Heathrow Hell

Last week, I had the bittersweet opportunity to visit London, (England) for the first time, on a presumably several hour stopover. The plan was to arrive early morning to Heathrow airport and depart the same evening. I’m not sure if people in Toronto followed the news but I happened to be there on December 18^th when a “massive” snowstorm hit Europe. “Massive”… right. Ten inches of snow later and the airport is closed, the subway barely works and there are no hotels left in the city. I would like to tell you all about this little adventure of mine because if we’re going to take a class about every day life, well we should probably take into account the not so every day things that happen too.

The one thing that saved me on this four-day ordeal was the kindness of strangers. On a three-hour trip from downtown to the airport that should have only taken 45 minutes, I befriended a young Australian woman living in London and we decided to stick together no matter what. The subway had closed and we were left stranded in a suburb with dozens of other people also trying to get to the airport. The scene once we arrived was total chaos. By then, the terminals had been closed for several hours and there was no information as to what would become of us (as in those of us who did not live in or around London…). Nothing. That’s what would happen, nothing. The lines were hours long for taxis, hotels and food. By 9pm, most people had claimed a spot on the floor of the terminal and there was barely room left to stand. Realizing that there was nowhere for me to go but the floor, the woman I’d only just met, took me in. She brought me to her home where, her too-small couch to me became plush featherbed at the Four Seasons.

The next day, waking with all organs still in their cavities, I was determined to get a flight out. My plans were crushed however, as by early morning, full airport closures were announced. To the British Museum I went! Not to mention the purchasing of warm clothing…

It took me four days to get on a flight out… and the last day went something like this. The departure terminals had been closed to all who did not have guaranteed seats for the past three days and those like me, whose flights had been cancelled, had to wait until at least the 26^th of December to get on a flight out. By that day I was absolutely determined to leave. I went to the airport and somehow managed to fool a distressed Air Canada worker into letting me wait near the building. A very kind Air Canada employee found me looking absolutely pathetic in the cold and for some reason or another (I think he said I looked like his daughter) took pity on me and snuck me into the terminal. By some miracle, I got on a stand-by for a flight to Toronto and managed to leave within hours. If it weren’t for this ever so kind man, I probably would still be stuck in London! And if it weren’t for that lovely woman, I probably would have waited for that flight out on a cold airport floor.

Facebook

After watching the movie, "The Social Network," by David Fincher, I came to a certain realization that the new website "Facebook," is taking over daily social interaction, as we no longer rely on daily communication without using technology.

Millions of people daily are using cellphones, instant messaging systems, as well as Facebook to communicate with each other.  This technological development clearly provides efficiency as we no longer need to communicate with others directly.

I feel as though there are a lot of problems developing because of this new technology.  First of all, from personal experience of using Facebook, it allows more conflict to develop between people as people know more information about you, such as your education, your birthdate, your relationships.  I realized that Facebook is an icon that allows more people to know unnecessary information about certain things, and therefore, people can use this against you in future predicaments.

As technology has developed over the years, people have become increasingly obsessed with personal information, to the point where the masses are craving more information about individuals.  Personally, I believe that as Facebook continues to grow, people will become less individualized and more similar to each other and we realize what we are missing out in normal everyday social interaction.

The Bad Girls Club

I was recently watching the fifth season of the reality TV series, "The Bad Girls Club," which is about a group of seven rebellious girls from different personalities, race, and sexual orientation who try to live together in the same house and must abide by the rules.  The rules are simple: they need to get along with each other.  If any participant inflicts physical harm on another, they must immediately pack their belongings and leave the house for good.

While I was watching this TV show, I increasingly noticed the hegemony that existed within the plot.  It became clear to me that the girls with the blonde hair and blue eyes dominated the household, while the minority girls typically, African-Americans and Latinos acted as subordinates and fulfilled their roles as "the followers" in the household.  This clearly represents the hypocracy within the media industry and its racial implications even though every participant in the TV series is considered to be given fair game.

Furthermore, when considering the social class of all of these women, it is apparent that most, or infact all the participants belong to the working call background.  For example, most of the girls mention the fact that they do not have enough income to treat themselves to go shopping, as well as many of them barely have enough money to feed themselves.  Furthermore, most of the girls join the TV series in hopes of becoming a well-known celebrity.

It just proves to show how reality TV shows are represented as low-level media, and displays average, everyday, working-class people of America striving to make it big so that they can have better lives.  Hence, what recent reality TV shows portray is the idea of the "American Dream."


http://bad-girls-club.oxygen.com/

The Ambassadors of London

I learned before departing that the painting we examined in class, “The Ambassadors” , is housed in the National Gallery in London. So, eager to beat the crowds I ventured forth to Trafalgar Square and simply strolled into the museum. My first reaction was “wow, this place is massive, I’m never going to find this painting… and OH MY GOODNESS IT’S FREE!!” No, really, you don’t pay for museum entrance in London. This is such a strange concept to those of us (me) who have had to pay $15++ to get into a not so magnificent museum (the ROM) and over $30 to see special exhibits. This initial experience with the National Gallery made me think about our discussions on politicizing art. If the argument is that art is not made accessible to the general public, then how can we justify it in London? It is not secluded or hidden, the art is there and any soul can wander in and see! And that is exactly what I did…

A quick look at the map and The Ambassadors is easily found. Granted it is hard to miss, being the size of a wall and all. The painting in person is truly magnificent. When you actually walk from one side to the other and see it transform, it is a completely different experience from what we’ve seen on a screen. I stood around for a bit and observed the other visitors admiring. There was a group of Italian tourists with a guide telling them what to look for. Even though I didn’t understand exactly what they were saying, it was obvious in their expression when they all saw the blotch transform into a skull before them—both shocked and fascinated.

