noted in her work (like “Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing After All These Years”) that discourses about female youth desire are missing from discussions about sexuality; yet, in Precious, desire is ever present and something she is very much in touch with. It seems as though there is an implicit conflicting discourse embedded within the idea that “girls can do anything,” which manifests as the shaming of unrealistic thinking or dreaming. Society is simultaneously telling girls that anything is possible but to think realistically. In Precious, the film is structured in such a way that her fantasies are put forth as a sad mockery of her real life. When men abuse her, she fantasizes about men desiring and loving her; when her life seems hopeless to her, she fantasizes about being glamorous and famous. Fantasies need not be interpreted as the sad delusions of a girl unwilling to live in reality, though. They can be reconstructed as choices to acknowledge another possible self, choices that then provide the strength to make other important, life-affirming decisions. For example, the day before Precious is supposed to go to her new, alternative school, she fantasizes about having a mother who loves her and wants her to get an education. This is not a delusion (Precious does not think this version of her mother is actually real) but rather a choice to move forward in her education. When her father is raping her, Precious fantasizes about being somewhere else. Could this not be conceived of as a choice to protect herself by refusing to participate in what is happening? By choosing not to be mentally or emotionally present for certain abusive moments in her life, Precious refuses to exist solely as a body, as physical space.

          Though it is not as central to the plot as in Precious, Juno alludes to the possibility of fantasy as choice, constructing it as a choosing to forget. When she informs her parents that she is pregnant and will be giving the baby up for adoption, she asks whether or not they all could just “pretend this never happened” after she gives birth. Later in the film, when she meets the couple she will be giving the baby to, she asks for a closed adoption, showing again that she would, in some sense, like to erase this experience from her memory. In choosing to forget, Juno exerts agency, deciding how and in what ways she will define herself.

          This choosing to forget brings us to another important concept in Harris’ work, that being delayed motherhood. Implicit in the conception of delayed motherhood is not simply that one will wait to have children but that one will also wait to get pregnant. Harris’ treatment of the topic is rife with the phrase “teenage mother,” but it is not simply motherhood that gets one labeled as “at-risk;” being pregnant too early will land someone in that category as well. One could argue that Juno’s unwavering conviction to not be a mother excludes her from the category of “at-risk.” Just because she was once pregnant, does not mean she failed to delay motherhood.

          I believe Precious serves as an even more interesting example of how to reconceive of delayed motherhood. Though she did not give her first child up for adoption, the child does not live with her but rather with Precious’s grandmother. Precious does not have the financial or time-related responsibility of caring for this child and the child in no way hinders Precious’s ability to attend school or do school related work. It is possible, then, to conceive of her as delaying motherhood for all intents and purposes. The major concern over teenage motherhood is that young women “stop breeding and start earning” (32). So if Precious can give birth to a child and that child’s existence does not disrupt her schooling, she does not perfectly fit into the “at-risk” category either.

          An individual always makes choices within a limited framework. We should not be punishing women who work hard to make “good” choices but still cannot break free of their disadvantaged situation. By taking a closer look at Harris’ work and these two films, I believe we can begin to reconceive of autonomy, choice, and the limited categories of “at-risk” and “can-do.”

Works Cited

Fine, Michelle. “Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing After All These Years.”  American Journal of Sexuality Education. 76.3 (2006): 297-338.

Harris, Anita. Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Juno. Dir. Jason Reitman. Perf. Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman. Fox Searchlight, 2007. DVD.

Precious. Dir. Lee Daniels. Perf. Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton. Lionsgate, 2009. DVD.

Walkerdine, Valerie. “Sex, Power, and Pedagogy”. Schoolgirl Fictions. New York: Verso, 1990.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 05:47pm. Its tags are listed below.

