The Disabled God

Nancy speaks of the church as a “city on a hill”, that is inaccessible and inhospitable for the disabled community. In trying to “accommodate” the presumed needs of the disabled, the church has ultimately isolated (and silenced?) them even further. Nancy Eiesland uses the example of the taking part of the Eucharist. In serving her the Eucharist to better serve her “needs”, the church transforms the experience into a solitary one, different from the experiences of the other members in church. Though their intentions are good, Nancy argues that perhaps the disabled community does not need to be charity cases for the able-bodied (Christians especially, who often feel the need to extend their case to the less privileged). This behavior, this attitude can be attributed at least in part to the Biblical references to the disabled as linked with sin or impurity. The lepers in the Bible were untouchable, they had been cast out and were not the people high priests or moral people associated with. The blind men and the paralyzed shared similar fates. Then Jesus comes along and he passes his hand over them, tells them to sin no more and to “get up and walk”. Effectively, a link between healing and salvation is also established. In being taught to walk in the way of Christ, many Christians feel the urge to stretch out their helping hand to those who seem to “need” it in order to see the light.  

Nancy’s biggest conflict with her disability was with the belief that people had, that she should not lament too much now about her suffering for God will redeem her body and make it whole again once the time comes. She had come to know God, to experience his glory and grow her faith through her body. What would it be like to have a different body? What would it mean or feel like to be separated from the body that had been the source of her knowledge of God? Her revelation came as imaging God disabled, then realizing that Christ was the embodiment of this image. Christ, who had temporarily given up the advantages of divinity to experience the limitedness of the human condition, was disabled. His body on earth was ripped apart and broken for us. The Eucharist itself is a remembrance and a celebration of the broken body of Christ. In thinking about God this way, the disabled community can find new light and liberation in realizing that God understands what it is like to have a “broken body”. 

Encountering the Disabled God - Nancy Eiesland 

A penny for your thoughts?

• When speaking about the resurrection of the body as new and perfect upon Christ’s return to earth, what does this mean for the “disabled” community? Do you think they will retain their physical incapacities? And if they retain them, what does this mean for us in thinking about the brokenness of the body?
• Is there a proper way for the disabled community to be treated, for example in context of the church? (Eg. If attending to them personally is exclusive as Nancy says, would it be "better" to have them go forward themselves? - What should the approach be?)

Related:

• How does God view people with disabilities?
• Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Disability

A True Utopian

When Michael passed, many referred to him as a real utopian in a sense that he wished the best for the world. David Dark alluded to an “immortality project” that Michael had, and was what pushed his convictions of the possibility of a renewed world to his various attempts at moving the world closer to it, one step at a time. Dark makes this connection with the Buddhist enlightenment thinking that encourages keeping to keep their minds open to all possibilities of reality and truth and wisdom. Michael strongly believed in the unity of the American people to bring about harmony and the eradication of conflict. And indeed it did, at least for his memorial ceremony. 

For a day, there was no doubt a sense of unity for the people who attended his ceremony. There, Michael was transformed from an individual with flaws and charges into an Everyman with talent, drive and success. By exonerating his charges and emphasizing his positive qualities, the various eulogies portrayed him as the fulfillment of the American Dream. The presence of significant African American figureheads convinced people of his true black identity, and sealed it forever so that any remaining “queer aspects” of him would shine in a different light. Michael’s death became a consumable event. It finally provided him with a stability that during his life he could never procure with his chameleon-like nature. They spoke of him as a “modern shaman”, and perhaps quite rightly. He hoped to heal the world with his mystical abilities and qualities that few understood. He spoke with humility, yet his words (to some perhaps) irradiated a sense of divine wisdom that commanded worship, or at least respect. Parallels are drawn between his legacy to “God’s will”, he is spoken of as to be able to live forever (immortality). His body is said to have been offered as a scapegoat, leaving his soul pure and the symbol of love and redemption for all. 

MJ: Grasping the Spectacle. Chapters 12 & 13. Smit.

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• Do you think Michael's life route might've taken a different turn if he hadn't had as many physical alterations done as he did? (On his decisions, his actions, etc.) And how different do you think our responses might've been to Michael then? (Culture today is so focused on image that I think his physical appearance definitely changed the way we thought about him) 
• What ways would it have changed the meaning of his death?

Further reading:

• "The Denial of Death" (more on the immortality project/ontological lack)
• One of the hundreds of eulogies on MJ
• Funeral ceremony

Keys to the Future

In chapters 4 and 5 of Pete Ward’s God’s Behaving Badly, the idea of celebrity being a type of religion, or para-religion is explored. It refers to the deification of society’s celebrities through the use of theological terms when discussing their lives. In describing our stars with such metaphors, the meaning of the terms slowly begins to change. With the alteration of traditional meanings, the lines between media and religion become blurry; And in some cases the overlap of these two sectors is observed, say for example with Princess Diana, also termed by her ex-husband a “goddess with loose morals”. This is strange because society accepts her image as a goddess, yet also is comfortable that a goddess can be loose. Ward relates this “cult” of celebrity to a form of polytheism (like the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses) where the stars of the time represent defined sets of behaviors and morals. The comings and goings, the fights, the relationships between stars then can be narrated like the mythic tales. Society’s “idols” today are rapidly changes figures that are worshipped for a season or two, who then recede back into obscurity while a new “idol” takes his/her place. (The irony of the usage of “idol” cannot be ignored; The word itself proves that society recognizes the transient nature of his divinity through reality or competitive television series.) In context, the Princess was then only a mere character in the play of moral values that push and pull at each other. Transformed into an abstract set of images and ideas, she can take on a variety of meaning for different groups. 