A second group of came around and I scribbled down a short transcript of their conversation. A woman with her two young daughters, perhaps six or seven, was explaining to them what was at the bottom of the painting. She told them to look at it from the front and the side. From the front she asked them what they saw. Their replies; a sword? a skateboard? She brings them over to the side and asks “now what do you see?” Again they reply, “Is it a fish? Or an elephant?” The girls just weren’t seeing what the adults were seeing. The mother had finally pointed out the jaw and the eye sockets when the girls realized what they were looking at. “A skeleton!!” And with that, a mere shrug of the shoulders. Needless to say, I was amused. These girls did not seem dim or silly, just innocent. I think we take for granted the way children really perceive the real vs. reality. I don’t think that at their age, these children really understand the idea of death. An image of a skull, appearing only from a certain view is beyond their own reality… it does not mean anything to them. I think we make it what it is and whether or not it is the real infringing upon reality; to some it might just look like an elephant.

Survivor.. the title of the show says enough.

Following the end of yet another season of Survivor, I’ve had a significant amount of time to reflect on what has driven the success of the show to its upcoming 22^nd season. Survivor definitely illustrates our interest in the unusual and threatens our sense of reality. The show is based on the unusual or the Other. People appearing to be normal, ordinary, and much like ourselves are placed in unfamiliar, exotic circumstances. I continuously find it interesting to think that to many people in the world, such circumstances would not be unusual at all. But our interest lies in making the discrimination between the cultures that the viewers and contestants belong to and another. These cultures are specifically ones that are often thought of by people of the West as being less civilized and more primitive. Such qualities are what make it unusual and threatening. I feel that such interest does nothing but exoticize these groups of individuals who are different from ourselves and provides us with negative connotations, stressing the unfamiliarity, which continues to captivate viewers season after season.

Bridalplasty - A new low

Lacan had said that we tend to protect ourselves from the real by believing that success is a given - we are born to be a success. Reality TV is an extension of that belief as it gives ordinary people a moment to be extraordinary.

In a new TV show called BridalPlasty it combines the worst aspects of several shows to come up with the most twisted idea possibly present on television. In this show 12 brides-to be live together in a house and COMPETE for plastic surgery procedures. That's right, women will participate in tasks that give them access to nose-jobs, boob-jobs, butt lifts, tummy tucks, jaw resurfacing etc. Forget that, the show targets a Survivor theme as the winning women will not only get the procedure, but there is also a voting system making the women scheme and plot in order to get other 'competitors' out of the house.

An example of such as task would be to build a giant magnetic puzzle over a current picture, and being the first ten allows you to grab a syringe and go to an Injectibles party, where doctors will inject botox into your face. Yep. Puzzles are not just for fun anymore, they will get your face stuffed with dangerous muscle toxins too.

You would think that their loving and adoring fiancées waiting for them outside of the show is still a sweet thought. But it gets worse. These women will then be revealed on their wedding days and their fiancée can chose not to marry them.

But really, what is the worst part behind all this? One of these women, will become famous. Just like reality TV is designed, one of these women will get famous and go from ordinary to extraordinary.

Here is a link, you guys can check out this atrocity for yourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7IuRKCIbVQ

My first post was about how zombies in pop culture have metaphoric meaning. I think perhaps other common science fiction creatures also convey meaning in contemporary culture. As an example, I think aliens in Western film represent societal unease about issues of immigration and cultural exchange.

On the positive end of the spectrum are movies like Contact and Close Encounters, where the emphasis is on what we can learn from making new contacts with intelligent life. Men in Black seems to be a metaphor for the American melting pot, where aliens/immigrants must learn to become assimilated and productive members of American society.

On the negative side are movies like Avatar and District 9 deal with issues of racism and the destruction of indigenous ways of life. Shoot-em-up movies like Independence Day and Mars Attacks promote a very, um, Bush-esque philosophy for how American patriots should deal with resistant foreign cultures. Shock and awe!

There are some movies that do not quite fit into this model, but are related. The Alien series and The Thing symbolize the destruction caused by invasive alien species, much like cane toads in Australia. In the Predator series, highly advanced aliens come to earth on hunting trips wreaking havoc for the humans they encounter, much the way sometimes self entitled Western tourists have been criticized as doing when they visit Third World Countries.

One could continue with other science fiction creatures, such as vampires and werewolves that are popular in the cinema right now are.

Top 10 Canadian Stories of 2010

At the end of each year many news broadcasters list their top 10 news stories of the year. These stories are considered the most captivating, shocking and intriguing by the public over the million of other stories broadcasted during the year. This trend of listing the top newsworthy stories reminds me of the lecture about horrible crimes and what was considered ‘newsworthy’. The list from CBC goes as follows:

1. Vancouver Olympics

2. Issues of Afghanistan

3. Economic recovery

4. Russell Williams

5. G20 cost/riots

6. New mayor in Toronto and Calgary

7. Haiti

8. Justin Beiber

9. Khadar family Trials

10. Toyota Recall

What surprised me the most (other than Justin Beiber making this list!!!!), was how many of these stories had negative undertones to them. Out of the 10 stories, 70% of them dealt with negative issues. Professor Kalmar mentioned that ordinary occurrences are not considerer news but rather the most shocking of things which interfere with our reality. Looking that this list, this is clearly evident. The Vancouver Olympics was ranked as one of the most fascinating story to Canadians. Not only was the rarity of hosting the games intriguing but also its revolutionary towards Canadian culture. During the weeks of the events, many retailers sold merchandise relating to the games such as the iconic red Olympics mitts, Canadian flags and posters of famous athletes. National athletes became national heroes, such as Alex Bilidou, and sport bars and event areas became packed with people watching the games. With all the new social changes, the Olympics erupted the reality of Canadian life dramatically.

