Unintentional Ideas

In "The Practice of Everyday Life," Michael de Certeau explains how theories or popular culture can apply to everyday life. He doesn't want to talk about the subject. He wants to make it possible for people to talk about this subject. He continues by explaining that previously we considered the individual, but we should really analyze groups based on social interactions, not how an individual sits within a group. He acknowledges that this could further emphasize the majority and take away from the minority, but comes up with solutions to this. One aspect of his discussion focuses on the consumption of goods. Certeau explains that we shouldn't only consider the producers intention but how a product is used. This led me to consider this in relation to literature.

After analyzing several novels, a reader may wonder how much of the symbolism exists purposefully on the author's part and how much of it has slipped into a book. Considering Certeau, it is reasonable to suggest that an author can write and present an idea as they wish, but the reader then gains control of its interpretation. I wondered about the insertion of symbolism for a long while. Fortunately, I had the pleasant experience of meeting with an author over the summer and got to ask this very question. He explained the some symbolism is certainly on purpose, but that he has also unknowingly added ideas into his novels.

More than just the interpretation of books, I think Certeau is suggesting that we cannot always know how products will be consumed or what the response to them will be. That is where the interesting study lies. Rather than focusing on the producer, we should consider what the consumer does with the product.

Critiquing Culture

In "Distinction & the Aristocracy of Culture," Bourdieu compares pure taste with naive taste. These are characteristics based on class and upbringing. Someone with pure taste is likely higher class and has learned to appreciate things on a deeper level. They look for details within the work and then decide on its quality. In contrast, people with naive taste come from lower classes and look at art in a superficial manner. They only classify it as good or bad.

We can consider Bourdieu's ideas in thinking about movie critics. Often when we go see a movie, we either consider it good or bad and many people don't think about it on a deep level. This doesn't have to be because they are naive thinkers as Bourdieu asserts, but merely that they want to relax on a Friday evening and not have to think. Nonetheless, they are not using an analytical view. Critics, however, look at the movies on a deeper level. They hunt for characteristics that aren't superficial, though this doesn't excuse flaws on the surface from being critiqued.

These different ways to view movies come into conflict when we look at a site like rottentomatoes.com. Often critics and the general audience are in direct opposition to one another because they watch the movie in a different way. Take the 2013 version of The Great Gatsby for example. Less than half of critics liked it (49%), while a majority of the general audience (68%) did like the movie. If you read some of the reviews, they watched them in different ways.

 One critic stated, "There are no two ways about it: The Great Gatsby is misconceived and misjudged, a crude burlesque on what's probably American literature's most precious jewel." He is clearly comparing the movie to the book and his expectation was that it would try to do it justice. 

An audience member gave the review 4/5 stars by stating "I had forgotten everything about the book, so it seem to be a fresh telling of an old story!" We can't even consider these two review to be using the same scale because they have very different standards. The audience member wanted to enjoy a movie, while the critic wanted to see an accurate portrayal of the book. 

These two reviewers demonstrate Bourdieu's concept of naive versus pure taste. One looks on a deep level, while the others merely wants to enjoy culture. 

Satire and Stereotypes

Both videos, "Girls Are Assholes: At a Bar" and "What a Girl's Makeup Means" perform satire. They take stereotypes, then exaggerate and distort them. But because there is some truth in them, we are able to find a message behind the ridiculous claims.

The first video exaggerates the idea that girl's won't date nice guys and are only drawn to guys who will treat them badly. It features two girls at a bar who rudely turn down what is probably a nice guy, opting for the creepy guy. In the second video, Jenna Marbles chooses to exaggerate the stereotype that a girl's makeup somehow informs onlookers to her sexual availability.

By exaggerating stereotypes, viewers should begin to question why they even exist. Some girls might not choose to date nice guys and others might use "suggestive" makeup as an actual suggestion, but these stereotypes are highly flawed. Why are we being led to think about women in such a way? Isn't it dangerous? And does it stop with women? Of course not. All stereotypes can be seen as dangerous. Many would claim that this view perpetuates rape culture just as other stereotypes lead to misinterpreted views. Here at Ohio University, a poster campaign for Halloween is trying to prevent this. Many uncultured people choose to continue the idea that all Native Americans wear headdresses and that kimonos are daily attire for the Japanese.

The videos and the poster campaign both present different approaches to solving the problem of stereotyping. The posters appear as informative and shocking, while the videos take relatable activities and show ridiculous they really are.