Chris Moffett, &#8220;Occupying Academe&#8221; and &#8220;Lecture Hall&#8221; (pinhole photograph, 2008).           -The Grove of Academus, Site of Plato&#8217;s Academy. Sitting here, late at night, in a tower of Academe, I am writing about the occupation of Wall Street, thinking about how the trope of “occupation” has found such a strong resonance. I imagine it is in no small part because we have been raised on the images of education. Not the images within education, but the images of some hypothetical education, images that allow us to know where we fit and how we are to navigate the “real world.” Among other things, we Race to the Top, Leaving No Child Left Behind, and so it should be no surprise that when these tropes fall flat, we are left to wonder what it means to occupy something that doesn’t exist, or to occupy the pathways themselves. Enacting stories of being on the move, we find ourselves in the midst of things. What is it that we are occupying ourselves with while we are there? And if this is bound up with the story of education, what is it that we are learning? Interestingly enough, the story of Academus is a story of a person inextricably in relationship to a place. And this connection, over time, comes to stand for an odd bargain sparing things from occupation. As Plutarch would have it, Helen of Troy has been abducted, and her brothers are on the move, looking for where she might be concealed: At first, then, they did no harm, but simply demanded back their sister. When, however, the people of the city replied that they neither had the girl nor knew where she had been left, they resorted to war. But Academus, who had learned in some way or other of her concealment at Aphidnae, told them where she was hidden. For this reason he was honored during his life by the Tyndaridae, and often afterwards when the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica and laid waste all the country round about, they spared the Academy, for the sake of Academus. —Plutarch, Theseus, 32. What is the pact that the Academy must make to have it’s space spared, what secrets must it reveal of another place? And since we find ourselves there, what does it mean to occupy a space that is protected from occupation? As the imagery of occupation shows its wild unwillingness to stay still, searching perhaps as it is for Helen, it finds itself everywhere or anywhere. But before we too quickly set out to Occupy Education, we should be careful to reflect on it as a question. What are we doing when we occupy the groves of the Academy? We should also be careful, however, to not treat it as a question for mere reflection, as only academics can do. A subject for suitable inquiry. Instead we have to realize the place that is this question is busy being occupied. We have been busy occupying ourselves in it. We are Lacedaemonians and Greeks alike. And the challenge we face is to see whether we can not just inhabit the difficult place we are in, but to do so as an active question, a question of activity. [also cf. the comments on the original post -ed.]

Chris Moffett, “Occupying Academe” and “Lecture Hall” (pinhole photograph, 2008).

Grove of Plato

          -The Grove of Academus, Site of Plato’s Academy.

Sitting here, late at night, in a tower of Academe, I am writing about the occupation of Wall Street, thinking about how the trope of “occupation” has found such a strong resonance. I imagine it is in no small part because we have been raised on the images of education. Not the images within education, but the images of some hypothetical education, images that allow us to know where we fit and how we are to navigate the “real world.” Among other things, we Race to the Top, Leaving No Child Left Behind, and so it should be no surprise that when these tropes fall flat, we are left to wonder what it means to occupy something that doesn’t exist, or to occupy the pathways themselves. Enacting stories of being on the move, we find ourselves in the midst of things.

What is it that we are occupying ourselves with while we are there? And if this is bound up with the story of education, what is it that we are learning?

Interestingly enough, the story of Academus is a story of a person inextricably in relationship to a place. And this connection, over time, comes to stand for an odd bargain sparing things from occupation. As Plutarch would have it, Helen of Troy has been abducted, and her brothers are on the move, looking for where she might be concealed:

At first, then, they did no harm, but simply demanded back their sister. When, however, the people of the city replied that they neither had the girl nor knew where she had been left, they resorted to war. But Academus, who had learned in some way or other of her concealment at Aphidnae, told them where she was hidden. For this reason he was honored during his life by the Tyndaridae, and often afterwards when the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica and laid waste all the country round about, they spared the Academy, for the sake of Academus. —Plutarch, Theseus, 32.

What is the pact that the Academy must make to have it’s space spared, what secrets must it reveal of another place? And since we find ourselves there, what does it mean to occupy a space that is protected from occupation?

As the imagery of occupation shows its wild unwillingness to stay still, searching perhaps as it is for Helen, it finds itself everywhere or anywhere. But before we too quickly set out to Occupy Education, we should be careful to reflect on it as a question. What are we doing when we occupy the groves of the Academy? We should also be careful, however, to not treat it as a question for mere reflection, as only academics can do. A subject for suitable inquiry. Instead we have to realize the place that is this question is busy being occupied. We have been busy occupying ourselves in it. We are Lacedaemonians and Greeks alike. And the challenge we face is to see whether we can not just inhabit the difficult place we are in, but to do so as an active question, a question of activity.

