Reflections on Representations

Throughout the course the concept of representation was part of our discussions. Whether in context with language, semiotics, stereotypes, music on screen, or fashion, the questions of how something is depicted in the media, and moreover, how this depiction alters meanings, creates new symbols and understandings of different issues, were omnipresent. To me it was very interesting to connect the discussions on media representations to self-representation: in what way do we represent ourselves – and are these representations real? Admittedly, this questions falls more under aspects of psychology, which is why I found Lisa Blackman’s text very interesting. However, when talking about societies and cultures it is impossible not to talk about psychological or philosophical issues. Recently, I started to learn about meditation, and one important aspect of it is to find and recognise your true self. By actively stopping to think for short amounts of time, it is possible to find an inner balance, and to feel at peace with oneself. Especially in connection with the fact that we are constantly surrounded by media representations of all sorts of things, such as views on beauty, ways of living, ideas of success (and how it is supposed to look/feel like), it is difficult to figure out, what one’s own ideas and opinions are. That is why I think media studies and discussions on the concept of representations should be integral parts of education – we have to learn that media only offers us one tiny window into other worlds, cultures, people and events.

In his work, Stuart Hall unravels the different notions of Representation. He points out that the term itself has two meanings: “to present, to image, to depict” and, at the other hand, to “stand in for” something (Hall, 2006, minute 3f.). Media therefore not only depicts different people, groups or events, but the representation carries meaning, and whatever is represented stands in for a supposedly true meaning. Herein lies the danger of media and cultural representations: whatever we see or hear about a person, event or thing is given a new meaning, one image can become engrained in our minds, and suddenly stands for the ‘whole’ issue. There are a million examples for that, but I had to think of images of city skylines that represent the whole city, and often those images do not match reality and leave tourists disappointed when they finally arrive in, lets say New York City, and walk through crowded, dirty or rundown areas, instead of seeing the vibrant and exciting places they expected.

The system of representation is crucial in order to make sense of the world around us. Saussure’s linguistic/semiotic approach to representation shows how our language and communication is completely dependant on signs, symbols or signifiers. We have ‘mental representations’ of objects and are able to imagine and express them (Hall, 1997, p.17). Whereas this is easy to comprehend in terms of objects, it is hard to describe when talking about ‘concepts of rather obscure and abstract things’ such as success, beauty or love (ibid.). And this is where (especially visual) media comes into play nowadays. As the first picture more or less ironically indicates is that we often have given concepts of what is beautiful or not on our minds – and it becomes very obvious when looking at different fashion styles emerging over time across countries or even internationally. It is this part of the system of representation where I started wondering about the concept of the self that we have. If everything we know is based upon representations, and if we take meaning from mere representations, but never the ‘real’ – where does that leave the ‘me’? When I look in the mirror or see a picture of myself, do I see the real me, or am I bound to be distorted due to images and concepts that where ingrained in my mind via media representations? This is obviously a very complex and philosophical question, and no room at this point in time to aim to answer it, yet this is one of the many directions in which this course caused me to think...

References

Hall, Stuart. 2006. Representation and the Media. In: Challenging Media Lectures [YouTube Video]. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzMsPqssOY

Hall, Stuart. 1997. ‘The work of representation’ in: Stuart Hall (ed.), Representations: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, pp.13-74.

I know what I want and what I need. Maybe. Do I?

I want to pick up on the idea of the autonomous self in relation to media and our contemporary society. Matthias’ presentation (week 11) was very thought provoking and made me wonder about ‘identity/individuality’, media caused ‘desires’ and how the human mind is able to trick itself.

In its definition autonomous means that one is not controlled by others or by outside forces, but an independent individual. Deriving from Greek, the word suggests that the autonomous self is living under one’s own laws (auto – self + nomos – law). This notion causes a few problems when talking about our globalised society: for one, established rules are meant to regulate our interactions, and enforce peaceful living conditions – so there are certain laws in our society that everyone should oblige, and they are not necessarily the laws oneself would establish. Furthermore, I wonder in how far true autonomy would be really desirable. Humans are “gregarious animals” (G. Lichtenberg), we grow up independent from others and we most likely stay that way, always looking for a sense of belonging, for approval and security within relationships with other humans. The psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed his theory of the hierarchy of the human needs in 1943 in order to explain human motivation, why we behave the way we do. In this theory, the most important need after all physical needs are met is Security, followed by Love and Belonging (Maslow, 1954, see image).