The Problem of Profit Over Value

In his final chapter, Storey discusses "The Politics of Popular." He talks about the impacts of popular culture in a general sense and sums of previous theorists. He also revisits hegemony and ideology. In talking about the economics of culture, Storey explains the importance of "exchange value leading to surplus value (profit)." He points out that while that is the goal, creating value is also important for items to sell.

The gap between creating profit and value has become quite an issue if we consider the current production of movies, tv shows, music, etc. Anything that can be published digitally automatically loses some value. Publishers have changed from letting a person own their purchase (as they would with a physical copy) to licensing the digital version. According to most terms of service agreements, the publisher can revoke usage of the item, regardless of whether the consumer "owns" a copy or not. This lessens the value, making consumers much less likely to buy digital copies. 

This becomes more of a problem when we consider the want for digital versions. Digital is much more convenient considering many people watch TV on their computers, tablets, etc. If consumers want the convenience of their shows on their devices, but the purchases have no real value, what are they left to do? Many choose to pirate copies, further reducing the value of those being sold. 

Publishers blame the consumers, but who is really at fault? In a capitalist environment, consumers are able to choose what to based on if they value it. If they do not value it enough, they won't buy it. Thus, it is the companies that need to reconsider their practices. Caught up in trying to gain surplus value without increasing actual value has broken the system. 

Can Buzzwords Carry Meaning?

In his essay, "Postmodernism and 'The Other Side,'" Dick Hebdige explains the trouble with the word postmodernism. He claims it is being used as a buzzword, applied to a too many varying situations, which caused to lose its meaning. But he goes on to show that while it is used excessively, the situations tend to have three main things in common: they are against totalization, teleology, and utopia. These common bonds allow the word postmodernism to be applied appropriately even though the decor of a room might not seem to have much in common with political fragmentation.

This problem is common as words become overused or too general. As Hebdige asserts, with popularity they become buzzwords. In recent years this has happened with the word 'nerd.' I wrote previously about the trouble with the changing definition of nerd and that it appears to apply to too many people. And if that was the case, nerd could no longer carry its former connotation and be considered its own culture.

After looking at postmodernism, I would suggest that, while nerd has become a buzzword, it can still remain a culture. Like when the popular term postmodernism is applied, nerd also has certain commonality for its usage, even if 'bronies' (adult men obsessed with My Little Pony) don't appear to have much in common with larpers (participants in Live Action Role Playing). Both groups, and all other subsets of nerd culture, are very passionate about their subjects or activities. The term nerd, while previously a negative way to describe an outsider, has grown to be used as a badge of pride for people who consider their interests to be different from the mainstream. Using the word nerd allows them to create a sense of community, which suggests that there is, in fact, still a growing nerd culture rather than the destruction of one.

Hyperrealism of Twilight

Within the context of postmodernism, Baudrillard presents the idea of hyperrealism in “The Precession of Simulacra.” He uses the experience of Disneyland to explain that sometimes the things we fantasize about become more real to us that what may would typically classify as “real life.” While intending to present us with an escape, it can also lead to a confusion between fantasy and reality. For example, we got to Disneyland to fantasize about being a child again, but our time at Disneyland is real, not merely a fantasy. 

This can present a problem. One example we can look at is the Edward Cullen obsessed fanatics of the Twilight fandom. While the Twilight series is meant to be enjoyed, some readers and viewers have taken their liking of Bella’s vampire companion to an extreme. This has has changed their Twilight fantasies into their reality. A quick search of Edward Cullen reveals the contrasting views of love and hate for the character. Those on the side of love (perhaps crossing over into obsession) make us question how much of a fiction they believe this book/movie to be.  Many of the memes even reflect the idea that no boyfriend could compare to Edward Cullen. This idea presents a conflict between what we would consider should be a person’s real life and what has become of it. 

Here there are “Ten Reasons to Love Edward Cullen”:

Despite the books young adult audience, mothers have even fallen into the craze:

Baudrillard’s view of hyperrealism suggests that originally readers of Twilight were seeking an escape, a fantasy. However, by being so drawn into the series it quickly become their real life. If a person thinks, reads, watches and talks about Twilight everyday, how can it only be a fantasy? While Edward will never become real (sorry Twilight fans!), the series has become their real life. 

Introverts on TV: A Look at CBS’s The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory (TBBT) follows Leonard and Sheldon, two physicists, as they deal with living across the hall from a pretty, blonde wannabe actress whom Leonard inevitably has a crush on. The show also features their two friends Raj and Howard. 