[also cf. the comments on the original post -ed.]

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 05:11pm. Its tags are listed below.

“Lightness” by Stephen Andrus.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera explores the philosophical concept of “lightness.” Lightness is understood as the opposite of Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence which Kundera explores in the beginning of the novel. To him we have only one life to live.

Lightness encapsulates the German expression, Einmal ist keinmal – once is never, that life is insignificant and might as well not have happened. However, this insignificance can cause great personal suffering and thus, the unbearable lightness of being. It is existentially unbearable for people searching for their lives to have a transcendent meaning. Life is weighed by irrevocable choices and the swirls of fortuitous and unfortuitous events.

These photographs have no beginning and no end.  There is no source of the “lightness.” They exist in the existential space of everywhere and nowhere, between the empyreal stars and the longing of our imagination. They inhabit the time and space of dreams, dreams that can be seen and felt but never realized – knowing that life without dreams is no life at all. But perhaps this is the very point Kundera was trying to convey.

What I have tried to do is as simple, and not as simple as what Pablo Picasso did when he created the “Bull’s Head” sculpture in 1944. He mounted a pair of bicycle handle bars on top of a bicycle seat and transformed it into a bull’s head. That was his leap of imagination. What I have done is, in a sense, along the same lines of his “found objects.” I wander the netherworld of New York City late at night, searching out its dark places and hidden corners.

I walk the sidewalks, always separated by the glass of windows from what is on the other side (the land of dreams). I can only see from one side out of my darkness and have no control over anything. I cannot change the position, the setting, the background, or lighting. Everything is fixed except for my imagination and my own unbearable lightness of being. What I have done is to take what I see and turn it upside down, creating a new reality, a new liberating existence. It has been like that in my dreams all my life.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 04:59pm. Its tags are listed below.

