Veronica:Apathy

The biggest part of this chapter that stood out to me was the Rock the Vote Campaign. A campagin that was put together to protest against sensorship and encourages youth to vote and have a say in their future and the laws that affect them. Youth are considered to be politically inactive unless it is in a extreme matter such as lyrics or protests. Yet that is political activism. The fact that the youth of today are writing songs, or painting pictures or protesting in ways that are considered extreme it is still getting attention. Isn't that the whole point of activism? To gain attention or make public a topic. Any coverage is good coverage when it comes to political activism. Whether it is negative or positive because the whole point is to raise awareness and by coverage that goal is attained. I feel the youth of today are more active due to the simple fact that they were told they'd never see a woman or african american run or be in office in our lifetime. Yet, here we are. To see celebrities and role models speak up on how important voting and getting information and getting involved is, opens the eyes of the youth to want to be involved, reasearch what is going on and participate.

Veronica: Fragmentation

I think it is important that the public sphere include the input and opinion of every person no matter what their backround they come from. That is the only way to create a well rounded view point of opinion on a topic. To obtain any real understanding of any topic one has to explore all realms or sub-categories in that topic. Otherwise i feel an opinon can be bias to one's experiences or morals without allowing themselves to see a full picture. Without the input of people from all walks of life then the public sphere wouldn't and couldn't be called the "public sphere" because it closes off parts of the public.

Veronica: Trivilization

Gender roles in movies are always very typical. The male is always the strong heroic character while the woman is always in distress and needs saving in the end. In watching " Terminator" the female is portrayed as a strong individual who is trying to save her son. She fights against these inconcievable machines who are violent. She embodies this typical male character who is brave and courageous and strong whether it be minded or physically. Yet what really throws off her character role is in the end she is placd in a mental institution while trying to reveal that she was fighting machines who were trying to kill her son and take over. So inevitable the way I see it she was thrown back into the damsel in distress role by being placed in a mental institution. Heaven forbid a woman ever be depicted as a strong, courageous, brave character throughout a story to the end.

Veronica: Flyvjerg

I agree with Habermas. I feel that through discussion that a consensus can be reached on any topic. It doesn't matter what the topic is whether it be abortion or racism to politics, if people are open and willing to hear other sides or stories and take it in and come to a mutual agreement on things then a consensus can be met. But it is unreachable if people are unwilling to discuss a topic to begin with. Flyvjerg feels Habermas is about consensus while Foucault is about conflict and power. I feel through this class I realized I am more Habermasian than Foucaultian. When in the beginning i felt the opposite.

Davey Neubauer: Apathy

the modernist viewpoint is that young people are apathetic tworads "real" political concerns and that protests and rallies "only fail to change the world... seem to be not only misguided but actively dangerous" (184). Modernists in my opinion seem to think that that change is always a bad thing for if these new "internet" outlets are being used instead of the traditional ways of media than this is proof that this alternative way to participate in politics is not valid. How can this be? Just because the youth of today are engaging in political debates in different ways "zines" or other forms of online blogging doesn't mean that their points are any less valid. Who is someone to say my point matters and your point doesn't count because I am constructing my ideas in the traditional sense.

Jared on Apathy

McKee seems to support the legitimacy of today's youth's political approach. McKee says that the youth tend to unconventionally political and they respond more to cultural actions like political protests than to direct political action. Lack of direct political actions would go against modernist theory.

I agree with McKee's assertion that today's youth are political in a different way. I think that it's more important to be pro-active in changing the philosophies of citizens than to be pro-active with direct political actions. In order for change to come, I think there's has to be a transformation in thinking. If the people support a principle, it will become a legislated policy.

However, I think there is a minor snag in the cultural political pattern of thinking. I think a result of modern patterns of politics fosters a general consensus of uninformed citizens. It's definitely more important to change your way of thinking, but if we wait for political information to make it to us via bumper stickers and monumental political events, then we'll only be knowledgeable on the biggest of events, which are only a small percentage of a political occurrences.

From Lorraine: Apathy

Sorry I'm late getting this in...anywho, I think a huge part of apathy--especially political apathy--is the fact that young people don't trust too many people over 30--especially if those people happen to be politicians. The reason young people trust musicians is the fact that musicians haven't necessarily tried to screw them out of their futures and have had a more positive impact than the politicians who have the budgets for education and have cut of social welfare projects from them, such as Head Start and free lunch and have forced their parents to spend most of their days at work, leaving them with little to no supervision and guidance. Beyond that, unless you're of voting age, you have no say in what goes on in the country you live in, and because you can't vote, no one really cares what you have to say.

Let's face it: The government is no longer of, by, and for the people. It of, by, and for the elite to use as their own piggy banks. Young people know this, and that's why they're apathetic.

Fanya Daniels Fragmentation

This is for Fragmentation...