When an individual becomes malleable like that in consumers’ actions, the judgement on their actions falls into consumers’ hands. Regardless of the moral nature of a celebrity’s choices or the insignificance of their looks after giving birth, the consumers ultimately decide the fate of the celebrity. Once again, Ward emphasizes that this is extremely important because it says something about society. It proves just where certain values and priorities lie. He also has certain hypotheses explaining why gossip columns are so popular; He believes that as a primarily middle class, hard working group, there is some pleasure to be gained from seeing celebs have their share of mishaps. “Justice in an unjust world” seems to be the rightful justification for mocking their fails. Why shouldn’t they deserve what came to them? They have been blessed by chance with wealth, beauty, fame and they still cannot get it right. The overwhelming abundance of tabloids like this perhaps taps at some of the more critical issues that society has to resolve. The focus on minor fails or successes shows that, at the core, people realize what a fabrication celebrity really is. They hit at the questions people like Ward are dying to answer. Why are stars so celebrated even if they have not seemingly achieved anything worth acknowledging? Why does society put people like them on pedestals to be observed?

To Think About:

• Why is there such a big gap in respect to the outcomes of our celebrities? What determines whether or not they become a philanthropist or “savior” in Ward’s terms or someone society deems to be a failure? Meaning, if consumers ultimately have the bottom line decision, what makes us destroy one celebrity but uplift another?
• Ward says that the alteration of theological themes will provide clues to the future of religion and culture. This alteration of themes is already at hand. What do you predict will be some of the effects on our future?

Further reading:

• "Celebrities are demi-gods" - This entire site is devoted to the interactions and the inescapable overlap between theology and pop culture
• "How to tell if you are a celebrity saint" (some comic relief added)

Michael and the split selves

These few chapters of Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle aim at uncovering the mystery of the selves of Michael. The authors of these chapters find that there are implications of his ability to easily portray various meanings-- on his psyche, his art, and his actions. As Michael’s body went through noticeable transformation because of the multiple plastic surgeries, the whitening of his skin, his aging, his ever-increasing androgyny, the tabloids succeeded in making the public believe that his outward appearance was a result of the inward corruption of his life. This, of course, followed the (false or not) accusations of child molestation and abuse and the raid on his creation, the Neverland Ranch. It was a product of his dreams of remaining eternally a “neverchild”, one that would forever bask in the joy and happiness, free of worry or pain. This dream slowly turned into his greatest nightmare as he begun to realize this was one wish that could never become part of his reality. The growing ambiguity in his race did not help matters of self-identification much. For many black americans, the decision to either perform whiteness or resist it in order to maintain empowerment is difficult. For a Michael who was “neither black nor white”, this conflict posed even greater threats to his already fragmented sense of self. It created a maze of narratives for him that ran in every which way, though all manifesting themselves in one individual. Deeply rooted in Michael was also the desire to be fully “loved” by his fans and spectators, to fill the lack in his life. This ensured his persistent split natures, which he tried to remedy by creating even more versions of himself and his story, as seen through many of his songs towards the end of his career. We observe that the subject of his songs are becoming more and more similar to his actual life story and reputation. In a way, he condemns himself to disappointment every time, as well as misrecognition on the part of his viewers. Jackson had to realize that his sense of lack could not be fulfilled by his fans everytime, and to overcome his belief about the similarities of celebrity to love.

Michael Jackson: Grasping The Spectacle - edited by Chris Smit 

Chapters 3, 4 & 5

Read On:

Interview with Michael on charges

What do you want to know?

• We did this to Britney, to Jackson, to countless other artists. Perhaps we've pushed them too far to the brink and they start merging their life with their art. Maybe it's a marketing scheme, maybe it's a true expression of the self. Either way, the public buys into it heavily. What is the appeal in this? (Like what the appeal is for getting Mickey Mouse at Disneyland out of character?) Or what is the appeal in a constantly morphing character?
• Could Michael’s downfall partially be attributed to the fact that he couldn’t find a way to merge the queer, which was his art, and reality? The very essence of “queer” entails that it is apart from the world and of the norm. The moment it becomes understood or accepted, does it not lose its “queerness”? Was his goal doomed to fail from the start?
• I thought it was interesting that in respect to the race ambiguity of Michael's identity, that in his performance of Billie Jean (and maybe others) that he had a white sequinned glove, similar shimmery and sparkling white socks, and a heavily sequinned/silver top were covered by a full black suit. What is the significance in this?

The King of Pop

Some celebrities are infamous because of their crafted freakish lifestyle nature. Their 15 minutes of fame do not last because the persona that they become on stage wears off when the person they are comes sneaking back in. When Margo Jefferson (in Chapter 1) explored Michael Jackson’s life, his history, his actions, his intentions, she found that he had very much a dynamic but consistent persona. What many mistook for pedophilia could have been a psychological desire to remain in a preadolescent stage, and create a shelter (the Neverland ranch and amusement park) where children could escape to have fun and experience true joy. His genuine longing for universal harmony (maybe as a result of his fixation in the preadolescent stage) shone through his work in Captain EO, a figure who was devoted to the eradication of threat to a happy society regardless of race, gender, or class. The slow change of his skin color further strengthened the context - He came an image of ambiguous gender and race, becoming a medium and a mediator. 