“What does it mean to occupy the body?” by Mitchell Gold.                      Look at the body as the place from which to begin.  If life can be said to be a stage of growth and learning, then the body is the platform from which this investigation is launched.  The premise here is that we are better equipped for inquiry of any kind if we can first find ease and stability with our own physical form.  And, conversely, we may find ourselves hampered if we extend ourselves into the theoretical realms and analytical without first bringing equilibrium to the body.                      This view is so obvious as to leave one wondering whether it needs stating.  Every day we discover new avenues of communication, new elements of composition and new methods of measurement related to the body.  We become immersed in the complexity and beauty of a system as viewed and parsed through increasingly sophisticated analytics.  Well, what of the physicality of the person performing the calculations?  How comfortably does each person rest in this same structure that they are studying?  And to what extent does discomfort affect their ability to perform a task in the finer strata of excellence, much less enjoy their day?                      What does it mean to ‘occupy the body’?  How does one live within one’s structure, and at what level of perfection / imperfection?  Is this question qualitative and the answer, of necessity, purely subjective?  And, if so, is it of any less value - to the individual, and to their community?                      Perhaps we can avoid the existential physical dilemma by freezing movement out of the equation - e.g. by sitting behind a desk in a singular position every day, every week and every year.  Perhaps by refusing to move we can forget the physical sensations which arise when head to the vending machine.  That is if we are sufficiently concentrated, and capable of being at ease in stasis.                      On the other hand, perhaps there is some level of felt pain within us at all times.  And maybe the volume of this pain will become so great, or our belief in relief will become so strong, that we overcome the admonitions of our community as to the pain’s normalcy and we ‘go see someone’.                       Perhaps we are bequeathed with a prescription for pharmaceuticals to help diminish our awareness of the pain.  Or, we are the happy recipient of a surgical procedure eliminating the problematic physical constituent from our system.  Yet, what if the ‘noise’ of the pain persists, moving from the background to the forefront of our awareness?                     When does our inability to manage physical discomfort spread into other areas of our awareness?  How do we deal with underlying levels of anxiety caused by an imbalance on the physical level?  Maybe we ought to pull back from the physical and hole up in the intellect, in the theoretical and the analytical.                      Alternatively our intent might be to explore our physicality - in essence, to ‘occupy the body’.  Rather than remove ourselves from our own spatial delimiters, we might address discomfort through an inquiry into balance and stability.  From a position of stability, then, we might efficiently and comfortably extend our sensibilities into the multiple external and internal dimensions that awaken our curiosity.                    How would one describe ‘stability’?  Let us consider this as a dynamic equilibrium in which each element of the physical structure plays a vital role.  Consider this as a spatial position with no time component - a structural equilibrium in which all components are constantly moving and recalibrating to define balance in the moment. This is not a state to be found, and held.  Stability is a state to be discovered, and re-discovered again.                     On a gross level one can identify elements of structure which must be fundamental to our concept of stability.  For example:  the arches of the foot affect hinging in the knee, affecting balance across the hips, providing a foundation for the spine, on top of which balances - precariously - the cranium, from which through the portal of the eyes we observe and judge what surrounds us.                     Distortion in the arch of the foot will result in compensation at some other level of the structure.  If we compensate adequately, we will find balance at the macro level overlaying a structure with local distortion.  Assuming multiple distortions by the time we have climbed upward through the multitudinous hand-offs to the level of one’s eye, we find that we must rely on the input of senses housed within a patchwork of ‘fixes’.  And make no mistake, each fix imparts an impression on a structural level as well as a psychological one.  The compressed lower back challenges us physically and strains us emotionally.                      Knees don’t operate as well.  Hips become ‘stuck’.  Lower back pain becomes an underlying background subtext.  Our ability to find balance and poise in the moment is forfeited for patterned stances - locking our knees, leaning against the wall, thrusting hips to the side - in an effort to find a moment of physical relief rather than one of equilibrium. What would be provided assuming we could discover a state of greater equilibrium?                       We might find a greater sense of ease.  Imagine:  if our knees didn’t hurt and our back didn’t ache and our jaw was no longer fixed, we might discover a greater joy in the play of our children.  Imagine:  greater balance could lead to greater poise, and with poise might arrive quiet presence - to enjoy what is around us.                      Equilibrium in structure enables verticality.  Verticality and stability in movement indicate an enhanced ability to respond to change.  Heightened ability to respond to challenges in the environment suggests a growth in power.  Equilibrium without strain - with ease - brings the possibility of  movement with grace.                     Internal and external sensibilities expand as the mechanism is more fine-tuned.  When we were once crippled by the kink in our neck and the ache behind our eyes, we are now free to expand the uncluttered avenues of the mind.  We might explore and extend the realms of our senses - the keys of a piano, the smells of good cooking  - the reaches of our intellect, or something outside the two.                    Begin with the body as home base.  This is where we incubate our potential.  This is where we learn the concepts of internal and external, distant and near.  And this is the tool of learning - the vehicle for information collection, knowledge extrusion and communication.  Develop stability and balance to create an able platform for inquiry and expression.  We can go beyond the body, though remember we are tethered to it.

“What does it mean to occupy the body?” by Mitchell Gold.

                      Look at the body as the place from which to begin.  If life can be said to be a stage of growth and learning, then the body is the platform from which this investigation is launched.  The premise here is that we are better equipped for inquiry of any kind if we can first find ease and stability with our own physical form.  And, conversely, we may find ourselves hampered if we extend ourselves into the theoretical realms and analytical without first bringing equilibrium to the body.

                      This view is so obvious as to leave one wondering whether it needs stating.  Every day we discover new avenues of communication, new elements of composition and new methods of measurement related to the body.  We become immersed in the complexity and beauty of a system as viewed and parsed through increasingly sophisticated analytics.  Well, what of the physicality of the person performing the calculations?  How comfortably does each person rest in this same structure that they are studying?  And to what extent does discomfort affect their ability to perform a task in the finer strata of excellence, much less enjoy their day?

                      What does it mean to ‘occupy the body’?  How does one live within one’s structure, and at what level of perfection / imperfection?  Is this question qualitative and the answer, of necessity, purely subjective?  And, if so, is it of any less value - to the individual, and to their community?