I believe that sub categories if you will is very important to the public Sphere because you should always have a place where you feel comfortable. Fragmentation allows this which is a great idea this is how you can possibly get a better understanding of a person or a group. One must realize that there are different ideas floating around and everyone should be heard if you agree or not it just helps you to get a better understanding. Telveision shows, books, documentaries, even simple conversation in my opinion helps bring different ideas but help you get a understanding of those different understandings.

Fanya Daniels Apathy

Alright reading the chapter Apathy was exciting for me because I love finishing books...lol
Seriously, I felt this chapter was good I thought about the way us young Americans talk about politics and how we are also involved with politics. I don't think it was exactly how it was in the past but politics has changes over the years. Then it was more entertaining and now it's more serious and educational. I think that personally the youth is not involved with the politics as much as we could. For example a lot of people would not have voted if it wasn't for all the hype with Obama and Hillary. I am now twenty years old and it was my first time voting. Most of the youth today are not politically savvy. We pretty much get on the internet and try to jam everything in about politics and we really end up learning nothing. Well I take that back maybe we are just in a different way. I also think it was neat when people in the past fought for their voices to be heard. I just hope are way of learning, expressing, and taking control is effective for this country. I just think its harder for people to go out and do their own research about different political debates, candidates, bills, ect. I just hope that the youth are able to bring are country back and just be aware of whats going on...because when you don't educate yourself thats when your voice is not heard and your left behind.

Kara Schneck: On Apathy

OK, so this chapter on voter apathy struck my interest particularly because in McKee’s section on “Apathetic History” (176-181) we find that things haven’t changed much over the last few centuries, and if anything, voting rates are up and fairly stable over the last century.  What particularly riled me was that the voting rates were the highest in the early to mid-1800s not because of an informed electorate but because of sensationalist and entertainment politics (McKee 179).  The fact that voting rates went down when reformers sought to make politics more educational and informative just made me angry—are people really so lazy and disinterested that they will only respond to immediately gratifying political approaches.  This attitude is obviously one of the causes of such long and overly rhetorical political campaigns.  I was reading in the Parade and in response to the question “is our election process too long?,”  98% of readers said yes.  Their ideas were interesting, and I well agree with them:

“Limit campaigning to three to six months and install the new president in two weeks.  Then he or she can start on our nation’s problems right away.” –J.T., Georgetown, Tex.

“We should have a national one-day primary, then hold the election six weeks later.  Free TV time will be equally provided to the candidates by the federal government, as will equal campaign funds.” –E.D., Carpinteria, Calif.

“Make the candidates pay a 35% tax on the money they raise.  This would shorten their campaigns, and the taxes could be used for things like education or health care.” –T.V., Clifton, Colo.

“Since many of the candidates are Senators who are neglecting their jobs, we should definitely shorten the election season, and officials should also have to go on unpaid leave while they’re campaigning.” –R.R., Fairlawn, Ohio

I tend to agree with these Parade readers that voting has become overly complex, and I would extend this complexity to legislation and citizen involvement as well.  These readers give good, thought provoking suggestions to solve our election process problems, and so I would have to agree with moderns that debate is essential in the public sphere. 

Also, it is sad but true when McKee says that that the Internet’s great potential is for the most part wasted (185).  The Internet could be a wonderful forum for all kinds of essential debate, but instead I see fellow friends and schoolmates in the computer labs surfing ridiculously “pimped out” MySpace pages, where conversations are usually limited to the annoyingly shallow comments like “hey, you look fine in that new pic!” or “The new guitar hero III game is coming out this week” or the ten millionth survey someone posts on the bulletin about themselves and their secret admirers or which Sexy Superhero they are.  I wish that for once people would start talking politics and sharing experiential knowledge that would actually further human evolvement instead of this regression that I see—we will soon be like fashionable, talking apes if things don’t change.

Kristen: Apathy

When it comes to this chapter, I am kind of split in my feelings. While I do believe that we are probably better informed about politics today than they were in the past, I also think that alot of the people, young and old alike, who vote do not know very much about what they are voting for. In that aspect, I guess I agree with the "modern" idea, which is rare. :)

I also do agree with the fact that we (the youth culture) do in fact have a different understanding of politics and that we are more likely to stage a protest than to try to actually become a politician themselves. However, I do not think this makes us less involved in the political public sphere. Actually, I think the youth are very much involved in the political public sphere, but like McKee said, it is jus not in the traditional way. However, I still beleive that the non-traditional, or "postmodern" approach is just as effective as the "modern."