What is also evident from the list is the amount of stories, which involved national ‘Moral Panic’. Issues such as Afghanistan, Russell Williams, the G20 Summit and Khadar Trials all involved social anxiety and the pressures for political action. These stories shocked viewers and caused a fear of the unknown. The war of Afghanistan is an example of this as the realities of war disturbed individual and made them questioned their own security. The fear of reality becoming disturbed was also evident with the G20 summit, when many people became outraged with the cost and physically violence that occurred close to home. The disturbance of reality also occurred when people acted out of the ordinary. In the case of Russell Williams and the Khadar family, people became alarmed when normal individuals who lived and functioned in their own backyards became affiliated with actions of violence and terrorism. This is because it reminds of the fragility of reality and impose of the real , state which cannot be obtained or controlled. We fear the real but we are still fascinated with issue, which relate back to it. Regardless of which story you focused on, each held the trend of ordinary life becoming disturbed.

holiday time

Saw this article on the weekend and thought it was well suited to the insane shopping sprees we are all encouraged to undertake every festive season! It's interesting how we are so bombarded with the urgent necessity of shopping not only for Christmas or "seasonal holiday" gifts, but then we get yet another harassment from stores for the boxing day (or week!) that follows. I had to drive my sister to the mall on boxing day morning at 630 am as her store chose to open its doors for eager shoppers early in the am, and I was surprised to see so many people up that early in the morning hunting for deals that are apparently not quite what they seem (I've heard many stores often hike up their prices before boxing week so that their "sales" appear to be greater.)

Anyway, saw this article and though it was interesting to think about how there is a whole science behind enticing us as buyers and consumers..

http://www.cracked.com/article_18805_5-ways-stores-use-science-to-trick-you-into-buying-crap.html

reality tv's getting a bit scary..

Saw this a few weeks ago on an episode of Dr.Phil, and I couldn't believe it...

I think this clip sums up pretty well just how outrageous and silly this show is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu6TdZRQpSE&feature=related

The show is called Bridal Plasty and follows about ten or so women who are having weddings in the near future. All the women have a list of plastic surgeries they'd like to have done before their big day and the show follows them through these transformations. I was reminded of the article we had read a while ago about the tv shows "What not to wear" and "The swan" and saw the trailer for this new show and was shocked. A clip shown on Dr.Phil showed the women racing to complete a puzzle and then run to a table covered in syringes, grab one, and run downstairs where they were "treated" to botox. It was chaotic seeing these women rush for the syringes and run to the plastic surgeon screaming with happiness. What shocked me most was that these women were all very young, mostly around 20-25 and to see them so unhappy with their looks that they wanted to completely change them before their wedding day! For the show, they were separated from their future husbands for four months and the winner of the show would have their "big reveal" on their wedding day, at the altar. 

The whole concept of the show is just so horribly superficial and it was sad to see that on the Dr.Phil show the producers were completely condoning the shows premise.  

My name is Vu and I am a Petite Bourgeois

As the year to comes to an end, I’ve decided to take some time to reflect. While 2010 did fly by, there were some memorable moments that I hold close to me. As I was in the middle of this reflective mindset, I looked out the window and saw what I have been seeing for the past 4 years. Demolition. I live in Regent Park, Canada’s oldest and largest “hood”. It’s been home to me my whole life, and now it is being torn down piece by piece. As I sit here and look at the demolition crew tearing down a row of houses, I see a group of kids maybe 6 of them aged about 16. They reminded me of myself at that age because of how they were dressed. Each one of them were flashing a big chain, a brand new pair of Air Jordans, and a noticeable interlocking G belt with a distinct red and green colour. Gucci. How do 16 year-olds afford jewelry and high-end clothing and accessories? That’s a different story. The sight of them made me laugh and it recalled our discussion of the social classes and the petit bourgeoisie.

Growing up in Regent Park, I didn’t have much. I probably belonged to one of the lower classes. What I did have was a T.V that showed music videos of my favourite rappers wearing oversized chains and expensive clothes. As a kid, all I thought about growing up was having diamonds and money. Nothing else mattered. As a teenager, I can admit that I was a petite bourgeoisie. I didn’t know anything about “being rich”. To me, being rich meant having nice stuff and flaunting that. I didn’t care how ridiculous I looked. I thought that by purchasing what I thought rich people purchased I was somehow joining their class. Every time I got my hands on money I was buy something ridiculous. By the age of 16 I was living what I felt was a dream: I had over 100 pairs of sneakers, mounds of clothes, and a lot of jewelry. I even had a set of grillz (removable gold teeth encrusted with diamonds) made! Not only was I tasteless, I was stupid. By the time I turned 18 I lost it all. It wasn’t until now that I began to understand why people of lower classes, well where I lived at least, felt the need to have things that they couldn’t afford.