                      Perhaps we can avoid the existential physical dilemma by freezing movement out of the equation - e.g. by sitting behind a desk in a singular position every day, every week and every year.  Perhaps by refusing to move we can forget the physical sensations which arise when head to the vending machine.  That is if we are sufficiently concentrated, and capable of being at ease in stasis.

                      On the other hand, perhaps there is some level of felt pain within us at all times.  And maybe the volume of this pain will become so great, or our belief in relief will become so strong, that we overcome the admonitions of our community as to the pain’s normalcy and we ‘go see someone’.

                      Perhaps we are bequeathed with a prescription for pharmaceuticals to help diminish our awareness of the pain.  Or, we are the happy recipient of a surgical procedure eliminating the problematic physical constituent from our system.  Yet, what if the ‘noise’ of the pain persists, moving from the background to the forefront of our awareness?

                     When does our inability to manage physical discomfort spread into other areas of our awareness?  How do we deal with underlying levels of anxiety caused by an imbalance on the physical level?  Maybe we ought to pull back from the physical and hole up in the intellect, in the theoretical and the analytical.

                     Alternatively our intent might be to explore our physicality - in essence, to ‘occupy the body’.  Rather than remove ourselves from our own spatial delimiters, we might address discomfort through an inquiry into balance and stability.  From a position of stability, then, we might efficiently and comfortably extend our sensibilities into the multiple external and internal dimensions that awaken our curiosity.

                    How would one describe ‘stability’?  Let us consider this as a dynamic equilibrium in which each element of the physical structure plays a vital role.  Consider this as a spatial position with no time component - a structural equilibrium in which all components are constantly moving and recalibrating to define balance in the moment. This is not a state to be found, and held.  Stability is a state to be discovered, and re-discovered again.

                    On a gross level one can identify elements of structure which must be fundamental to our concept of stability.  For example:  the arches of the foot affect hinging in the knee, affecting balance across the hips, providing a foundation for the spine, on top of which balances - precariously - the cranium, from which through the portal of the eyes we observe and judge what surrounds us.

                    Distortion in the arch of the foot will result in compensation at some other level of the structure.  If we compensate adequately, we will find balance at the macro level overlaying a structure with local distortion.  Assuming multiple distortions by the time we have climbed upward through the multitudinous hand-offs to the level of one’s eye, we find that we must rely on the input of senses housed within a patchwork of ‘fixes’.  And make no mistake, each fix imparts an impression on a structural level as well as a psychological one.  The compressed lower back challenges us physically and strains us emotionally.

                     Knees don’t operate as well.  Hips become ‘stuck’.  Lower back pain becomes an underlying background subtext.  Our ability to find balance and poise in the moment is forfeited for patterned stances - locking our knees, leaning against the wall, thrusting hips to the side - in an effort to find a moment of physical relief rather than one of equilibrium. What would be provided assuming we could discover a state of greater equilibrium? 

                     We might find a greater sense of ease.  Imagine:  if our knees didn’t hurt and our back didn’t ache and our jaw was no longer fixed, we might discover a greater joy in the play of our children.  Imagine:  greater balance could lead to greater poise, and with poise might arrive quiet presence - to enjoy what is around us.

                     Equilibrium in structure enables verticality.  Verticality and stability in movement indicate an enhanced ability to respond to change.  Heightened ability to respond to challenges in the environment suggests a growth in power.  Equilibrium without strain - with ease - brings the possibility of  movement with grace.

                    Internal and external sensibilities expand as the mechanism is more fine-tuned.  When we were once crippled by the kink in our neck and the ache behind our eyes, we are now free to expand the uncluttered avenues of the mind.  We might explore and extend the realms of our senses - the keys of a piano, the smells of good cooking  - the reaches of our intellect, or something outside the two.

                   Begin with the body as home base.  This is where we incubate our potential.  This is where we learn the concepts of internal and external, distant and near.  And this is the tool of learning - the vehicle for information collection, knowledge extrusion and communication.  Develop stability and balance to create an able platform for inquiry and expression.  We can go beyond the body, though remember we are tethered to it.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 04:42pm. Its tags are listed below.

“The Vertical Dimension” by Cynthia Dantzic.

The cryptic clues to your current topic were most intriguing, particularly the reference to verticality as a dimension, which brought to mind my current photographic essay, a study of one avocado seed as it seeks to rise from a dormant state, pursuing a struggle to attain its full growth and stature by slowly working to attain the full measure of its verticality.

