My midterm paper will be about how our generation has become wrapped up in the materialistic life, buying the latest name brand clothing, and having the latest technology, and also how the media has helped dramatically to bring this about. This paper will mainly focus on the preset teen age groups from 13-19. Most of us are wrapped up into this "brand" life and probably couldn't tell you how they did. most of the reasons would be because they seen someone else with it and it turns into a competition of "Who has the latest...."
In support of my topic, a perfect source would be some of Naomi Klein's material from No Logo. I would also grab some sources from newspapers, and I was thinking about high school newspapers that tell stories of students who rob others because they have the newest item that was released. Some magazines would also help me support this, i forgot what the names are, but the ones you see in any store that have a celeb on front with the most expensive gown from Dior or even a celeb that has the latest purse that's priced at $15,000 or something.
All these thing will help me prove the fact that a lot of us are trapped in the brand world and it starts in the teenage years. It will also tell how the media has bring such a major impact on our society. Also, an idea that just popped up, brand names go through the celebrities as well to use such manipulation. This happens all the time, a brand name will give a celebrity something for free just so they can wear it an event so they can show it off. the celebrity would be titled as the one who had it first, and it will bring other high class relatives to buy such products so they can fit in the subject "I'm only the few to have it..."! I believe that's a totally different topic but I found that interesting as well.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
Investigative Journalist, Naomi Klein, introduces her new book titled "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" and which she explains the purpose of it through the interview on Democracy One with Amy Goodman. Naomi Klein believes highly that disaster Capitalism will rise, and proves it from our history of leaders, events, and through examples of other countries. She states that the most infamous human rights violations of the past thirty years were all intended to terrorize the public to prepare for the introduction of radical free-market reforms, which also increases profits to corporations and allow governments to push through what she calls "disaster capitalism." basically stating that every tragic crisis that have caused for many people to vanish or move out of a certain area, due to things that have been delayed, are all ways for the government to enforce policies and makeover the country or area and the irony to it is... It seems that these things happen purposely and intentionally.
One of the examples that she gives is the hurricane Katrina accident in New Orleans. The shock was the drowning of the city in which many believe was a 'natural' disaster. If you think about it, because the infrastructure and bones of the state were not addressed years ago, this became a form of neglect. The whole idea behind this doctrine is to wipe out and start fresh. New Orleans was later neglected attention before it happened and even after the crisis. Eventually, in my opinion, there will be another New Orleans. There isn't any way the city wont come back to life. To tie this back to history, a group of economists found the economic program for Pinochet's (ruler of Chile, which went under catastrophic disasters as well.) government. It was 1973 at the time, and the plan included strategies about an ownership society, privatizing Social Security, charter schools, and flat tax... which turns out to be similar to Bushes economic program of 2000.
Leading back top her point, she insist that its almost impossible to to push through economic programs without tremendous economic hardship and the demolition of democracy. I believe that she makes a really good point in which people don't think about often. Something has to tie into the horrible events that take place. they want us to believe that they happened unexpectedly, but something had to cause it. Certain things pop us such as: preparedness, reaction timing, results of the events, which are things that can make you believe that something wasn't right. if these things were planned better or happened in a different way, this "disaster capitalism" wouldn't be proven as much as it is. So I totally agree. Also other events that she mentioned, are the War in Iraq, Collapse of the Soviet Union and the massacre of Tienanmen Square which all are examples of her idea of disaster capitalism.
One of the examples that she gives is the hurricane Katrina accident in New Orleans. The shock was the drowning of the city in which many believe was a 'natural' disaster. If you think about it, because the infrastructure and bones of the state were not addressed years ago, this became a form of neglect. The whole idea behind this doctrine is to wipe out and start fresh. New Orleans was later neglected attention before it happened and even after the crisis. Eventually, in my opinion, there will be another New Orleans. There isn't any way the city wont come back to life. To tie this back to history, a group of economists found the economic program for Pinochet's (ruler of Chile, which went under catastrophic disasters as well.) government. It was 1973 at the time, and the plan included strategies about an ownership society, privatizing Social Security, charter schools, and flat tax... which turns out to be similar to Bushes economic program of 2000.
Leading back top her point, she insist that its almost impossible to to push through economic programs without tremendous economic hardship and the demolition of democracy. I believe that she makes a really good point in which people don't think about often. Something has to tie into the horrible events that take place. they want us to believe that they happened unexpectedly, but something had to cause it. Certain things pop us such as: preparedness, reaction timing, results of the events, which are things that can make you believe that something wasn't right. if these things were planned better or happened in a different way, this "disaster capitalism" wouldn't be proven as much as it is. So I totally agree. Also other events that she mentioned, are the War in Iraq, Collapse of the Soviet Union and the massacre of Tienanmen Square which all are examples of her idea of disaster capitalism.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Ohman's Selling Culture and Adorno/Horkheimer's Culture Industry
Well, Ohman based his writing, Selling Culture, off of advertising and its relationship to mass culture. One point that he focuses on to prove how advertising had such an affect was the mass production of magazines. During the time when magazines were just monthly. Its competitors were dropping prices one at a time, to keep the flow of the magazines going. In the end, they all had the same plan, and that was too get a good audience that has cultural aspirations, build this huge circulation, sell lots of advertising space at rates based on that circulation, and make the profit off the ads. This increase on profit would increase the product. the ads would help sell something and this would circulate more capital.
On the other hand, Adorno and Horkheimer discussed in, The Culture Industry, the defaults of advertisement. He points out that people are under a circle of manipulation due to the advertisements, and because we accept it, it gets stronger and stronger. He writes," The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." He also argues that the technology of the culture industry has achieved nothing but mass production. His opinion that he stresses on manipulation is very valid but yet he doesnt indicate any solution in clear words.
The writers, Ohman, Adorno and Horkheimer all initiate how advertising and capitalism has affected the culture industry tremendously. Capital gains more capital. By this being, more things are produced and created which circulates the process od ads being sold over and over again. Ads puts consumers in a state of need. Persuasion as such will keep capital circualting.
On the other hand, Adorno and Horkheimer discussed in, The Culture Industry, the defaults of advertisement. He points out that people are under a circle of manipulation due to the advertisements, and because we accept it, it gets stronger and stronger. He writes," The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." He also argues that the technology of the culture industry has achieved nothing but mass production. His opinion that he stresses on manipulation is very valid but yet he doesnt indicate any solution in clear words.
The writers, Ohman, Adorno and Horkheimer all initiate how advertising and capitalism has affected the culture industry tremendously. Capital gains more capital. By this being, more things are produced and created which circulates the process od ads being sold over and over again. Ads puts consumers in a state of need. Persuasion as such will keep capital circualting.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Me!!
My name is Jarrell Walker. I'm a sophomore majoring in math education. Hoping to become a teacher someday. I hope ENG 3010 won't be as hard as it seems..LOL!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)