Even the ongoing art projects, the novelty and the humor of the kitsch that is created in Michael’s name affirms his chameleon nature. The mere fact that his image has been interpreted in so many inflected ways is proof that he has become larger than himself, a spectacle that is associated with a deeper meaning. These pop art projects testify to his immortality among the people, fascinated with his spectacle. One noteworthy example is that of the porcelain figurine of Michael and Bubbles. The porcelain kitsch, symbolic of the malleability and brittleness of pop figures and culture, symbolic of Michael’s slow white-skinned transformation, sat by the grand paintings of royal heads and nobles. It was pop art, mass culture ascending to the throne of high art, high culture. It was mockery of the elitist view of culture, though some may argue that Michael was just as much a hero/a martyr as many of the individuals with their portrait hanging on the wall-- and this was very much the aim of his various pop art pieces. In an edited art piece, Michael’s spectacle remains quite separate from his failures, his successes, or the slander spewed about him. This was part of the trick: preserving the freshness and the sealing the spectacle. 

Michael Jackson: Grasping The Spectacle - edited by Chris Smit 

Chapters 1, 6 & 8 

Read On:

Experience at Neverland Ranch, to be turned into a music institute like Julliard (?)

Studying pop art

To think about:

• “Pop art reverses values” in that the banal, the trite return to high art, worthy of being celebrated again. Why do you think this happens, and not just in relation to this context, but perhaps when related to something like fashion trends. Why is there a cycle of trends, where the old regains hype and the once-in-style returns to the dust? Is this like our constant desire to be in a different era, different situation with different types of problems? Is this another reflection of our inability to cope with stressing conditions we feel are too much for us to handle?
• Many celebrity demises come from society's inability to accept their sexual maturation, their development into an individual we cannot recognise beyond what we were used to. Why is it then that Michael had a falling out with the people if he was stuck in preadolescent desires? It seems like we come to despise them no matter what they do. 

Consuming Britney

The consumption of Britney Spears has been one of violence and manipulation, and many of us have nonchalantly sat back behind our computer screens participated in it. Her “dolling down” and miniature “likenesses” of her would be taken home by little girls and adolescent boys in small packages to be played around with. Smit argues that this form of consumption, an ownership and toying around with the small representations of Britney is a form of violence. We come to “own” her, and we are able to do whatever we want with her. This idea of ownership came to a height when the famous naked crotch picture was shot. For all we know, it may have been created digitally- the amount of manipulation that can be achieved these days could worry you too if pictures of you were constantly being snapped. We felt empowered the moment Britney was caught off guard and we saw something that was meant to be private to her. 

The ease of her consumption has become so unnoticeable that we sometimes even deny our participation in her exile. We constantly validate a digital system that gives power to exile the same woman, the same celebrity that it created. And we would stand back and observe her contemporary exile. Smit says that she was exiled once her body no longer reflected the “perfect” youthful yet sexual image that society was accustomed to. It was ironic that society so badly wanted to see her grow up yet forgot that it entailed the possibility of motherhood. And it was jolted when the sexy, youthful image was killed. This overbearing mindset that the physical characteristics of the body determines the person implies more about our consumption than we may think. The assumptions made about a person in a wheelchair who cannot speak properly versus those about a sexy, confident young lady are far less than appropriate. Why is it that the lady is seen as having worked hard for her position in life and the person in the wheelchair made a charity case? Why is physical disability regarded something to be “cured” or overcome should the person try hard enough, or pray hard enough? Why was Britney’s decision to shave her head interpreted as an act of insanity? Was it so impossible to believe that Britney, the individual, was tired from the pressure of her hectic life that she desperately wanted to feel like more than a product of her hair and the media for once? If Britney is to return from exile, this would then mean her welcome back rather than an actual “comeback”. She would be once again subjected to full subordination by the people, becoming the Britney they expect her to be, rather than the woman she truly is.

Chapters 8-15 The Exile of Britney Spears - Chris Smit

Discussion:

• I found it interesting that the media and so many people immediately associated Britney's shaving of her head to madness. In some cultures, any cutting of the hair may also represent a sort of shunning from the group. In others, it represents a turning of a new leaf, and sometimes is celebrated or honored. If you believe that her actions were more than just a drastic impulse, what significance would it have had for her?
• Britney was shown as a "bad mother", cameras catching her nearly dropping her child or forgetting to put him in a car seat. But don't you think we put the line a bit too high for billboard mums like Britney? Every mother has their "oops" moments, and going to parenting classes shows that she was making an effort to be a better mother because the media was criticising her for it. How much of Britney's "failures" are truly attributed to her and how much are what we exaggerate and make into a bigger deal than it should be?

Related:

• "Sheer power and shear madness"
• MSNBC On Britney's pregnancy - more for the way it was presented (as an accidental event, something she could've prevented but maybe was too careless)

Love now, Regret later

Consciously or not, this is precisely what consumers did with Britney Spears. In these chapters (1-7) of Smit’s The Exile of Britney Spears, Smit argues that society has put her into exile through various means. He aims at finding the origins of this phenomenon by looking at empowerment, ideologies, and the presence of capital. When she emerged as a Southern Baptist belle, her image took a great interest in the public - only until the image grew old, and her “perfection” was slowly disintegrating, allowing the public at a peak of her humanity. This is when the person of Britney Spears was put into exile. She was never allowed to use her Southern-ness to gain stability with her identity. Even her family troubles were cast as an Americanist spectacle, a type of standard for the American family.