From its near comatose position, held by three toothpicks in a glass of water, motionless for over a month, it suddenly sprouted a small brownish bump, then a thin green shoot, and slowly, slowly proceeded to lengthen and rise, until it demanded to be placed in a large pot surrounded by warm nurturing earth. Then it took off, like a moon shot, straight up and up, and continues to do so to this very day.

If you doubt the existence of a vertical dimension, look no further than the world of plants, each individual growing perpendicular to the horizon, each tree seeking the heavens, straight up, right from the start.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 04:31pm. Its tags are listed below.

“Navigating the Technologized Campus Environment” by Peter Zhang.  Images by Mark Dzula.

It’s unthinkable nowadays to function as a college student without a laptop computer. The technological environment of the university presupposes that we are equipped with certain gadgets. And for God’s sake, we do end up having them.

We pay a price for being linked up with the World Wide Web. Everybody is deeply involved in and constantly distracted by everybody else’s business. The smart phone only aggravates the situation. “I haven’t checked my email” is no longer a good excuse.

The cell phone seems to make the wristwatch obsolescent. Yet some have discovered that after buying a watch, they no longer need to look at the cell phone as much. The watch seems to be coming back, partly to address our nostalgia for the disciplinary society of old when we are living in a control society. “Those were the days,” as the song goes.

The idea of a universal human fate is a fallacy. The more we venture out of campus, the more we realize that there’s much technological diversity in society. As a highly technologized enclave, the campus keeps us from imagining other habits, other daily routines. In a way, we college students are lame ducks in the eye of gadget marketers. We already buy into a particular picture of the good life before we buy specific gadgets.

An interesting way of using texting is to have a sideline conversation with one of the group members while doing group work.

How many of us have realized that Twitter can be appropriated for a poetic use. It’s good for composing haiku, for crafting aphorisms. Has there been a rise in aphorisms and aphorists in the culture, though? Maybe there’s no aphorist in the culture anymore because everybody is one. We will have to see about that.

Each time the gadget buzzes, we are at its service. McLuhan calls media extensions of man. It’s now time to reverse the formulation: contemporary man is the extension of media, a servomechanism, a happy wreck. To be hooked on video games is to be enslaved by electronic codes. There’s no point forcing the rhythms of our flesh and blood to contest with artificial rhythms, regardless of the fact that play and game keep us human and sane.

When TV came to the scene, people’s taste for clothing went from “visual” to “tactile.” The TV medium was also the formal cause of pointillism in painting. Nowadays, people are interaction-averse because, almost by default, communication means mediated communication. It’s already platitudinous to talk about the typical living room scenario during the Thanksgiving break: everybody is on something.

In case you don’t believe literary invention takes time and needs to be a process of slow cooking, simply listen to today’s lyrics (take the Kesha song “Tick Tock”). They are getting increasingly literal. Literalness is a disease, a cultural syndrome.

The No Child Left Behind Act didn’t seem to have helped much. SAT scores have hit a historical low. People seem to find literacy to be artificial and out of place in their right-hemisphere world. They can’t read prose. They can’t read poetry, either. I am sure somewhere someone has written an essay entitled “Digital Natives Come to College.” The time is ripe for such a piece to be written.

Social media is so addictive and paralyzing that some have found it necessary to ask a friend to change their passwords for them so they can’t log in. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

A power outage gets us to see what we normally wouldn’t see. Try and get unplugged for a day and see what happens. The everyday is invisible and incorrigible. On the other hand, it’s also the wellspring of new possibilities of life. Kenneth Burke advocates “planned incongruity.” We need “planned inconvenience.” We need to be protected from ourselves.

When we speak of technology, we tend to think of the latest communications gadgets. How many of us think of the spoken word – humanity’s very first technology, the birth of which coincided with the birth of humanity itself? Language is a technology that separates us permanently from nature. Humanity as such has never had an unmediated encounter with nature. What we experience is our interpretation. Language at once enables and cripples, enlightens and blinds.

