Robby Riehle-Eco-Make up

Umberto Eco’s Travels in Hyperreality he explores the hyperreal and simulations of reality in actual life. Eco states, “The United States is filled with cities that look like cities”. In particular case, Las Vegas is a perfect example, because it’s got the pyramids or Egypt, the Eiffel tower, and even the canals of Venice. He also uses the example of Disneyland to help illustrate his stance saying it “is also as place of total passivity. Its visitors must agree to behave like robots." He describes us as robots because we are unfamiliar visitors of this simulated world. Basically, you are invited to escape to a world that is better than the one we actually live in. As he says “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can”. An example we discussed in class is the comparison of Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park and the fountains of the Bellagio Hotel in Vegas. At Yellowstone we have to wait for scientific realities to conjure up the blast needed for the famous geyser, where the fountains of the Bellagio are automated and allow for instant gratification. Even though they only simulate reality, the fact that its on demand makes it more desirable. A similar critical theorist, Jean Baudrillard’s main argument is that humans have reconstructed simulations so realistically that lines between reality and simulacra have become blurred and indistinguishable. This is important because the idea of both these theorist is essentially that, simulacra and hyperreality create an unobtainable better world than could ever exist. Therefore, in comparison our reality will never be good enough, leaving us detached from the world we could otherwise revel in. 

Robby Riehle Marx-Make up

Karl Marx, one of the greatest economist, philosophers, and sociologists ever to live, focused nearly his entire life studying socialism, capitalism, positions of power and the public’s quality of life. A famous quote of his is, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness”. The point Marx is making here is who you are is determined by your social status, not your personality. All decisions in your life revolve around your role community its relation to the rest of the people in society. This is an example of how Althusser’s would say, “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”. This is because, “he who has the gold, makes the rules” and “the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.  The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production.” An example of this is what is called Agenda Setting or Gatekeeping. Basically huge media conglomerates like Time Warner, or Disney own news companies so they get to decide what is broadcasted, (what we are thinking/talking about) and how. This is referred to as Framing, the particular spin applied to a message, which can manipulate how we interpret information and therefore shape opinion. Thus, the ruling class makes ideology. But since the public is never privy to this information or its framing it is subliminal, hence “ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense” (Hebdige) Relating back to how public is an absent-minded observer” (Benjamin).

Robby Riehle Jameson-Make up

Fredric Jameson’s article discusses Late Capitalism and the reason for its foothold in today’s culture. Jameson’s speaks about a, “waning of affect” he sees on account of Late Capitalism and Postmodernism, which nowadays have a very fine line. Theodor Adorno said “the culture industry [, which is a product of late capitalism,] infuses everything with sameness”. This is because the more things are codified, the more monotony there is. The principal way this transpires today is through commodification. An example of this can be seen in Edward Munk’s The Scream and on the poster of the film, Home Alone. When observing both the there is an obvious correlation between the two, and with our critical lens deem the, “Depth is replaced by surface”. The argument by some here is that not everything ought to be for sale or treated as if it were a tradable commodity. As Dick Hebdige said, “as soon as the original innovations which signify ‘subculture’ are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen’”. Capitalism derealizes everything, diminishes aura, and leaves nothing truly avant-garde. Ultimately Late Capitalism as Jameson would say is, “the end . . . of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal . . .” 

Robby Riehle-Derrida Make-up

The article Difference, by Jacques Derrida, discusses the distinction between words, and distinction between signs through a semiotic analysis he coined deconstruction. Derrida suggests deconstruction of texts through binary opposites construct our meaning and purpose. If we look back to Ferdinand de Saussure to help us unpack this concept we remember first, “Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted, nebula”. Thus, we created language to give something meaning or purpose. The question however, is, how do we ascribe meanings to words? De Saussure said, “In language there are only differences” and “we only know things because we know what they are not”. Derrida uses the concept “metaphysics of presence”, to help understand this, which refers to whatever is present, never what is absent. Therefore, when a word is selected it simultaneously means that other words were not selected, making them different. For example if I were to say the word ‘north’ one would apply all the other words from the same context in order to find its meaning. As a result, each word exists in a relationship of dependency with others. As Derrida claims, “Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concept, by the systematic play of differences”. This is serendipitously similar to Macherey theory of intertextuality, the shaping of a text’s meaning by referring to other texts, everything based on something before and language is a system of interconnected terms with meanings derived from the others.

Robby Riehle Foucault-Make up

In Michel Foucault’s article Panopticon he says, “our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance”, I believe this to be the main point of Foucault’s argument. He uses the idea of a Panopticon, a circular prison with cells arranged around a central well, from which prisoners could at all times be observed, as an analogy for understanding how our society works. He illustrates this concept by stating, “Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked.” But why do conform to this model? I believe it is because, as Dick Hebdige would say, “ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense.” Thus, allowing for these “inspection[s to] function ceaselessly”. Foucault goes on to say this “power should be visible and unverifiable”. This can be understood better by looking at Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatuses. You see this is because RSA’s control the public through means of direct violence of threat of violence. So for example because of the prevalence of CCTV in England it is the most watch country in the world. So, people assume they are always being watched, and therefore follow the rules of the law as to not experience any violence. Essentially the same way a panopticon “induce[s] in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”. Meaning that while there maybe nobody watching people act as if they are to avoid conflict. Which fits perfectly which Althusser’s ISA’s and the idea that, “Ideology represents the imaginary relationships of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” Whether you look at is as a Panopticon or its ideological value, “We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism.”