When looking at the pyramid I find it quite interesting that most ‘human needs’ to me are a given, and I therefore do not really strive for them. In some way one could argue that this is the fact for most people in western societies, who have job or at least receive financial support in some way or the other and not have to worry about the most basic needs such as food and a general sense of security. So our needs transform into desires, and I think it would be possible to add another ‘need’ to the pyramid: Abundance. Looking, for example, at magazines, we can see a trend towards a thinking that puts desires on one level with human needs, creating a belief that we ‘need’ a new car, dress or haircut. This is only possible when all other needs are satisfied, and when we live with a sense of abundance, a subconscious knowledge that we have enough. (However, I am aware that this is only true for very few people...)

Furthermore, what becomes apparent in this hierarchy, whether in large or small social groups, we are always interconnected and want to belong. As discussed earlier in the semester this is one of the main reasons for the emergence of so-called subcultures (yet, the term and concept of ‘subcultures’ is problematic and not adequate to describe the group and identity forming processes. I found a really interesting article on the issue, discussing the term especially with regard to youth studies and popular music. Hesmondhalgh criticises also other suggested terms that came up in order to substitute ‘subcultures’, such as ‘scenes’ or ‘tribes’ (2005, p.22). As mentioned in another journal entry, I am thinking of these phenomena rather as social and/or cultural networks...).

At the same time, we are all individuals, and want to be recognised as such. Especially advertisement and mass media is often utilising this fact, telling us to “be yourself”.

Saussure argues that language is only possibly through and marked by difference. The same goes for humans, trying to find their own identity, going through a process of expression. Yet, we are all interconnected, want to belong and be accepted, and most of all, have the same needs. It is very hard to figure out, what we truly need and what we are subconsciously told that we need. I think we can be autonomous only by realising that we are not. Every person will always be an individual, with a unique identity. At the same time, we will always connect with each other and learn from another, (re)creating new ideas, needs and desires.

Resources

Hesmondhalgh, David. 2005. Subcultures, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above. In: Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.22-40. Available online: http://www.academia.edu/1534935/Subcultures_Scenes_or_Tribes_None_of_the_Above

Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row New York, New York.

Source of the image of Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg&page=1

Infotainment: Societies’ sensationalism and synoptical processes

Since the rise of journalism as a profession there have been many shifts and changes in what is perceived as ‘human interest’. Initially newspapers would report on political issues and address only a small part of society. Carrabine (2008) argues that journalism in the late 19^th Century laid the foundations of modern (or rather: contemporary) news reporting, moving “towards a more sensational mode of address” (p.102). Looking at most popular news shows and considering the success of tabloids over ‘serious’ newspapers, it becomes clear how sensationalism wins over the need to be informed objectively (although I am aware that there is no such thing as pure objectivity, though I believe it is possible to strive for it, by offering and allowing different perspectives and opinions). Speaking only of the societies that I know and have lived in: do we really want to be entertained rather than informed? How does our sensationalism affect the need to see and to be seen – in other words: are we a synoptical society?

In the Dictionary of Mass Communication and Media Research Demers describes infotainment as "information-based media content or programming that also includes entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers" (Demers, 2005, p.143). While one has to keep in mind that any news stories and event reports are always representations of reality, and therefore inevitably distorted, the element of entertainment reduces the factual accuracy further.

When I first came to Australia it struck me how different TV channels would advertise their news shows with promises such as “We show it first”, offering their viewers the opportunity to see events ‘live’ and ‘first-hand’. I grew up watching only news shows that were shown on the public-sector broadcaster (comparable to abc or sbs in Australia), where the news programs are not advertised but rather simply announced. At first this fact made me downgrade Australian TV news to a certain extend; sensationalism in this context equals to me in a severe loss of sincerity and credibility. However, I now realise that infotainment and sensationalism are neither an Australian phenomenon, nor are they limited to TV news programs.