We are hopelessly figure-oriented when we think of technology, focusing on the equipment installed in a classroom instead of the classroom itself. Insofar as it still has a layout, the classroom itself constitutes a technology, the logic of which is not unlike that of the courtroom. The rituals of usage give some parties relative power over other parties. Prior to anybody actually entering the space, the logic is already embedded within the spatial layout. A classroom without a front, or without desks, is a radical departure from what we are used to. McLuhan talks about classrooms without walls in the TV era. Nowadays, the classroom has become saturated with built-in and un-built-in devices for telereality and teleaction, to use Paul Virilio’s terminology.

Although the gadget as a figure is visible and tangible, the ground it creates is not. It’s in the latter sense that McLuhan talks about media, and media literacy – an awareness of the psychic and social consequences of the hidden ground. This hidden ground is the formal cause of many things, including what we choose to do and the way we do it. Oriental people traditionally tend to be more ground-aware: not eating livers in the springtime for the sake of homeostasis in accordance with the principles of yin and yang. Westerners prefer to turn their habitat into an artifice, a figure detached from its ground. How often do we see sprinklers working when it’s raining and pouring! This figure orientation is uneconomical and unsustainable.

Much can be said about the schedule as a technology, the planner as a technology, the grade book as a technology, and the list goes on. Yet by far the most virulent technologies are software programs. Software is not “soft” at all. It’s full of teeth, and subjugates us this way and that. It positions us as its captives and instruments. It’s true software may make our day more efficient, but how many thinking people want to be made more efficient? Jeremy Rifkin’s “Times Wars” is a must-read. Each time a new “system” is installed in our environment in the name of Progress, we are faced with a new ethical situation, ethics being the pursuit of the good life. It is the task of thinking people to invent new weapons of resistance, as Gilles Deleuze poignantly points out.

Media literacy on the part of the demos will make “the power that be” and corporate interests fear and tremble. I’m talking about media literacy in a mediumistic sense here. Not every scholar or student of media is aware that there are two traditions in media studies: content orientation and medium orientation. I have the latter in mind when I say “mediumistic.”

One metamessage the movie “Inception” enacts is weightlessness. In our optoelectronic and electroacoustic age, the significance of gravity is being displaced. The movie precisely addresses the anxiety that has resulted. Another way to put it: “Inception” takes “The Matrix” to a more intense level. In case we don’t see our somnambulism, the movie lays it bare for us. As we sit in the movie theater, we are sutured into layers upon layers of dreams. Is there still a “real”? Yes, it is called paralysis.

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 04:06pm. Its tags are listed below.

&#8220;I won&#8217;t wear anything from now on&#8221; by Annelisse.  Photos by E.S. Fletchinger. What does it mean to wear a moment? Awhile ago I saw colors that couldn’t be mimicked, couldn’t be put back together, and I thought oh I’ll never be able to create that…but can I wear it? Can I wear the countryside at 7pm, can I wear an ocean sunset? But then, what does that even mean, to wear it? To wear anything. (I’m going to go this alone, Jacob, I’m not going to quote texts, just know Merleau Ponty’s still on my mind and Alexander McQueen, and Mariko the way I imagine her feeling when she’s impeccably dressed, and Oasa when she said you just have to be open.) I wanted to wear the  moments caught in Lichtenstein’s film loop because I knew I could not reconstruct them, but I didn’t want them to go away.   And to wear is to inhabit something,  just beyond your skin, touching.  No matter what, you’ll feel it.  I wanted to feel it.   So I wanted to wear it.  But what  can you wear, can you wear your skin?   To know what it means to wear do we need to know where we begin and end? I am at the least my body up until my body becomes mine. I cannot possess what I am.  Is to wear to posses? When I desire to wear a moment, I am asking can I place that moment unchanging  around and against me, can it mold to me and I to it? We would address each other, but others would go on addressing me, though me, impeccably dressed. In this symbiotic relationship the model remains the dominant figure. The dress is mine but not me. Possession is unending desire, it creates it and simultaneously, creates the impossibility of satiating that desire because possession is division.* I don’t want to possess anymore. I want to be open.  It’s like when the Native Americans thought it was a joke to sell the land and the way Cappi said, isn’t it weird how much we care what we accomplish as individuals. Yes, it is. It’s weird to consider the earth as something to be divided, and parceled out, because it doesn’t actually change, it’s all elaborately performed by us and the earth remains as is. We divide ourselves too, you forget I am you and you’re me. I don’t want to be aware of the world in parts.  I don’t like it any more when the world becomes a simulated abstraction, like a translucent copy of the earth superimposed and shattered, and while our bodies move through the mud and heat our minds sift through shattered abstractions, trying to understand.   As intricate and sometimes helpful as these products of our constituting minds might be, they aren’t what is. They aren’t ice and dirt and flesh, your eyelashes pressed into his neck. I don’t want to wear moments anymore. I don’t want to want to wear them. I don’t want to understand that they exist apart. I’ll no longer divide, not even to understand. I don’t want to understand any more. I’m not pleading for ignorance, I want to take in everything. But I want to be baffled when you try to explain just one piece because I’ll be you so much, I’ll be everything so much, so that you and yours won’t make sense to me. I won’t make sense to me. I won’t wear moments anymore, I don’t want to wear anything.

