Debord and Baudillard..."The Spectacle and The Requiem"

 Baudillard is disturbed by the notion of new media creating a lack of reciprocity and is exasperating social interactions. To Baudillard it is not enough to claim that there are technical issues but in fact, the television and other new media are social control in and of themselves. It does not matter who is the producer or who is the consumer, in the end these new media devices allow for the discontinuation of face-to-face communication with one another. This is certainly the case now with even newer technologies such as the internet (facebook) and text messaging on phones. I would not want to meet this “spectacle” that is the holder of bad dreams and apparently the unnatural outcome due to mass media. One of the first similarities is the fact both Baudillard and Debord discuss the notion of one-way communication. I find nothing to contest on that basic notion because there is the issue of the increasing impersonal human relationships and such. I can see that both writers and in particular Debord who makes the spectacle sound like a very scary thing indeed (its falsehood and its ability to conform to society’s needs) fear the growing power of mass media. Its dominion over everyday life such as in the chapter entitled commodity as a spectacle illustrate the notion of how mass media has become pervasive hence its name.  Furthermore, with new technologies that make it easier to exploit the earth of its resources and transport goods and services faster are a detriment to society economically and socially. Debord’s conclusion that the spectacle may “gild poverty, but it cannot transcend it,” poignantly addresses a major problem in an increasingly global society (31). Now, with droughts and flood in China and other places that supply wheat and corn, food prices are rising and some people are not able to afford the same amount or types of food they normally eat. For a developing country whose GDP remain below the poverty line and so any increase in food staples hurts ordinary citizens more directly, this spectacle is highly intrusive. Despite the definition of detournement that was found, I am not quite sure what Debord means with his conclusion that “theoretical critique that goes alone to its rendezvous with a unified social practice,” (147). 

"The Birth of the Prison" and other uplifting works (Barthes and Foucault)

After learning about structuralism and post-structuralism, I found Barthes and Foucault's emphasis on language and the media very important in today's society where different media outlets are always competing for the attention of its consumers. Cell phone companies upgrade to 4G networks so we can access the internet anywhere, but without that people can bring their laptop in a wi-fi hotspot and access the internet there. How we even receive our news and learn about different opinions on the same issues has evolved throughout the years. our language has even accommodated to new technologies with words like "Googled/Googling" and phrases like "Let's Wikipedia it." 

      Foucault's emphasis on the written word and especially the characterization of an author are fascinating. In today's age, many celebrities write books but they are known as actors, reality tv stars, athletes and other labels. After receiving fame in their areas of expertise, they become authors. Nearly everyday the Colbert Report features a new writer or a new book. Did all these individuals envision themselves as authors/writers from a young age? Also, Foucault's point about how much to include as a part of a particular individual's "Papers" or "Thoughts" reminds me of the number of historical figures' diaries were published. Napoleon, Elizabeth I, Princess Diana, Tsar Nicholas II all kept diaries and the majority of their thoughts were published in some form or another. It seems Foucault would not deem these men and women as authors because their intention for writing their thoughts was not for publication or for the sake of being a writer. 

              For me, I think that there are signs and messages that have influenced my values. I learned the importance of responsibility, education, and compassion not only from interactions with my fellow preschoolers and playmates but also from shows like Barney and Friends and Sesame Street. As I got older and learned to read, many children's books emphasized imagination, positivity and romantic notions of life (herein I think of the plethora of fairy tales and Disney movies). It may have been my love of stories and storytelling from around the world that made me interested in history. I saw the stories of people and places and their origins very fascinating. Social interactions were taught from personal experience but shows like "Saved by the Bell," magazines like "seventeen" and "teen vogue" both first introduced me to the angst that I would look forward to as I became a teenager and entered high school. Today, people complain about how fast children are growing. I can see where these complaints come from due to easy access to mature content. The media does play a role in what society values and though fundamental values like freedom, compassion, kindness and justice remain. 

"The medium is the message," quoth McLuhan

I found many of McLuhan's anecdotes about various studies throughout history very interesting. His notion about hot and cold media was a new concept for me but I must question the section about  cartoons and photographs. To me political cartoons can say more than a photograph especially about a particular time period and I think it was Arendt who also made the distinction about photographs and their inability to portray information. One final comment before the prompt, when McLuhan discusses television and its effects on now background media like radio, I think that today the internet and cell phones more so have almost made television background media. Yes, many Americans and really globally television is being watched but the use of the television set to receive programming in not as much, more people will go on their computer or use their phones to catch up on television shows. In fact, there are many web-series that play exclusively on the internet.

One thing that can be found to be problematic for Marxists is the fact that for a Marxist as I understand it, the ideology should be the message. Furthermore, McLuhan addresses critics such as Weiner who claim that a technological instrument is inherently good or bad. McLuhan is also skeptical about claims  that the gun is not evil, it depends on who wields it (11). It is understandable that a military man would make the latter claim. Extrapolating from that and focusing on media, Adorno and Horkheimer would be very angry with McLuhan. for the the media contains inherently negative qualities worsened by its wielders, the bourgeoisie. I found McLuhan's point relevant today where there is much debate as to whether violent video games are one of the root causes of school shooting and teen violence. McLuhan compares media to staple in any society such as cotton and wheat and in doing so reacts to Adorno and Horkheimer's distaste for new media, Marxists must understand that the media is not going away and will only become more expansive especially because of the manipulation of electronics (21). Also, while Marxists would not like to admit it, McLuhan notes how the intelligentsia have always been the mediators between old and new powers (37). From an historical perspective one must note the influences of the intelligentsia in European history. Pamphlets about freedom and republicanism spread across to the educated and land holding elites of colonial America with few exception such as George Washington (who did not receive a college education) as founders of a new country. Prior to the revolution these type of people were the liaison between the Crown and the middle strata of colonial society. It is further a frightening thought for Marxists to think that technology has become an extension of ourselves, in order for us to destroy technology we would have to destroy ourselves. that is an extreme which the majority of Marxists and communications critics would probably disagree with--McLuhan especially shows how media saturated our society has become due to the series of breaking boundaries from print to moveable type to radio, television and the apex of media for us (the internet and computers). So far, he is one of my favorites just because of all the engaging anecdotes.