You could say Britney was brought up in series of ideological systems. Her first employment was at Disney, a corporation saturated with its own values and ideologies. Could it be that she possibly had been shaped by her experiences to become the narrative she is today? Could someone without such a background have become someone like Britney? One could argue that she was fit to play this puppet role of society, one that bends and contracts with the flows of society’s wavering values. Has she then become the Universal Woman/Saint or Whore? (Universal as opposed to dynamic, critical of self and others, developing, authentic) The capitalization of ideas/values has also complicated Britney’s search of identity. With all the cash rolling in, Smit contends that she has been made classless and isolated. Britney breathes, moves, dresses in currency. This rapid flow of currency sticks her in immobile contexts of complacency, and ultimates feeds her misrecognition. 

A couple of things to think about:

• Smit mentions this briefly: Britney as a Baptist means that she believes in the same God that cares for creation, guides our actions, leads us to fulfilling lives. If God is indeed in control of our lives, as well as Britney's, what does it mean for her that she has transgressed from the singing choir girl to somewhat of a sex symbol? For other celebrities? 
• What does it mean for society if we are continually chasing down these representations of ideologies that ultimately hold no Truth?

Related:

• On Leaving Britney Alone
• Chris Crocker, on consumption of Britney

Why Superman?

Maybe you haven’t noticed the trending themes in popular films and novels these days, but John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett have definitely picked up on them. A community in paradise is threatened by an intruding, outside force and the institutions in place are incompetent to defend society. A selfless, unidentified hero abandons all personal motive and chooses to carry the burden of redeeming society from the evil force.  He (usually a male character) is aided by fate and renounces all temptations in order to achieve his task. Using only nonviolent confrontation, he is victorious in restoring the paradise in the community. More often than not, he then retreats back into obscurity and does not receive any reward for his good deed. This basic structure of a story can be found in The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and the numerous superhero movies that have gained popularity. Lawrence and Jewett recognize the implications that similar structures of such films have on society and behavior. The rituals, symbols, and myths that are brought to light “establish benchmarks, but also anticipate forms of the future as they determine and shape ideals and goals for both individuals and society.” The Werther effect is the phenomenon that occurs when the reality in a fantasy world is brought out of context by the reader, who then uses his newly shaped ideals to interpret and act in the real world. This is a powerful idea, one of moving people to action through stories. Surely the author will take responsibility should something go wrong?

Lawrence and Jewett studies the pervading myth of Eden in the American imagination, and how it arose from people’s responses of the historical context. They go through the evolution of themes in films - from The Birth of a Nation to films like Superman. Films seem to often be semi-inaccurate portrayals of reality, simpler illustrations of what reality truly is like, in a way that makes evil clearly discernible from “good”. They conceal the clash of the components from both sides. Though newer superhero films try to give more depth to the antagonist side by creating a context for their behavior, they have also have made the protagonist to be larger-than-life and virtually indestructible. In a way, they stand firm in the idea that good will always prevail, because of some greater force that governs the outcomes of conflicts. 

The American Monomyth in a New Century” in The Myth of the American Superhero - John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• The authors talk about the paradoxes that are found in american monomyth culture but do not explicitly explain their occurrence: the sexual renunciation in the midst of a growing sexual freedom, supernatural powers in a increasingly secular culture, and the depiction of incompetent democratic systems in a society that urges on the democratic man. Why do you think we as a society desire films that give us the same stories of the dysfunctional society being saved by a supernatural person who transcends morals and temptations of life? Are there parallels that we can draw to the figure of Christ? What are they?
• After 9/11, the authors say that the message that “good will triumph over evil” was nailed into the American mind as comfort for the losses. Our presidents have had the notion that every loss is worth shedding a tear, but then we must ruthlessly make our move against those who have harmed us. What effects do you think this message has had over the last couple years in relevance to how the nation has responded to conflict and threat?

Read more:

Reviewing comics with the monomyth theme

Reexamination of the Werther Effect 

Does Madonna represent what society wants?

Much of the popularity that celebrities have is attributed to them by consumers, the TV talk show producers that choose focus on a celebrity’s latest rampage through town, and so on. Ward emphasizes how much the public knows about Madonna, for example, even though they may not be intently watching her every move. This “knowing about a person” is generated when people give the celebrity’s stories or stolen pictures “meaning”. Madonna is known for her open-ness and lack of inhibition with her 50-some year old body (with good cause). She has “commodified intimacy” with the release of books like In Bed With Madonna and by pushing the lines for the traditional age group typically associated with being able to perform on stage with revealing outfits and sexy choreography. She is the perfect representation of a star who has managed to create a persona that is unafraid of the media, confident about her individuality and her body, yet also creating a life off the stage with her adopted children and personal life.

Ward also mentions the shift of media coverage from the glamourous to the “ordinary” behind-the-scenes stories of celebrities. Magazines like Heat were one of the first to turn their issues into something like the equivalent of a reality TV show, exploiting the details of a star’s love affair or financial issue. He discusses the use of such parts of a celebrity’s life as a form of currency in the media world, being exchanged, bargained for, or sold. He explains that this shift in interest has to do with the larger role consumers have come to play. Stars are popular because of the meanings that people project onto them, most significantly the notion of individuality as difficult, yet promising.

