As I mentioned in class yesterday, we are going to do a family activity in connection with our viewing of "Advertising and the End of the World" next Tuesday (4/15). Also, remember that we selected new families last Tuesday. This activity is described below:
FAMILY ACTIVITY: In the latter part of "Advertising and the End of the World" the moderator (Sut Jhally) briefly explores three fundamental questions which advertising answers in distinctive ways. I want each family to focus on just ONE of these questions (and advertising's answer) which you believe has the most harmful or destructive implications for society. I want each family to write up a paragraph summarizing your conclusions, which a designated spokesperson will present to the class on Thursday (4/17). Please be prepared to turn in that paragraph on that day too. You will have time to discuss this with your family following our viewing of the video on Tuesday. Please make every effort to be in attendance so you can participate in this family activity and earn the points. It is worth 5 activity points. And for particularly good ones (in my estimation), I may use them as a basis for making up a final exam question, in which case that family or families will receive 2 bonus points.
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: By attending any of the events (such as a talk, roundtable, or panel discussion) associated with the upcoming Citizenship and Leadership Symposium (April 12-24) you may earn 3 extra credit points. To earn the three points you need to attend the event of course AND post a brief overview of the event in which you should also tie it in to our class. For example, many of the sessions clearly have to do with various problems in the world which would obviously relate to this course and my effort to define a basis for identifying social problems. Of course, there may be other connections you could make. You only have to make one such tie-in. I just want to see some evidence that you went and thought about the subject matter in the context of this course. POST YOUR RESPONSES AS COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG POST (no more than two paragraphs).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I attended the symposium Saturday morning on “The Vampire Thesis” where Dr. Machovec and a gentleman from Thailand argued their point of views about the spread of wealth between first and third world countries. The Vampire Thesis says that third world countries are impoverished because first world countries steal the third word’s money and resources. Though this was the main concept of the talk, I was most interested in a chart the gentleman from Thailand showed. It included the gross net profit (GNP) per country and per person, human development index, inequality, and gross nation happiness (GNH) of various countries. Beyond these numbers being very interesting when comparing different countries, one question that was brought up definitely relates to our consumerism class. Dr. Dunlap asked if social mobility was considered in any of the categories, especially the inequality category. It would be important to include mobility, as Dr. Dunlap said, because it changes the meaning of the information. There may be great inequality in a country but having good social mobility as well would create hope and show that the country’s inequality is going to diminish. Another aspect important to our class is social mobility means there is communication between social classes and it allows people to have knowledge of different classes. This creates reference groups where people have the knowledge of other people’s wealth which in turn affects the way they view themselves, their happiness, and their wealth status.
ok, Jessica. I agree that Dr. Dunlap's question was interesting.
I attended the first of the events "Poverty and Citizenship" where Professor Fowler, Professor DeMars, and Mr. Mitch Kennedy. Each of the speakers talks were very interesting and insightful. Once the conversation opened up to the public the conversation had a few shallow opinions which took away from it for me. I truly enjoyed hearing Mr. Kennedy's view. He talked with a great deal of experience with many first hand accounts that greatly added to the conversation.His accounts of poverty were on a closer more personal that tied the conversation together very well having Professor DeMars talk about our role in citizenship and poverty on a macro scale as well as Professor Fowler's ties of poverty and citizenship between a global and local problem.
I intended the symposium entitled "Feminist Critiques of Marriage" early Tuesday evening. Some of the points that I found particularly interesting were regarding spousal rape, the sexist symbolism in weddings, and that gay people often consider themselves 2nd class citizens. Spousal rape has a long history, and until recently was not rendered illegal (I believe she said the 1970's to be more exact). During wedding ceremnoies, the pastor's typical "you may kiss the bride" is particularly sexist because it would never be "you may kiss the groom" for a variety of reasons. The speaker (Nancy Williams) felt it demotes the importance and voice of the woman. Also, the illusions that come with the white dress brides wear, and the fact that in most vows the women must "obey" the husband.
Although this discussion did not have any significant similarities to our class, I made a connection between consumption and weddings. It is crazy what people spend on weddings (particularly the white dress). Especially engagement rings, which this class made me realize is mostly an advertising gimmick by companies such as De Beers**Diamonds are Forever**
One more thing that can be related to our class in some way is the inequalities that gay couples face. She outlined several of these, including health care benefits and how gay couples cannot be benefited by the economic advantages that often come with marriage.
PLEASE EXCUSE how I said "intended" instead of "attended", that was a spell check mess up I promise!
Ok, both Grant and Megan. Grant's comment could have had more substance to it.
I attended Dr. Jean Bethke Elshtain's talk about the Sovereign Self. She made very many insightful points, but there were a few in particular that stood out to me in relation to what we have been studying in class. She discussed the vision of self and how we must refrain from doing everything we are capable of, due to the fact that if we do we become destroyers. This relates to our consumer society in the fact that we only have basic needs yet we continue to exploit our resources and spend at exorbitant rates merely because we are capable of it. Also she defined a mature person as one in society who has the ability to sustain relationships with others. Although this does not directly relate to our current discussion in Consumed, when thinking about the infantilizing consumer I do not believe those types of consumers can be characterized as a mature adults. Finally, she addressed the fact that many people view our past as being filled with problems, errors, ignorance, and ruin. Elshtain stated that humans create new selves as a result of their view of the past which is wrong and undermines the human person in terms of the sovereign self. Society is most certainly filled with those elements, but we must take the mistakes that have occured in the past to better our society and decrease the large amounts of overconsumption and selfishness that we are taking part in presently.