TV, while often exaggerated, can be considered a representation of the norms in our society. So like many other sitcoms, most of the characters are extroverts on TBBT. But there is one surefire introvert on TBBT, Sheldon. However, many people have often mistaken Raj to be introverted too. This is likely due to societal misconceptions about introverts, which can be understood by considering Wallace and Cooper’s idea of Queer Rhetorical Agency and the affects of discourse on a subject. 

The Huffington Post correctly states, “Being an introvert doesn't simply mean being shy, rather it refers to those who are energized by alone time.” Then they list out “8 TV Characters Who Explain What It Means To Be An Introvert.” One of their chosen characters is Raj Koothrappali. Except, he’s not actually an introvert. In the same post as their accurate description, they fall into the stereotyping that society often does to “introverts.” 

They explain that “he hides from social interaction with a hefty does of selective mutism. Unless there is alcohol involved, Raj is most comfortable whispering into his BFF Howard's ear.” Raj actually enjoys social interaction, but because he is shy, the Huffington Post considered him to be an introvert. His trouble interacting isn’t because he doesn’t want to speak with people, it is because he has difficulties speaking around pretty girls, a point Huffington Post failed to clarify. In several episodes, Raj is actually the one throwing parties for their friends and helps throw a party at the comic book store. If he were introverted, he would not relish in this kind of large environment. In the video below Raj talks about setting up a scavenger hunt with his friends. 

The above video is just one example of Raj's need for social interaction that he doesn't always get. He is certainly not the introvert he is mistaken to be. 

Sheldon Cooper, however, is a true introvert. He is uncomfortable having more than four friends and, like many introverts, likes to avoid large social gatherings and small talk. He thrives from being alone. When the group is invited to Penny’s Halloween party in Season One, Sheldon sits on the couch the entire time not quite understanding the people around him. Without the purpose of a costume contest, he doesn’t see the point in having the party. Also at the beginning of Season One, Leonard is interested in getting to know Penny and Sheldon explains, “Chat? But we don’t chat. At least not offline.” He is content with his small social circle and doesn’t want to disrupt this. As an introvert, it would be exhausting. 

This understanding of introverts can be related to Wallace and Alexander’s description of the misrepresentation of queer students. They critique rhetorical agency’s inability “to grapple substantively with queerness and queer theory.” Their two main problems are that it doesn't consider the needs of queer students, nor is it able to recognize how queer theory is understood and replicated in public discourse.

Like queer students who deal with these problems, many introverts have their fair share of problems and stereotyping as well. Just as the Huffington Post mistaken categorized Raj, many people are unable to identify if someone is an introvert or just shy. These two qualities can overlap, but more importantly, they don’t have to. 

Wallace and Alexander go on to discuss the intent behind “discourses that erase, marginalize, and pathologize others.” There isn’t always intent. But because it is ingrained in the way we talk and grow up that people who are not as social are wrong, introverts become misrepresented. 

In elementary schools teachers often try to get kids to “come out of their shell,” because they are uninformed in the difference between shyness and introversion. They also do not realize the toll it takes for an introvert to put a much greater effort into something that is natural for extroverted students. They see the student as the problem, instead of realizing they are the problem. Then as the teachers regularly ask the student to become more vocal and to make more friends, other students begin to think that the quiet kid has a problem. 

While Sheldon, unlike Raj, does accurately represent an introvert, the writers did not make his character merely introverted. They describe him as “Sheldony,” but many people with Asperger’s have noticed some uncanny similarities between themselves and Sheldon. The writing of his character stems from the idea that if someone is not extroverted (the societal “norm”), there must be something wrong with them, much like the elementary school teacher. 

The writers could have written Sheldon with some quirks and made him a relatable character to all introverts, but instead they went over-the-top with exaggerated stereotypes. By denying that Sheldon is actually someone with Asperger’s they further the misunderstanding that any person who doesn’t always want social interaction, doesn’t understand it. It adds to the discourse that introverts are social awkward and rude. And that they can’t understand social conventions. 

In this video we see Sheldon struggle with understanding sarcasm, a trait of Asperger's, not introversion.

Much like Wallace and Alexander suggest that teachers need to be better informed about the effects of heteronormativity, they also need to recognize the ingrained personality types within our society. They must consider that students who just don’t feel like talking in a large group, don’t have something wrong with them. By breaking down the understanding of what it means to be an introvert versus someone who is shy, the characters on TV will also be a more accurate representation of the types they are portraying. People won’t continue to consider all introverts as cold and won’t label all shy people as introverts. 