Gods Behaving Badly Chapter 2: Representation - Pete Ward

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• When magazines fight over certain rights to publish something about some celebrity, they are highlighting the importance of celebrity figure heads in our society (Eg. reality television contestants, a pop artist) and the "meanings" that they represent. Does the media focus too much of celebrity gossip and not enough of other issues that might be more consequential to our lives? What does this mean for society if it is so focused on the lives of stars?
• Ward talks about how one photograph caused many problems for Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Burton, both personally and legally. Do you think celebrities give up certain rights to privacy when they become famous? (Should they be legally allowed more privacy?)

Read on:

How Fame Works (connection with Ward's ascribed/ achieved/attributed forms of fame)

Why Are We Obsessed With Celebrities?

The Reality behind Reality TV

We didn’t need Edward Wyatt to convince us that being part of a reality television series would probably be a bad idea. We’ve seen it ourselves repeatedly, regardless of the title or story. Contestants are constantly shown as stressed, tired, angry, rude or hysterical. Despite that, millions still flock to the lines for few weeks of screen time, to be displayed to the masses and mocked by teenagers sitting in their pajamas on the couch at 9 P.M. looking for a good laugh. 

Through various interviews with ex-contestants on shows like “Hell’s Kitchen” or “Project Runway”, the horrifying stories of their treatment on and off set are revealed. Phones, laptops, music players, periodicals are taken from them. Socialization between contestants is restricted. They are given little food but a generous supply of alcohol. The contestants of “Hell’s Kitchen” remember getting 5 hours of sleep a night at the most. Creating this environment for the contestants places contestants in a more vulnerable and off-balanced state than usual. Wyatt notes that this is favorable for producers because it allows them a greater amount of control when manipulating interactions between contestants to meet a certain goal for the show. The contestants become mice in a “televised psychological experiment” that run around for the entertainment of the masses. 

“TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to Brink” - Edward Wyatt

A Penny for your Thoughts?

• Why are reality television series so popular in our culture today? What is the appeal in watching people humiliate themselves on air or fight amongst themselves over issues that don’t directly concern us?
• After reading this, I couldn’t help but automatically make a connection in the structure of reality TV shows and how the Hunger Games was portrayed. Even though many of us were appalled by the idea of having children kill each other off on live TV, is Wyatt trying to show us that reality TV is not so different?

Read on:

Why America loves reality TV

Project Runway criticism

Celebrity Worship

The phenomenon that takes hold when a star dies young is intriguing, even more so that those who mourn them do so remembering them as more than a singer with an amazing voice or a talented artist with a big heart, despite never having truly known them. Fans express their sorrow as if they were parting with an essential part of themselves, leaving a gaping hole in their culture and identity. However, if one looks at this through Ward’s previous notion that the uplifting of an idol is a projection of the crowd’s desired identity, then does this not mean that the public grief is instead a worshipping of this desired image?

Ward also continues to explore the idea of celebrity culture as a type of not-so-religious religion, something he comes to term “para-religion”. It expresses the limited nature of celebrity worship, such that it can never progress or develop into a full blown religion even if he acknowledges the curious similarities between the two. This can be noted through the behavior of the public who actively plays a role in their sustenance. Many of them act in ways that may be similar to certain religious traditions, the group Ward terms as the Believers. They engage in discussion about the latest news and gossip about their celebrity, follow their whereabouts, buy their products, etc. The anti-fan club consists of the Hipsters, those who actively take a stance against the popular culture and demonstrate their distaste (or presumed indifference) for it. There is the remaining larger proportion of people, the bystanders, the Game-Players. They watch, they silently judge, and the effects of popular culture only exhibits in them subtly. By identifying with their groups, “fans” or anti-fans participate in a form of self-construction and a building of social relationships. This building of relationships amongst people who share similar views is the central theme for fandom, not the artificial relationships that extremely devoted fans seek in order fulfill their social desires. 

Celebrity culture is also a phenomenon that is much “in the air”. People recognize the celebrities and feel like they know who they are, even if they do not particularly keep up to date with the 411. It is as if people constantly have “half an eye” on them, whilst continuing about their lives as if it did not affect them. Interestingly, this draws a parallel to the nature of religion in and its believers. There will always be those who only keep half an eye alert and “recognize”, yet do not truly “know”. There will also be those who detest it altogether. However, Ward realizes that if celebrity culture were ever to be a religion, it could never be stable, nor capable of ordering institutions and societal structures. Because of its wavering values, it will not fully be established or grounded. Even fans themselves deny any religious association with their idols. 

Gods Behaving Badly, Chapter 1 - Pete Ward

Read on:

• An un-British style of mourning
• A New Age of Celebrity Worship (CBS)

A Penny for Your Thoughts?

• Ward talks about fandom having a sort of “intimacy at a distance”. The audience is allowed to get to know the celebrity through the magazines, the talk shows, the scandals, their life stories, etc. It seems like a one-sided relationship where the fan does not truly have to work at or put effort into, yet they take pleasure out of following a celebrity’s intimate life. It seems to be that there might be a natural human desire to worship someone. (Even in the case of Christians when describing the reasons what God means to them) Why do you think this is so?
• Do you agree that idolization of a celebrity is a projection of the individual's desired self and in effect, a validation of their desired image? Then, do you agree that fan clubs validate every member's desired identity, in mass? Why, or why not?