I attended Dr. Bethke Elshtain's talk entitled, "The Sovereign Self? Critical Reflections.” Some of the points Elshtain made were related to our class. One of the points that really grabbed my attention was the fact that people in today’s society live in their own heads. When you relate this concept to our consumer culture, a person does not take into consideration the people around them. All people want is to satisfy their needs, which is stated in Consumed. By satisfying their own needs shows how egocentric they are. Elshtain also made the statement, “If we do not observe a limit, we become destroyers”. Many people in today’s society do not set limits for themselves. Therefore, these people are the ones who are getting themselves into debt that they are unable to get out of. In order to control one’s spending habits, she stated that individuals must find a happy medium between a selfish capitalist and a non-active capitalist. Finding a happy medium will result in individuals consuming only the things that they need.
I attended the symposium on Thursday, April 17th at 4 o'clock. The symposium was titled, "The Role of the Artist in Society". I thought it would be kind of hard to tie this one into our class, but it surprisingly wasn't too hard. each of the artists that spoke hit on the idea that the purpose of art is to destroy the ego and connect people. This is the same way that our problem with overconsumption can be fixed. Our ego does not allow us to "fall behind" the rest of our pack, and as a result we keep on buying things we don't really need. For people to really stop overconsuming to keep up with the pack, we need to destroy our ego, and not be so caught up with the idea that we are in fact going to fall behind. We need to allow ourselves to enjoy the simple things in life, such as art, like you discussed a few classtimes ago.
I went to the symosium today featuring Dr. Elshtain from the University of Chicago titled "Sovereign Self? Critical Reflections." Dr. Elshtain mentioned many things that I thought could basically be related to how our society has become less and less focused on human to human interaction. To be quite honest, most of her comments flew right over my head, but with much concentration I was able to pull a few of her comments together that relate to this problem. She talked a lot about nihilism which is the total rejection of established laws and can describe an individual who is against society and its norms. Also the title of the the lecture was about sovereignty and obviously that was covered. That has to do with complete independence and self-government. She mentioned the book "Brave New World" which after I looked it up I found it has to do with "reproductive technology, biological engineering, and sleep learning." This encapsulates the idea of achieving a goal without human interaction. Elshtain also mentioned "modern excarnation" which she said was "less and less face interaction in our society." Near the end she mentioned an interesting quote from Jean Paul Sart where he describes hell as other people. I thought this was an interesting way to say that people today no longer want to deal with other people and take the "easy" way out which may also relate to some degree of infantilization.
Christie, Matt, Cody, Chris, ok on all your comments. Seems like there is a theme: the need to focus on more than ourselves. Also, that the self needs limits.
I attended The Montgomery Bus Boycotts by Dr. Timothy Tyson. In his speech he begun talking about the heart of African American culture. He described it as the timeless notion that a person is not a thing and that this world is still a "prison house." Relating this back to our class and consumption, I believe that we are trapped in a prison house. Everyday in society we are surrounded with marketing, advertising, and hyper consumption. It is like we are in a prison house of consumption.
Johnson, ok.
During the symposium, I was able to attend the roundtable discussion entitled "Latino Immigration: Toward a New Policy Approach." Dr. Barbas Rhoden served as mediator, and several immigration experts from the Upstate community were present. They presented an insightful discussion on the different sides of the heated immigration issue in America, as well as their own personal accounts of the effects of immigration.
I found it most interesting to hear a current Wofford student discuss his experiences with immigration. A first generation high school graduate, the student's father was deported when the student was the age of 8, forcing him to work 40 hours a week during high school in order to help his family survive financially.
One of the things he focused on was how frustrating it is for him that the media distorts the immigration issue, focusing more on the negative effects of immigration, both economically and socially (many which do not actually exist) while completely ignoring the personal aspect of this issue.
It was here that I saw a connection with our class. Not only does the media misrepresent the immigration issue in an unfair and biased way, but they do a similar thing when it comes to consumption in our culture. The media portrays the "average American" as a wealthy, upper-middle class citizen who can afford to splurge on things that they do not necessarily need. This, in turn, leads others to believe that they must "keep up with the Jones'" but emulating this expensive lifestyle. If not, others may think less of them and they will not be considered "normal" by today's society's standards. This portrayal gives the wrong impression about the American lifestyle, much as it gives misconstrued information about immigration in the United States. The media industry must find a way to focus more on delivering the honest facts to Americans rather than presenting exaggerated versions of the truth in order to gain viewers and popularity.
Sarah, ok.
I attended "The Montgomery Bus Boycott" speech given by Timothy B. Tyson from Duke University. In his presentation, he talked about how we will not make any progress unles people learn how to do the right thing. He said, "Social movements are won because people learn by doing it. A little victory goes a long way." This is very much related to our discussions we had in class about how we must address our problems at an institutional level. We must take small steps in the right direction and focus more on the society as a whole instead of just a bunch of individuals if we want to make any progress. Many citizens of our society learning how to take the right steps together will go a long way in turning our current situation around.
Post a Comment