I feel that the need to be entertained results from different aspects of our contemporary society: for one, we are constantly bombarded with information, advertisement, moving and non-moving images, sounds, stories and ‘breaking news’. This causes an overload, and thus our brains try to filter out the ‘unimportant’, creating an apparent need to make media even more attracting, more colourful and louder. Secondly, a lot of the perceived information, especially news reports, is negative. Infotainment offers us a possibility to detach ourselves from the reality of the negative, while still feeling informed and knowing. In both aspects, infotainment acts as a form of self-protection.

Simultaneously, infotainment and sensationalism show how media is more and more controlling our society, or rather, our life and perceptions of how we should live it. In his work, Mathiesen (1997) argues that Foucault’s concept of panopticism, where the few see and thus control the many, has in some way been replaced with synoptical processes: “The mass media, and especially television, which today bring the many — literally hundreds of millions of people at the same time — with great force to see and admire the few. In contrast to Foucault's panoptical process, the latter process is referred to as synoptical” (p.215). I find it especially interesting how he develops his argument towards a society that is no longer controlled by physical punishment, but rather by psychological impacts. While this type of surveillance seems more humane at first, it is also more dangerous and extensive. “Gone are the days of open brutality and the uncontrolled infliction of physical pain; instead, there is a carefully developed system of rules regulating life in full and complete detail” (Mathiesen, 1997, p.216). The dangerous part about this system, in my eyes, is the fact that most people are unaware of it, despite the fact that they are not only the receiving part of it, but moreover an acting entity. We all want to believe that we can free ourselves of some of ‘society’s expectations’, that we are independent individuals who choose how to live freely.

In this context, a discussion about the ‘autonomous self’ (e.g. Blackman, 2006), or rather the fiction or non-existence of the same would be very useful and insightful, yet I have to limit myself to referring to the idea at this point.

This discussion and findings are as much inconclusive as they are incomplete and open-ended. The term infotainment has a very negative connotation, however, I showed that it can be seen as a form of self-protection in this crazy world we live in, where we are controlled by technology and invisible mind doctors who shape our thinking and steal our autonomy while making us believe we are all self-empowered and independent...... 

References

Carrabine, Eamonn. 2008. Entertaining the Nation. Course Reader, Week 10. 

Demers, David. 2005. Dictionary of Mass Communication and Media Research: a guide for students, scholars and professionals. Marquette, p.143.

Mathiesen, Thomas. 1997. ‘The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon Revisited”’. In: Theoretical Criminology, pp. 215–234. Available online: http://tcr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/215.abstract

Popular Music and Identity

Music becomes popular when it is commercially distributed to a large audience and thus perceived by the so-called mainstream culture (Shuker, 2001). Nowadays one can hardly escape pop music - it is played in supermarkets, in public toilets and you catch yourself humming along with a song on the radio that you thought you "hate". This all adds to some sort of an undeniable group experience that one has when listening to music. Pop music aims for a collective audience, individualism might be indicated but in the end the industry is about money and reaching as many people as possible. At this point, the question to what extend the music itself matters arises. I think that music is so deeply connected with culture that you cannot separate it from social groups, family values, clothing and fashion, or emotions and experiences. Especially on an emotional level, songs are often connected to certain memories, and suddenly the semiotics of this song become individual as you remember your first kiss or the day of your graduation from high school when a particular song comes up. Those songs carry a special meaning for one person, often despite their usual taste and can continue to do so for many years, long after the popularity of this song. It becomes clear that emotions might be the trigger to whether a certain genre or a song is considered valuable or not. Those emotions can be partly acquired (e.g. (grand)parents "teach" you that classical music is of high value and belongs to our cultural elite, or your group of friends consideres a certain type of music "cool"), and are often connected to a sense of belonging. 