“I won’t wear anything from now on” by Annelisse.  Photos by E.S. Fletchinger.

lichtenstein

What does it mean to wear a moment? Awhile ago I saw colors that couldn’t be mimicked, couldn’t be put back together, and I thought oh I’ll never be able to create that…but can I wear it? Can I wear the countryside at 7pm, can I wear an ocean sunset? But then, what does that even mean, to wear it? To wear anything.

(I’m going to go this alone, Jacob, I’m not going to quote texts, just know Merleau Ponty’s still on my mind and Alexander McQueen, and Mariko the way I imagine her feeling when she’s impeccably dressed, and Oasa when she said you just have to be open.)

I wanted to wear the  moments caught in Lichtenstein’s film loop because I knew I could not reconstruct them, but I didn’t want them to go away.   And to wear is to inhabit something,  just beyond your skin, touching.  No matter what, you’ll feel it.  I wanted to feel it.   So I wanted to wear it.  But what  can you wear, can you wear your skin?   To know what it means to wear do we need to know where we begin and end? I am at the least my body up until my body becomes mine. I cannot possess what I am.  Is to wear to posses?

When I desire to wear a moment, I am asking can I place that moment unchanging  around and against me, can it mold to me and I to it? We would address each other, but others would go on addressing me, though me, impeccably dressed. In this symbiotic relationship the model remains the dominant figure. The dress is mine but not me. Possession is unending desire, it creates it and simultaneously, creates the impossibility of satiating that desire because possession is division.*

1

I don’t want to possess anymore. I want to be open.  It’s like when the Native Americans thought it was a joke to sell the land and the way Cappi said, isn’t it weird how much we care what we accomplish as individuals. Yes, it is. It’s weird to consider the earth as something to be divided, and parceled out, because it doesn’t actually change, it’s all elaborately performed by us and the earth remains as is. We divide ourselves too, you forget I am you and you’re me.

I don’t want to be aware of the world in parts.  I don’t like it any more when the world becomes a simulated abstraction, like a translucent copy of the earth superimposed and shattered, and while our bodies move through the mud and heat our minds sift through shattered abstractions, trying to understand.   As intricate and sometimes helpful as these products of our constituting minds might be, they aren’t what is. They aren’t ice and dirt and flesh, your eyelashes pressed into his neck.

2

I don’t want to wear moments anymore. I don’t want to want to wear them. I don’t want to understand that they exist apart. I’ll no longer divide, not even to understand. I don’t want to understand any more. I’m not pleading for ignorance, I want to take in everything. But I want to be baffled when you try to explain just one piece because I’ll be you so much, I’ll be everything so much, so that you and yours won’t make sense to me. I won’t make sense to me. I won’t wear moments anymore, I don’t want to wear anything.

3

ecogradients

Posted on Friday February 24th 2012 at 03:52pm. Its tags are listed below.

Danny Castro, “Can the story of you be like the furniture?” Souljerky Research Labs, 2010.

ecogradients

Posted on Sunday February 19th 2012 at 01:53pm. Its tags are listed below.

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

—  Casey Glover - B9 mandala

Check out the rest of the album here!

‹ ›