Coming from the bottom rungs of society, people here do not own very much. One thing they do own is their appearance. In this society, clothing is one of the most significant ways of judging an persons wealth. As a society, the first thing we do when we meet someone is we take a quick look at them. From the way their hair is cut to what type of shoes they have on their feet, we judge them and then make an assumption as to where they belong in the social ladder. To some, appearance is everything. This is especially prominent in youths. They participate in what they believe is bourgeois behaviours without understanding that it really means to be bourgeois. This has come to be known as “swag”. Kids in the hood want to swag as though they are rich; they want that rich people swag. They want to be able to shop at Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Burberry. Instead of spending the money to better themselves, they do it to better their appearance because that is what society sees. What they don’t realize is that the reason why some people are bourgeois is the fact that they are able to maintain that type of lifestyle. This is probably the main reason why these kids (and myself) are classified as being petite bourgeois: we are unable to maintain that lifestyle. Sure we can go and by a really nice outfit from a high-end store. But that’s only one outfit. We can go to the club and pop bottles of Moet and Grey Goose, but that’s only one night. What we fail to recognize is that being bourgeois is less about what we own and how we look and more about how we carry ourselves. This is the class struggle of those living in Regent Park. I have to admit that even in my old age of 21 I am still a petite bourgeois. Although it may not be as apparent as it was when I was 16, I do participate in behaviours that I think are bourgeois. But at the end of the day, I really don’t care. I am a petite bourgeois and I am proud of it! (Well not really)

P.S. Season 7 Episode 14 of the Simpson’s is closely related to this, I couldn’t find the link but here’s the episode name: Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield.

To The Cloud

I find that watching TV commercials provides me with lots of profound material for an anthropological study of everyday, popular culture. Take for example this ad that's been running on TV lately:

As we studied in class, the medium is the message - in this ad, while the "mom" tries to recreate a family "nature could never" give her, she's using technology (Windows 7) to erase from her family's picture other pieces of technology: the cell phone, video game controller, etc. Thus, this ad could be seen to be giving us the message that technology is the cause of, and the solution to, life's problems (C.F. Homer Simpson saying the same thing about alcohol in an episode of The Simpsons).

Projecting a Zizekian analysis on this ad, it would seem that "The Cloud" is the realm of the Symbolic wherein the family's Real faces can be converted to ones that are more suitable for Symbolic reality - where the children are not off in their own world but sitting smiley-faced for the camera. However, this is done via photo manipulation as The Real keeps disrupting the idyllic family picture the mom wants to share with the world (via more technology) so that she won't be "ridiculed" in her social network... even though it can be easily presumed that just about everyone has been in such "ridicule worthy" photos. This ad (like so many others) plays on our need to constantly prop up our symbolic reality and hide, ignore or photoshop out all those objets petit a around us, and it seems to both feed on, and cultivate, the viewers' desire to suppress, deny or manage the chaos of the Real.

Canadian Nationalism and the WJC

It's that time of year again! For many Canadians, the high point of the holidays is not Christmas, but what comes after Christmas - the World Junior Tournament. I'm taking a leap of faith here and assuming that you all are well aware of what this tournament is. This year, the WJC tournament is held in Buffalo, NY. Last year it was held in Ottawa, and in 2012 it will be held in Calgary/Edmonton. The IIHF is well aware that Canada holds this tournament dear to our hearts and knows that we are willing to travel anywhere to create the sea of red and white in the stands. It does not really matter where the tournament is held - in North America or Europe, Canadians will always make the journey across the pond or just across the US border.

The topic of whether or not Canadians have national pride or a national identity had been debated in almost every class I've taken in university (even in my Holocaust class.) Unlike most countries, Canada does not have one language, one ethnicity, or a majority religion. Canada is a "mosaic" as is has been called, which contains a multitude of races and ethnicities, religions and languages. Multiculturalism is a great thing for a country to possess, but it often seems that multiculturalism has replaced any possibility for a national identity to arise and unite us all.

I am currently partaking in an internship with an OHL team in a market that is 75% East Indian. The attendance at home games is less than desirable, but there are always a mixture of ethnicities in attendance. In the new year, we will be holding "Punjabi Day" where we hope to reach out to a greater proportion of the surrounding community and show them just how great hockey is!

Stereotypical or not, I believe that hockey is one of those (very few and far between) things that does unite all of Canada's diverse populations. Yes, hockey is an expensive sport to play and it is unfortunate that not every child has an equal opportunity to play. However, with the excitement that surrounds this tournament every year, and the enormous response to the Olympic (men's hockey) games this past February, I feel it is safe to say that hockey is in fact a definite part of Canada's national identity. TSN reported a statistic that 8/10 Canadians watched at least some part of the Gold Medal game, that is HUGE! Especially for a country that is so heavily infiltrated with immigrant populations, that statistic provides evidence that immigrants are participating in "Canadian culture", thus making hockey a part of our national identity. Since hockey seems to be a prominent aspect of national identity, I think it would make a lot of sense for the government to begin subsidizing the cost for minors to play hockey. Kids should have an equal opportunity to participate in sports, especially in the sport that has become so important to our nation's history.

Hope you all enjoy the rest of your break, and don't forget to wear your red and white and cheer for Canada on Friday vs. Sweden!!

The Medium is the Message

This holiday season, a friend of mine and I attempted to have an entire conversation through the social media network, Twitter. After a while, it got very tiring, being limited by the character count. Nowadays, there are so many ways to communicate with people, its almost ridiculous. It seems that face-to-face conversation is uncommon, with the busy lives of everybody. There are various methods of instant messaging, social network, mobile communications and electronic mail that just becomes more convienient.