Gods Behaving Badly

It is growing more difficult to judge the secular from sacred, the profane from the culturally-acceptable. The distinctions between the many groups are blurring, and no longer do people believe what they are told by the church or by their college professor about discerning them. The media does not attempt to do any different. Ward says it presents us with a multitude of ways to live and “be human”. It works through the currency of meaning, exchanged through celebrities who are embodiments and reflections of certain types of lifestyles, and therefore a set of values and ideologies. By keeping up with the many children that Brad and Angelina kept adopting or despising the many pick and drop relationships that John Mayer got involved with, one is actively taking a stance with or against popular culture. It invites people to form a view about the spotlighted lifestyles, to make a judgement and a choice about their own lifestyles. They can buy into the lifestyle and make it their own, or reject it and claim to be unaffiliated with such values. 

Ward observes that theological terms are often loosely thrown around in popular culture colloquialisms. “Rise”, “fall”, “salvation”, “divinity”, for example. Through talk of them, it seems as though they are being expected to act larger-than-life, in fact, above typical humanity. Why else should they be given so much heat for the little things that they do, especially when they “act human”? He also notes the apparent irony in the term “idol” (a false god) in American Idol, or when describing extremely celebrated figures in popular culture. In a way, celebrity culture reveals how humanity sees itself. One revels in seeing a young, aspiring artist slowly gain his much-deserved fame and reputation but then chides in mocking him when he makes a mistake during his later years. Ward attributes this to the desire to see “mere-mortals” rise to fame, and for stars to prove their humanity once they have gained a god-status. They reflect the individual’s yearning for the beautiful home, the loving spouse and happy family— Hence the support for the aspiring artist and the distaste for the star who “has it all” but chooses to waste it away. 

Gods Behaving Badly, Introduction - Pete Ward

Read this!

Religion and Popular Culture in America - Bruce David Forbes & Jeffrey H. Mahan

Celebrity Culture: Are Americans Too Focused on Celebrities? - Howard Altman

A penny for your thoughts?

• Ward says that celebrity culture is a reflection of our individual selves. Rather, do you think that we encourage the “mere-mortal” aspiring to be a star and to have “god-status” because it proves that we can do it as well? Do we not criticize the star who makes a trivial mistake because we believe that we could do it better should we be in their shoes? So in a way, does popular culture feed off our inherent selfishness and pride?
• Ward starts talking about popular culture potentially becoming the new religion. Assuming that happens in the new future, what would that look like?
• Many pastors encourage Christians not to reject popular culture but to find new ways to work through it, especially in order to reach out to younger generations. (so as to perhaps combat the decline in traditional church attendance, as Ward notes) Do you think that this might work?

We Created Britney

“Britney Spears.” There will be a good number of people quick to add a remark somewhere along the lines of how her fame brought her down, or that the wilder she went off the rails the harder it was to control. Many will remember her only as a “good girl gone bad”, and parents might use her as a model of a life they would most certainly not want their children to have. Could there be more to it? Is Britney alone responsible for the actions of Britney? Chris Smit argues that she is not. Instead, his notion is one that holds “us” more accountable for her idolization and downfall.

With the rise in cheap and easily accessible technology, the audience of the web (adolescents for the most part) have crafted together a network that ultimately contains ideologies and its own set of values that translate out into reality. In other words, the media on the web has become a system of expression and identity as time, money, effort is spent on it. Together, the ruling crowd in the virtual world has created space and demand for a Britney icon, one that embodies the type of life they admire or desire to be a part of. As Smit rightly states, “We were waiting for Britney Spears.”

-The Exile of Britney Spears by Chris Smit
______________________________________________________________________________

Cockfights and Demographics - Quentin J. Schultze

In the process of analyzing and discussing aspects of culture, it is easy to fall into what Schultze terms “transmission views”. As opposed to “cultural views”, transmission views see ideas as an organized whole. Using this view, one can dissect and measure factors of culture, communication and values as empirical, quantifiable facts. It typically draws on technique of advertisement and manipulation, ways to appeal to the masses in order to gain a certain reward. Schultze encourages a move away from this view as it does little to explain human communication rightly in its fullness and complexity. The more they are technologized, the less human they seem to become. He also reminds christian communication analysts that humans are not passive “receivers”, and that the voice and will of God plays a big role in the outcomes of human communication.

Cultural views alternatively attempt to participate in the experience of human communication by being as immersed in it as possible. By being a part of the experience, they are generally able to capture more of its man-made, creative nature. They tend to be more respectful and understanding of different cultures and types of expression, and capture the communal essence of culture - how values are created and shared collectively. Schultze uses the example of his trip to Bali, and his experience with the frequent cockfights. He came to see that cockfights were a representation of the society’s inner turmoils expressed freely in a culturally-acceptable way. However, as good as its intentions may be, it can easily blur the boundaries of morality because of the nature of cultures to create their own context for values. Like Christopher Columbus made his maps of “India” when he was really in North America, cultures may have distorted maps of reality. 

Related:

• TedTalk: When are we entitled to judge?

A penny for your thoughts?

• Schultze recognizes that because cultures create their own context for morality and culturally-acceptable actions, the maps with with they communicate and live may be distorted. Personally, this presents by itself a dilemma. How are we to judge them based on our set of self-created ideas? How can be know what to base off our judgements on? 
• The story of Britney is bound to repeat itself with a new icon in the media. (For example, with Miley Cyrus) Is there a way that it can be stopped? Should it be stopped?

Culture Today

In the except of What is Culture?, Michael Warren attempts to uncover the reality of what culture is, and with it, debunking the false beliefs that many people share about it. He stresses that culture is not to be taken as a “finished product”, one that is static and unchanging, as if it had a protective barrier around it. In other words, it shouldn’t be looked at as if it were an object, or worse, a commodity. Culture has been formed in complex ways and been crafted intricately by the historical evolution and economy of a particular society. With a mere passing glimpse, one cannot hope to understand it in its richness — the ongoing activity, the influence it simultaneously creates and is engulfed by, the connections between social and personal decisions, etc. 