Two concepts of popular culture were "invented" throughout the 19th, and into the 20th century by intellectuals of Romanticism, folklore and folk song, defining popular culture as a "quasi-mythical rural 'folk culture', and the other [...] was popular culture as the degraded 'mass culture' of the new urban-industrial working class" (Storey, 2003, p.1). This two-way definition is still visible today: while some would consider pop music as a genre in itself and recognizing it as a part of our culture, others degrade this fact and try to distance themselves of all kinds of 'mass culture', regardless whether they might like one song - if it is popular, it is suddenly not worth as much anymore and presumably also represents one's personality as less individual or special. 

The mediation processes of popular music nowadays are quite different to just a decade ago. While it is easy to become nostalgic and to miss self-made mix tapes made by friends for your birthday, it is also striking to be able to share and access songs so quickly and directly. YouTube is known for having opened up a sphere where everybody can become famous without a record label, but rather discovered by other individuals. One can now browse through all kinds of music and thus get to know different genres or bands from all over the world on their own account, being less dependent on the decisions that the music industry, our family or friends, or the supermarket around the corner make when it comes to finding that certain song or artist or genre that connects with your personality and emotions. 

A genre in itself?

References

Shuker, Roy (2001). Understanding Popular Music (2nd Ed.) Routledge. 

Storey, John (2003). Popular Culture as Folk Culture. In: Inventing Popular Culture. Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell, pp. 1-15. 

Subcultures

The term subculture is quite problematic as it is hard to define and has undergone a shift throughout time. While Dick Hebdige (Reader Week 7) argued that a subculture is a subversion to normalcy and could be perceived as negative due to their nature of criticism to the dominant societal standard, this seems only true for some subcultures - and even then only for some members of a subculture. I think nowadays subcultures are everywhere, and while many people belong to a (or several) mainstream or dominant culture/s (such as nationality), I feel that so-called subcultures are formed as a means of categorising everywhere. One can belong to several subcultures without even realising it - it all depends on how you define the term. There is a need of being individual, and at the same time belong to a group in every person, as much as there is a need to categorise others and the world around us. Subcultures can help us to identify with something, and is thus are a form of expression. Often the media shapes distinct images of such subcultures, creating hype around one or the other - putting a spin on it, either negative or positive, but most of all commersialising it. 

I think subcultures go hand in hand with stereotyping and thus one has to be careful not to be prejudice when seeing someone who wears a leather jacket, black make-up or board shorts and thongs. To me, the term 'subculture' became quite presumptuous and is not adequate to describe the social phenomenons that are happening around the world. 'Sub' indicates inferiority, and the term 'culture' is nearly impossible to define by itself (or has been tried to define too many times). I rather think of different networks that people form around them, creating an individual identity while being able to connect and have a feeling of belonging through language, music, fashion, work, sports and so on. This does not necessarily need to come with one strict set of 'cultural' values, but will be transformed and shaped anew with every person. 

Intertextuality in media

Most kinds of media, especially the mass and popular media of this century is quoting or referring to other works of art, music, film or, more general, our pop culture. While intertextuality usually defines the quoting of other publications in literature, it can now be seen everywhere around us. Marketing specialists, musicians, authors, artists and scholars alike are firstly always influenced by other texts (i.e. movies, songs, novels, poems, paintings,...) and styles, but also utilize this pre-knowledge in order to form their piece of work. 

I find this topic especially interesting in terms of trying to understand or unravel some cultural phenomenon of our society. For example, why does advertisement work in a way in works? People are often influenced on a subconscious level; they do not know that they have seen something before, yet it still seems familiar and thus comforting. The documentary film The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (2011) by Morgan Spurlock tries to explain how most large-scale Hollywood productions today are often financed through advertisement - without playing "ads" in the film. James Bond drives an Audi or Bentley, wears Rolex, and so on. I think this art of making of movies is also a sort of intertextuality and shows how the corporate world is trying to be quoted and recognised as often as possible. And only those who are part of and participating in this society are able to decode and understand the signs of intertextuality that are all around us. 

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold - Trailer