Marshall McLuhan was the one who said that "the medium is the message." If you really think about it, now that there are so many ways to get the message across, there really can be implications based on the way you pass your message on. It also bases very much on your individual life.

For instance, if you are a very intense "Tweeter," and most of you probably know someone like this, Twitter is perhaps your way of sending and recieving messages. I would reach someone like this via Twitter because I know that's the most likely channel which I can get a response from him or her. Same for Facebook. Maybe you've got a really cool smartphone and can do a whole bunch of things with it. Perhaps texting is your favourite form of communication.

The point is that with all this media available, what can be said about the medium of the message? Can you imply that, for instance, a break-up via text message means something different than a break-up through Facebook? If you get an event invitation for a party through Facebook, and its someone whom you're not too close with, can you assume they just invited all their Facebook friends, and it really wasn't a personal invite, as if they asked you in person?

I think that these are extreme examples of safe assumptions of the implications that can be read into various forms of media.

Paul Thek

Last week, I went to Whitney Museum of American Art and was fascinated with the exhibition of Paul Thek. In that exhibition, I felt his challenge to real from reality and the dominant concept of beauty in art.
In 1964, he made a work called ‘meat pieces’ with wax, which resemble the body flesh. The flesh was cut into pieces and was put into a Plexiglas box. Even though the flesh itself seems material and was not realistic, it hardly can be accepted as a beautiful art piece. It shows the material aspects of our human body, which rather lack the respect to physical beautifulness. With the fact that he was a bisexual and the object petit a, that seems to me to be suggestion of his denial to the way a body is expected to be.
The body flesh reminds us of death that is beyond our control. Paul Thek himself left a comment saying that he felt a strange attraction when he held a chunk of meat, which became the trigger of this creation. While the real was presented as a desire, it was separated by a box and implies the distinct border between the real and reality. The body itself was rather like an object without bloody cruel reality, which can be said as a denial of the death. This work can be said to show the desire to conquer the real while it gives a clue of its impossibility.
Anyways, I was completely fascinated with the aura of the real art. As we discussed in our class, I felt an indescribable excitement when I faced to the real art of work.

Social Construction in Audio Books

For the holiday season my mother got an audio book out from the library for my family to listen to. I noticed that my initial feelings towards hearing the phrase "audio book" were of judgement and criticism. When I became aware of this internal prejudice I for some reason had against audio books I began to wonder why. I think, however that I am not alone in these feelings. I've found that the idea of using an audio book as opposed to actually reading a book is subtly frowned upon (aside from those with any visual impairments, naturally), at least in the society we're living in, and this offers an excellent example of how constructed out reality is.

If you think about it, the sole difference between reading a book and listening to a book is a matter of choosing between which sense to use- sight or hearing. The higher status associated with using one's eyes to read has absolutely no practical reasoning behind it. While it is true that print has been around longer than audio books have, we have certainly been telling story through oral communication much longer than print, so the sort of "historical prestige" that may be associated with it makes even less sense. While this is not entirely related to hegemony, as I don't think this case exhibits one group being convinced to adhere to their own inequalities by another, the two are certainly related. The inexplicable prestige that I, and I'm sure others, associate to reading vs. hearing really puts into perspective how much of our reality is constructed and has little to do with practicality.

Myths: Barthes and Hegemony VS Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious

In our class discussion on Barthes and mythology, we talked about whether a myth is working on the unconscious level. Professor Kalmar concluded that myth does not work on the unconscious level; neither through the conscious level. This reminded me about Carl Jung's idea of myth. Jung believes that myth is born out of the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is an innate part of the psyche that contains truth (or perhaps the Real). Jung does regard the collective unconscious to be considered as the 'unknown' or the 'hidden'. If I understand correctly; myths, according to Jung, are considered as a tool to discovering 'the Real' (possibly) through the collective unconscious.

According to Roland Barthes, it is hegemony that functions as an instrument for presenting us with these myths. Although these myths provide us with things that we cannot really argue, they are still used as a powerful device to persuade the people to believe in the hegemony.

So, my question is: is it the collective unconscious that provides us with these myths (projecting from our collective unconscious or the Real), or are myths (and their message; which in turn are being internalized by the people) provided by hegemony?

Enjoy the Christmas break everyone!

why do we watch reality shows

When we talked about reality shows in the lecture, we discussed how we, the viewers, feel related to the people on reality shows. Regarding this, we used a couple of examples of shows like Survivor and American Race to address bonding in adversity or solidarity while the participants are undergoing the challenges, and we understand what they are going through by looking at them even though we are not experiencing the exact same thing. Personally, among many reasons why people enjoy watching reality shows, I consider this type of vicarious experience is the most intriguing factor. To elaborate, just like we discussed, the way we feel connected to those people in the shows as if we are in that situation is what drives us to watch reality shows.

Since we haven't taken an example from celebrity reality shows, let me illustrate one. I used to enjoy watching the show called The Rachel Zoe Project. It's basically about personal life of a well-known celebrity stylist living in Los Angeles. For young females, the likely audience of the show, their desire to live fabulous and extravagant life filled with fashion is fulfilled by watching Rachel Zoe's lifestyle in the show.