Warren explores the evolution of the meaning of “culture” itself. During the Enlightenment period, a sense of cultivated lifestyle implied a life of luxury, one meant for the elite. Towards the late 19th century, culture became equivalent to a form of enlightenment that people sought to reach. Culture now, according to Warren, should be a type of signifying system that communicates and stabilizes social order in society as society gives it the tools to do so. At the same time, true culture should be studied in its original context. The “italian culture” here is not an accurate representation of the culture in Italy. It is drawn out of its socioeconomic context and is may be really a result of italian marketing. True culture is where the “wider social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced, and explored” (Warren 7).

Extended:

• The current social networking culture 
• More on Warren’s inspiration: Raymond Williams

A penny for your thoughts?

Warren explained that in the past, culture was seen as a type of enlightenment, something to be learnt, attained, appreciated. Do you think we are guilty of seeing it as such when we engage in forms of cultural tourism? Do you think that we can put too much care in organizing and analyzing the things we experience, that it creates a fine line between the “us” and “them”? What can be done to avoid that situation?

Varieties of Rhetorical Criticism (part II)

Brummett last left off examining the ways a text can be read through a psychoanalytical lens. He moves, in chapter 5, to feminism, and provides insights on how it can be used to explain the implications of a text.  This school of thought is found under the notion/observation that women are belittled by a naturally patriarchal society. The patterns of empowerment of the sexes are unconsciously reinforced in individual minds as society practices them in daily life, whether or not it is explicitly intended to cause a disturbance. (Language, and the usage of signs, be it certain phrases or words, interrelates, suggests, or discourages linked ideas). However, this pertains not only to women as “feminism” suggests, but also to groups who aren’t considered the “norm”. Queer theory describes just that. It explores the idea of gender-role-reversal that the LGBT community tends lead. They challenge feminism in a way that society has never before seen.

The media’s importance in influencing thought is not something many have not heard of. However, it is an area that is overlooked, perhaps because most believe they have the basic gist of it down. Brummett challenges the critic to take a deeper look into the subject. Tragedy and comedy as they are patronized by millions of TV watchers, offers important insight on how individuals deal with stress or a discordance of thoughts. Comedies portray its’ main character often as comic fool, who despite his failure, is reinstated back into society and forgiven. Tragedies portray the tragic hero. Both of these ideas form a parallel to the ways stressed is coped with. The mediums which such programs are viewed also shed light on how the media changes people’s mindsets as they engage in television watching, net surfing, etc. Media logic suggests that “habitual use of a mechanism creates distinct ways of thinking”. For example, television shows blurs the perception of reality because of the effort spent making television appear as real as possible. Computers have brought the mindset of fluidity (ease of access), speed and control, and dispersal through online shopping, youtube, Google, etc. 

Brummett's earlier chapters and Olthius's On Worldviews have agreed, that once perceptions have been changed, actions tend to follow suit.

Furthur reading:

• More on Kenneth Burke's legacy "Tragedy and Comedy"
• Dan Chandler's Cultivation Theory (related to influence of television on perception)

A Penny For Your Thoughts?

• It is incredible that so many perspectives can be applied to one film, The Wizard of Oz, which seems to be Brummett's favourite movie. But if such films were at some points trying to, for example, expose disjunction in governments (as by the deception of the wizard) or to reverse the gender roles, how are we to say that it has been successful if people are seemingly unaware? 
• Brummett talks about language as a tool for suggesting or discouraging certain images so as to, in a way, manipulate people's perceptions, such as in the God-Guide-Guard example. If it supposedly affects us unconsciously, how would you explain those who strongly believe against it? (In a way, this is similar to the first question- what about people who truly do not see the references made in text?)

Rhetoric in Culture: Texts & Critics

In this portion of Rhetoric in Popular Culture (chapters 3 & 4), Barry Brummett explores the deeper idea of what “texts” are as they pertain to popular culture, as well as the essential role of critics in bringing out its relevance for life. Texts, as he describes, are sites of struggle over meaning. They can be anything from works of literature, songs on the radio, a presidential debate or painted advertisements on the side of a bus. To the trained eye of a critic, texts reveal the values that particular cultures hold. Therefore, it is the job of the critic to extract various possible meanings from a text, interpret the subtle messages and to display the effect the text has for certain groups of people in society. They dig to find intertextuality, or swallowed text that may be adapted from an old context (that may no longer hold explicit meaning though it may be been successful in the past) in order to serve the current agenda. Critics give their two cents for, or perhaps on behalf of, those who either cannot articulate its meaning themselves or are unaware of it. In the overall scheme of things, critics are concerned over the distribution of power-- how it may be held, lost, or transferred, all through texts. To top it off, critics make a judgement call regarding a way to address the issue at hand. They have the power to encourage people to a movement or a change in lifestyle. Most importantly, Brummett says that that power is not reserved for, say, your university Communications professor. It lies within reach of anyone who is willing to thoroughly scourge through a text, behind the direct and implied meanings, and towards the deeper structured (yet common) patterns of culture.