Doctor Who: An Example of Postmodernism

In Storey’s discussion of postmodernism, he gives an overview of the many understandings and applications of the concept. Just the very fact that there is not one understood meaning of postmodernism, shows that we utilize this way of thinking. It is a concept that closely resembles poststructuralism and is used to explain the complicated world we are living in. It diverges from modernism and critiques the idea that the world can be explained through science and logic. Rather than trying to be high art as modernism did, it takes a different course. This led several theorists to describe postmodernism as an economic activity. 

As Storey explains, the concept of postmodernism can be applied to many of the TV shows we watch. One fitting example is the British show, Doctor Who. At first glance, one might consider the scientific aspects and attempted explanation of our world as a modernist view, but there are many aspects that refute this idea. 

First, the Doctor does not try to explain the occurrences in time and doesn’t describe them as simplistic or linear. The events throughout the show occur in a manner much more complicated. He explains, “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.” This understanding of the world accepts the postmodern viewpoint that we cannot understand the progression of time. It is too complicated and is always changing. The show does describe some fixed points in time, but most are able to be altered. 

Another example is much like the Collins’ explanation of the multiple viewpoints in Twin Peaks. Doctor Who also does not stray from this. It would be easy to describe The Doctor as the protagonist and hero, but like most things in a postmodern world, it is much more complex than that. In the episode “The Pandorica Opens,” our view of The Doctor is turned on its head when all of his enemies throughout space and time work together to defeat him. The catch is that unlike most villains, they don’t consider themselves to be wrong. In many superheroes movies, the villain realizes that it is their role and embraces it. These characters actually consider The Doctor to be causing harm to the universe, which then forces the viewer to question their ideas about him and his actions. This can also be seen throughout the series in episodes like “Doomsday,” in which two of The Doctor’s enemies, the Daleks and the Cyberman, declare war on one another. Typically we view battle as black and white, with a good side and bad. This episode challenges that sort of perception. 

Another way that Doctor Who can be considered postmodern, is in the economic sense. The classic series, created in 1963 during the rise of postmodernism, was much more underground than the newer reboot. In 2005, BBC intentionally cast Christopher Eccleston, a well-known English actor in the role of the ninth doctor. They wanted the show to become more widely known, and it is not difficult to say they have achieved this goal. As Johnson explains, “[culture] is itself an economic activity, perhaps the most important economic activity of all.” It would be difficult to describe Doctor Who as without economic intentions and I am proving this theory right now: I am writing this while wearing a Doctor Who t-shirt and taking notes on Doctor Who post-its. 

Through its economic success, impossibly complicated storyline, and its twisting of our expectations of good and evil, Doctor Who is an excellent representation of postmodernism. 

From Niche to Mainstream

In “Black Postmodernist Practices,” Anders Stephanson interviews Cornel West. They discuss the postmodernism movement among the black community in America. West explains that it was much different for blacks because they had a different idea of reality than the typical upper-middle-class American. The postmodernist movement led to several black artist creations., including Parker’s jazz music. However, West explains that once it has reached a level of popularity amongst white Americans, it can no longer be considered unique to the black community. In the case of Parker, he was no longer “highbrow.” Another example, given by Stephanson is Michael Jackson. He became “a middle-American product,” not unique to the black community. 

In a much more broad sense, we can consider any product released as a part of a niche. Once it becomes a part of the larger pop culture group, can it still be considered niche? This is especially prevalent in thinking about nerd culture. Many nerds pride themselves on having read Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (at the time of its release). They enjoyed video games with starting with the original Nintendo, or perhaps even Atari. These ideas were once considered unique to nerds. If mentioned outside of your circle of friends, others wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about. Now they are all household names. 

Most people probably still don’t read Lord of the Rings, even some nerds haven’t due to its great length, but the movies have made them more accessible to the masses. Just as Parker made jazz more accessible to white people. We can consider this almost an inevitability of products with great quality. But does the widespread production of them demean their quality or remove their previous status? I would argue not. 

The first followers of jazz or Harry Potter have a sort of claim on the movements. They share a special connection that those who “jumped on the bandwagon” just don’t have to the products. Nerds probably sit and watch the 726 minutes extended edition, while the average consumer likely sticks with the original 558 minute running time. Early followers of Parker are more likely to know that he began his musical career with Jay McShann’s territory band. Both of these examples demonstrate that when there is a good product or performer, even if it is underground, there is a great chance that it can become a part of the mainstream popular culture. Even though our view of it may change, the origins of it do not. We do not need to consider it exiled from its previous community.