Some people might say that reality show is not the only text that offers that kind of pleasure and that they can always get substitute satisfaction from watching movie or drama. However, what makes reality shows more fulfilling than those is the fact that it is not, at least 100%, staged. Of course I understand cynicism saying that the audience knows the show is not real but does not care. But, the show obviously contain some fundamental elements that are real and not constructed, and whatever the percentage of the show's reality, that portion is just enough to give the viewers what they want and maybe even make them blind to Zizek's point of cynicism.

The “myth”

It has been discussed in class that myths are just lies, just that we don’t justify if it is right or wrong. In my understanding, mythology is when something is past from one another (like a folktale), and eventually lead to a wide spread that no one can trace if it was true or not. – this is very similar to gossips spreading around high school, yet why is it not called a myth?

In the movie Easy A, a teenage girl spreads a rumor about losing her virginity at school and a series of outbreak of different lies and rumors started expanding around her school. Now when I think of it, what is it that makes a myth a myth, and a lie a lie? Is it that if more people knew about it and it was from a long time ago it was a myth? Or that myths have to had some magical elements in it like god and fairies to make it a myth? Is it because traditional myths like Greek myths talk about serious issues like death and war so it makes it a myth? and a high school rumor is not significant enough to be one? If mythology reflected a culture/history, then wouldn’t the situation in Easy A actually reflect our culture in the future?

The really big concern is, telling a lie seems to be a very negative action, but telling a myth is rather acceptable and sometimes enjoyable. Is it because a lie makes one undermines their position in society? or a lost of trust? In my opinion, I think that myths are more acceptable in community as it creates no harm, it does not justify anyone and its just like story telling, but myths however are not without influences. According to Mircea Eliade, myths establishes model of behavior, people may react in a certain way because of a myth. It may be good and it may be bad, but it is all down to personal experiences and interpretation. A lie however, once it is known as a lie, it wont develop a “further experience” aside from putting shame on the person that started it.

But I thought a myth is a lie…. Hmmm……

How much of reality TV is real?

How much of reality TV is real?

When we had our class discussion about reality TV, my group (The Amazing race) group had lots of ideas on it. There was one point that I particularly liked but it was not discussed in class. – how much of reality is real? How much of reality TV is set within certain boundaries?

The reason that these shows are called “reality TV” is because they are suppose to portray the most basic, most unaltered side of the show. However, in many reality tv shows (especially ones directed to female audience, like America’s Next Top Model) , these shows like to enlarge the drama to make the show more interesting, when infact the drama actually involved might just be 1/10 of what actually goes on within the set. Reality TV is greatly manipulated to suit consumer’s taste and sponsor’s preferences and present it in the way that it will attract more viewers. Reality TV is not real, nor is it reality. The reason why the fighting and arguing are always enlarged is because we as viewers enjoy mocking their stupidity, we mock the naïve-ness of the participant. – can this be related as Schadenfreude ? The drive of consumption restricts us in another way of being “the real”, not being real or fake, but being “real”. I think that reality TV and consumption demands restricts the notion of people imaging beyond the reality with TV shows as they like give you what you (consumers) like and produce it to feed it exactly the same taste as you favor. So really… reality TV is all fake, its just another “make believe reality”, it’s just another form of TV shows that has different boundaries.

Reality TV Shows - The Maury Show

The Maury Show was initially aired on September 9, 1991, it runs five days a week and currently airing its 19th season. It is a Reality Talk Show hosted by Maury Povich. Maury has dealt with a variety of issues across its 19 seasons, including – but not limited to – teenage pregnancy, sexual infidelity, paternity test results, uncommon illnesses, makeovers, "out of control" teenagers, transgenders individuals, obese children, men controlling and abusing women, little people, bullying, and unusual phobias.

On November 18, 2010, The Maury Show aired the episode titled “Is My Best Friend My Husband’s Mistress?” It contends stories of individuals who suspect their spouse/partner of committing infidelity, which the truth will be obtained from lie detector test and cheaters would be confronted. These stories portray the issues we face in our daily lives; we sympathize with the victims who shed their tears, break down in public, and scream at those who they once imagined of spending the rest of their lives with. Also, infidelity is common; it is rather a popular topic among our conversations. Perhaps because it is a threat to the reality of what we expect and accept from marriage, which in our perception is a physical and emotional exclusivity, a commitment of companionship.

In this episode, story 1 focuses on Tanya and her husband, Jose. Tanya claims to have chosen the love of her life over her family and gave him her heart. Is he cheating? She indicates that she’s like Obama, nothing “gets away from” her. This tension, anxiety, suspicion is something we all experience. It’s a familiar emotion we find ourselves tangled in when we feel threatened by the abnormal behavior of our loved ones and the fear of losing their exclusive attention and commitment

Then, the lie detector reveals that Jose cheated on his wife repetitively, in fact, he regrets marrying Tanya. Tanya breaks down in tears and eventually has an anxiety attack, as Maury advises her, “you can always go back to your family, they will take you back. You never choose anything over family”

It is an implication, a lesson, and a tragedy we can all relate to at some level. Perhaps it is our own experience of betrayal, our own conduct of the wrong, or someone who we know and observed going through the pain. In the end of the show, follow-ups inform us that Tanya has officially left her husband

Story 2 stages Lekesha and her love, Paris. The last dramatic appearance of this couple on the Maury Show was 3 years ago when her husband confessed on his infidelity. She had forgiven him. Now they return because she suspects her husband of cheating again, with her best friend. Paris again confesses to infidelity with women who called him at home as well as an older woman; however, Lekesha appears to be disappointed rather than hurt. We can relate to this incidence - once the reality appears different from the real, we slowly adapt to it and eventually start to accept the changes. Lekesha perhaps felt less hurt as she was 3 years ago, because her perception on her marriage with Paris was no longer a loving, exclusive bond. The lie detector reveals that her best friend was telling the truth when she said she was not in any way involved with Paris.