The focus shifts in chapter 4 towards the possible messages that texts could have. Here, they are examined through 1) culture, 2) Marxist philosophy, 3) Visual methods, and 4) Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Culture is vital in that it contains artifacts (also sites full of meaning) as well as the keys involved in understanding them. Different cultures provide a different outlook on the same events, and this acts as a framework for making judgement calls appropriate to the circumstance. However, one must be careful not to encroach on an ethnocentric view, whereby foreign cultures are evaluated through the eyes of one’s own culture. It is also important to note that it is not solely the text that should be studied, but in accord with the response that follows-- for this makes the whole meaning of a text. The Marxist’s philosophy believes that everything to do with ideas and concepts has “grown from material conditions and practices”. In effect, it follows that every aspect of life can be correlated to economics, such that values are bought and sold like commodities according to individuals’ personal socioeconomic needs. It parallels these thoughts to an interpretation of the Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy, the sole lazy worker on the farm wishes to live a richer and more pampered life. However, when a tornado whisks her away to a faraway land, she spends her time finding (or earning the solution to) a way back. Marxists would say that this story reeks of isolationism and anti-foreign entanglement propaganda, promoting the value of “home” where one is economically stable, if even though the work and difficult it may not be the preferred position. 

Source: image

(cont...) 

Because the Wizard of Oz could have possibly been a response to the people’s climb out of the Great Depression, the meaning of the film has changed.  Through the psychoanalytic view of Freud, Brummett believes rhetoric in popular culture satisfies unconscious desires. Films, especially, create the illusion that the characters are speaking directly to the audience, “suturing” the viewer to the storyline in the film. The viewer is then able to relate to the characters in the film who may be acting out on desires that may be socially inappropriate in reality. This then fulfills a sense of self-maintenance and completion for the viewer. The same goes with images, or visual texts. Because of its more ambiguous and flexible nature, images are made more dynamic and meaningful with a context. Brummett uses the example of Hurricane Katrina, a devastation that elicited the sending of thousands of aid packages from all over the nation. Why does this not happen when war and destruction is aired from third world countries, displaying the terror that happens everyday? We Are The World (25 For Haiti) is another example of how much power a text (in this case, a song) can hold if there are enough forces and context for it to move people towards action. (It is also an example of intertextuality-- it is a remake of the original song from artists that banded to help the African famine in 1985).

Related articles/topics:

• “How Fox News is Killing the Republican Party and Other Things I have No Business Talking About” (--just the title is subtly amusing too--)

• Student research article about the effects the promotion of Apple products has on the values of youth. Reinforces Marxist “economic metaphors”, or the philosophy that values are like commodities to be put up for bargain and sold to those who “buy [into]” them.

Discussion questions:

• Brumett warns against cultural hegemony, where an empowered group enforces their preferred (so it benefits them) meaning of a text so much so to the point where it begins to be accepted even be disempowered groups. Are there any instances of this today?

• According to the Marxist philosophy, what are some of the values that you (or people that you know) have supported or "bought" recently?

"On Worldviews"

-James H. Olthuis (Article author)

We can all relate to it. Even James Olthuis himself as an adolescent has, in all likelihood, pondered the meaning of his existence in this world. Moreover, he has probably wondered what meaning and purpose life holds, if any individual can but leave only a smudge in the history of the universe. Most of us have experienced such confusion, but more importantly, the relief that showers us when we place our faith and belief in a variety of options. May it be a deity, an occupation or in family- We finally sort our individual priorities based on our perceptions of reality. These perceptions, Olthuis believes, are a sort of lens through which we view the world in order to act and make intelligent decisions. This is our worldview. 

Olthuis says our worldview is shaped by and deeply rooted in a myriad of factors: our childhood, faith, traditions in culture, socioeconomic position, emotional experiences, intellectual development, temperament, etc. As we perceive and understand reality within our own mindset, we are shaped and moulded to make certain judgements about the many things in reality. This perception of the world may include a “foundational” set of morals for us, truths, a vague idea of what is acceptable or unacceptable within the boundaries of our culture. In Olthuis’ words, it “tells us what is and is not, but also what ought or ought not to be the case.” It is a vision of life, yet a vision also for life. Reciprocally, these same judgements allows us to form conclusions about reality, ones that are our own. These beliefs give us direction and purpose in life. It then should not come as a surprise that these worldviews and cultures vary quite widely between countries, cultures, neighbors. Differences in people come down to differences in ideas.

Often, these pre-made judgements can hinder our path to truth and understanding. Conflicts arise because of a lack of understanding between two parties. We are generally very protective of the things in which we have rooted our worldview. If our faith, traditions, or values were under attack, our worldview may be broken down or abandoned. Whole societies, as Olthuis believes, could collapse with the fallen worldview. However, worldview is not a static unwavering pillar that gets in the way. Olthuis explains that because of the acquired nature of worldviews, they are meant to be ever-evolving and meant to allow the individual to reflect upon the situation at hand. He reminds us of the reciprocity between worldview and all the factors that have shaped it. Room for a change in worldview translates into an increase in awareness of oneself and ones’ beliefs, which progresses to a change in feelings and actions. At many times, the individual will realize that there is some truth within another's worldview. Though Olthuis says this will cause some tension, the most natural response is rationalize and slightly change one's worldview to allow this new truth to fit in with the rest. This allows individuals to mature, and for societies to develop and advance. 

A penny for your thoughts?

• Have you been in a situation where you had to reassess your worldview and possibly realize that it may be lacking in some areas? 

• In his article, Olthuis talks about working towards a "new harmony". We can only assume he might be referring to a future society where the boundaries of conflicting worldviews may be alleviated. Realistically, how might this be achieved without the danger of creating a civilization where people are made to do and think the same things?