Story 3 shines the spotlight on Sarah and Henry. 19-year-old Sarah suspects her fiance of being unfaithful to her. She says that she “would go to the end of the world and back for family” and he is the family she knows and loves. She bursts into tears as she reveals that “he’s the reason why [she] wakes up every morning” and that she would not know what to do if he does anything to hurt her. Henry denies being infidel; lie detector shows results of dishonesty and confirms that Henry has been cheating on Sarah. She loses control on stage and physically, violently attacks her fiance.

A teenager who fell in love and has a child with the man, the man who will soon become her husband and establishes an official family with her turned out to be unfaithful. We become more attached because of the age group - how our lives rumble because of relationships and families; how it hurts us more because we are young and experienced less, because we are unwilling to break the bubble of love is supposed to be like a fairytale. We find it difficult to leave the real and accept the reality

In short, Reality TV merely brings our daily lives, our drama, and present it on the screen. Thus, we relate to the shows, and we feel less distant from the “Hollywood” image of “celebrities”.

According to Zizek and his idea of Cynicism, which refers to that we know that the show is not real, but we don't care. When people discuss the show is not real, they feel a sense of discovery, however no one thinks the show is real, thus they haven't discovered anything. Thus, are those shows non-rehearsed? Random reality? It is reality, in perspective; it gives something to discuss. However, when we don’t see things in perspective, it’s merely an illusion of seeing “reality”.

The art of reality shows is that it presents us with the drama we could relate to and makes them believe that it is real. However, at the same time we don’t completely believe that it is. It reveals our inability to judge and to be perceptive.

Reality shows are like real elements and unreal components, and when we watch these reality shows, we accept both.

Zizek likens reality shows to our existence in capitalism, in the aspect that both are socially constructed - things we make and make believe. Both are outcome of history and of people’s actions, not by nature. We don’t think there is anything needed to do - we just accept capitalism is a fact, involving knowledge, manipulation, and power of relations. Thus, Zizek’s concept of cynicism, in short, means we know but we cannot and not want to do anything about it.

Reality shows mentioned in the reading “Take over, Make over”, when women have make over, they become more conforming to the idea of what is normal. It is a form of “normalization”, which means to make someone unusual into someone common. Is that not ironic? To make someone pretty is to fully change them into the image societal norm considers as “pretty”, despite the process involving artificial alterations. Again, we know it is not real, yet we let ourselves be taken over and go through changes only to be “normal” and “better”. Is that not cynicism? We know it’s not “us”, we know it’s not real, but that’s okay, we allow it, we make believe.

"Social Network" - Facebook - Impact on our lives.

A few weeks ago we discussed the movie “Social Network”, which involved Mark Zuckerberg, the developer of Facebook, and the drama of leaving the "real", moving on to the "reality"; the issues of jealousy, misfit, love and revenge, etc.

What did M.Z. really want? Could it be recognition? Or acceptance, to blend into the elite of the bourgeoisies? Lacking in social capital and Jewish background place M.Z. as an outsider in the Harvard community. He quotes from the movie in rebuttal to the lawsuit he was served with, “They are not suing me for the invasion of their intellectual property, but because for the first time in their lives things didn't work out the way they want to for them”. This implies that M.Z. actually feels that his fellow classmates from Harvard are privileged and somewhat spoiled, as they get what they want simply because their families are wealthy.

After the rejection and insult from his girlfriend, Mark Zuckerberg stepped onto the road to developing the now worldwide network - Facebook.

He compared his ex-girlfriend to farm animals, started a site for people to rate women based on their hotness. As his ex-girlfriend was hurt from the comments he posed online, M.Z. continued to expand the network after learning that internet is written in “ink” and not pencil marks, and that people vote not because they see hot girls but because they see girls who they know. From there, he expands the network to involving the Yale and Columbia network, while changing it into a virtual network connecting different people with updates of their social lives and status.

Surprisingly, the movie was not about the “history of the paramount discovery in our networking era - Facebook”. Instead, it was a classic drama involving jealousy, love, among other emotions and old issues of human existence.

M.Z. needs something from others, could it be admiration, recognition, acceptance, or respect? What are his desires and goals?

As we learned about Zizek and the Real, “desire” is in the direction of the “real”, thus opposite from “reality”. “Social Network” also represents the idea of coping with the loss of “real” and developing the “self”. The intensive emotions expressed in the movie reflect the “reality”, as the love he claims to have for his girlfriend appears to be unreal and ideal.

Instead, Z.M. has a strong desire to be recognized, but for what? Could it be to validate himself? His desire, passion and obsession for becoming a member of the “Final Club” implies that he wants recognition, perhaps in the aspect of popularity, of his intelligence, as well as acceptance into the community of the social elites.

The possible tragedy within the movie is that the one who made worldwide networking possible cannot have non-technological, genuine interaction or relationship with others. Thus, it shows that M.Z. lacks in social capital.

Mark Zuckerberg’s ambition of his site expansion and his eager for success and recognition also reveal a sense of revenge. M.Z. resents his position in the social hierarchy and intends to rehabilitate his image. However, did his desire go out of limit? As far as we know, Facebook did emerge and eventually become a part of our lives.

For example, the weekend before I found out that “Social Network” was going to be the topic of our upcoming lecture’s discussion topic, my boyfriend and I went to the theater. I had no intention of watching “The Social Network”, though he planned to persuade me in any possible way to choose that movie. As a result, we watched the movie.

I had no intention to watch that movie, I had no interest in the movie while watching it. However, my boyfriend was intrigued by the content and the message he sought from it. He ended up with the idea of launching a site that expands on the nature of Facebook. I must admit that I hate the idea; however, it is a brilliant and doable one that he prohibited me to list all the details. He began with, “ wouldn’t you want to connect with those who you know and who you would like to know after a casual encounter?”

Further, another impact Facebook has on our daily lives is that it allows us to be a part of our friends’ lives while not physically be there. For example, how many times have we forgotten about someone’s birthday but we always manage to cover that fact because Facebook has birthday reminders which let us post “HBD” on our friends’ walls? How many times have we posted “aw I’m sorry hun...” when Facebook shows a friend’s relationship status change from “in a relationship” to “single”?

Finding Humanity within the Cyborg

I watched Terminator Salvation (the last instalment of the Terminator saga) this weekend and I realized that the movie did not only resonate with the theme of Cyborgs but also the theme of the Return of the Dead as well as a good mix of Real versus Reality. In the beginning of the movie the year is 2003 and character Marcus Wright is shown as a man about to be executed on death row. A doctor comes to visit him before his final end and convinces him to donate his body to research. Fast-forward to 2018, the world is being ruled by robots and machines and the human population is a mere minority fighting for its survival.

As the movie begins to progress, Marcus awakens and finds himself in the middle of the desert. He is depicted as a character willing to partner with John Connor – the leader of the human rebellion who was prophesized in the first instalment as the key to defeating the reign of the machines. However, after crossing a field of landmines and triggering one to explode, Marcus finally gets to meet Connor, but the encounter is everything but pleasant as Marcus’ reality comes colliding with the real. When Marcus wakes up from the explosion, he finds himself in Connor’s camp, tied up in chains and looked upon by Connor and his crew as if he was the enemy.

As the shot zooms out to capture the scene, the truth about Marcus is shot to the forefront: his skin had been incinerated by the explosion, but instead of revealing bone and flesh, all that remained to be seen was titanium alloy and bionically constructed arms and ligaments. The promising hero turned out to be a semi-robotic human designed by the enemy machines and created to gain the trust of Connor, only to eliminate him when he least expected it. Upon this realization, Marcus comes face to face with what he really is and is tormented by the reality of what he has become because it seemed to be so impossible, so unfathomable – something that should have been contained in the realm of the real.




The movie provides the audience the sense of the dead coming back to life only to realize he is not human anymore. Marcus was convinced he did not actually die in 2003 and that he was being given a second chance to make up for his mistakes. In truth, he did die, and when he did all his organs including his mind were reconfigured into a robot that would be revived to destroy the main character. However, in an attempt to romanticize the real and naturalize the cyborg, the movie added a twist by allowing Marcus to be a machine whose humanity proves capable of beating out his programed purpose to search and destroy.

This last instalment of the Terminator saga has proven to be a good example of bringing some key themes of class discussions into the fore. In the end, Marcus Wright still manages to be the hero in the movie by facing off with the machine of all machines, destroying it, and then sacrifices his own life in order for John Connor to live. Within this framework, the issue of the real and the symbolic come into play along with the rise of the living dead and the domination of cyborgs.

Zombie wife: an intrusion of love and mortality

As many people on this forum, I am interested in the representation of aliens and zombies in popular culture. Currently there is a mini-series called “The Walking Dead” that is airing on AMC every Sunday. It is being heralded as a thoughtful and well-produced zombie story that explores notions of humanity, death and community in times of adversity.

However, as discussed in class under the theories of Slavoj Zizek, the Zombie can be seen as an explosion of the real into reality. The show the walking dead is typical of other zombie narratives, death is intruding on everyday life in a way that is not normal: instead of a person dying and remaining so, to be buried, to be remembered in passing, death is instead confronting you in every moment, chasing you down to join it.

In one of the earlier episodes of the show, a man and his son help the main character by hiding him in the house they are barricaded in. The young boy and man are terrified by the daily attempt of a zombie, once the boys mother and man’s wife, to enter the house through the front door. The zombie woman at once resembles a deceased and grotesque version of the former person, and the “real” of death trying to enter their lives, literally attempting to open the door on their reality. The father, towards the end of the show is grappling with the decision of whether or not he should shot the zombie woman who was once their mother/wife, thus ending that particular intrusion of the real into their life. He hesitates due to the memories of love he experienced for her, feeling that killing the zombie is like killing his former wife. I felt while watching this that perhaps the fact that normal grieving process of burying his wife was not completed, the man’s choice became even harder. He did not have time to ritualize her passing into the real as part of their reality, thus her return to reality through the image of a zombie was a threatening reminder of death, and the connection the man sought to make- that need for unity, that was also only possible in the real.

Unlike the normal pace of zombie movies, one that focuses on killing rather than reflection, I found this moment of contemplation that the man went through provided time for the exact implications of death and longing for unity to come through the zombie as a monster and his wife. He longed to discontinue the intrusion, and longer to continue his relationship with his wife. At that particular moment he desired that which he could never have: a solution that gave him his wife back and ended the intrusion of his reality.

Below is an image of the woman, center, in white. She appears both ethereal and revolting as she approaches the house.