Jill Smith "Apathy"

I enjoyed this chapter because it brings to the forefront the idea that young Americans have their own way of dealing with and practicing politics. I liked the fact that McKee quotes Hartley as saying that "...an April 1994 poll among young people gave between 78 per cent and 93 per cent responses for various negative statements about politicians and showed that a quarter of 18 year olds failed to register to vote...[and that] young people placed greater trust in musicians” (McKee 181). This chapter relates to the spectacle chapter and only reinforces the usefulness of spectacle in the political arena. McKee points out that young people do not engage in politics the same way early Americans did. They tend to find their own medium. He uses the "hippie" movement as an example. The hippies did not take up with political parties, instead they found their voices through protest and music. For example in protesting the draft for the Vietnam war and the war itself, Creedence Clearwater Revival wrote the song "Fortunate Son," a song about how the children of the rich could and did buy their way out of the draft. That was the sixties answer to political activism, they chose to do it through creative arts like music, theater and art. It was the first time in American history that children went against their parents politics by the thousands. They wanted the world to hear that they would not conform. Sometimes I feel like i got left out of this amazing time in history, the music alone breaks my heart that I wasn't there to experience it.

Lyrics to "Fortunate Son"
Creedence Lyrics: Fortunate Son
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,Ooh, they're red, white and blue.And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,Yeah!Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.But when the taxman comes to the door,Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

Shelley: Apathy

Okay, so once again, i am on the fence (i am starting to sound like a broken record). I seem to agree, then disagree-with both the modernists and postmodernists. When i read this chapter , the first thought that came to mind was "oh great its talking about politics-which i know nothing about-i haven't participated in any elections...yet". I do have some opinions on this chapter though--i will probably sound like a hypocrite , or contradict myself somehow, but here i go...
I have to agree that the internet and 'culture jamming' in general is a good thing. The whole idea that the young generation is taking a different approach to changing things in the government, by changing how the average person thinks about things instead of going through the government, is brilliant. What better way to defeat the government than get more and more people to join your side--screw trying to convince the government to join your side.
I don't agree with the modernists' view that "because of this focus on recognition rather than redistribution-they aren't doing real politics" (174). I see the songs and videos on youtube that we discussed as examples of culture jamming, and i think the bands or individuals who sang them are "politically involved"(175)!
However, i think that back in the 60's and stuff, people were a lot more involved in politics. I think the younger generation during that time were much more adamant about getting their voices heard. Myself, my sisters, my friends...we all haven't voted since we turned 18 :( i know, i should vote, but i think there are a lot of young people out there who are non-voters.
I kind of agree that there may be too much information out there (see i think i am contradicting myself here). I think that there is so much on the internet, in the newspapers, on t.v., that it just boggles my brain and i become overwhelmed and don't want to hear any more about politics come summer!!!!
Oh and what the heck does this mean..."changes in culture make political change possible, but are not in themselves political" (192)?????? and I thought i sounded contradicting?!?!?!?
My Conclusion: I think that after reading this book, i have found myself leaning more towards the postmodernists, but i find myself agreeing (sometimes) with the modernists--even Habermas, once in a blue moon :)

Stephanie Velona on Apathy and Conclusion

Apathy
In the chapter on Apathy, McKee introduces the concept of culture jamming which "attempts to change the way that people think about the world by playing with existing culture, and thus introducing new ideas into the public sphere" (172). This idea seems to me t be an old one with a new name. People for a very long time have been trying to influence how other people think about things, and to influence them to change their minds. Maybe it has become more prevalent with mass media and the Internet. I believe that McKee is correct that there is a definite youth culture just as there are other cultures.

In regards to public apathy in politics due to the "mass media turning politics into a spectator sport or a consumable commodity" (175), I am not sure I agree. Can we really blame the media or are we not, as individuals, taking responsibility and doing our part. Are we not making ourselves aware of the issues and deciding what we need to do. America has a very low voting rate because people do not care to take responsibility and stand for what they believe is right. It is easy to blame the President for the troubles in the US when you sit at home and watch the news, but did not participate in the election process. There is no way to make people vote or to become responsible enough to take an interest in our countries political well being, but I do think that blaming the media for our lack of interest and lack of motivation to research the issues ourselves rather ridiculous. I guess another area where I am between Habermas and Foucault is that I think that "consuming the media (is) itself a political act" (198), yet that is not where it ends, in consuming the media we need to research and find out what the facts are not just what the media's slant on the facts are.

Conclusion
In the conclusion it feels like McKee is defending his perspective or at the very least why he has the perspectives that he does. In presenting his perspective McKee believes that 'modern' voices are responsible for silencing marginal cultures, in the same respect marginal cultures are speaking out in an attempt to silence the dominant cultures while having their voices heard. So is there ever a way for true equality to happen? Is there ever a way for all voices to be heard?

I have to admit that I do think that McKee is a bit arrogant when he says that Haber mas and modernists when writing about other forms of culture seem to be coming from a place of ignorance. Just because I don't agree with a certain culture or cultural perspective does not mean I am ignorant it just means that I do not agree, and that it is ok for me to have my own beliefs. Again though I think, like McKee that true equality will be elusive.

Ruby Valdez on Apathy

This week's reading was on apathy. This chapter deals with the effects that technology has on the public sphere. For example, the Internet has affected the younger public a lot and is considered to be a massive way to communicate with the youngsters. The modernists view this impact that technology has as (surprise, surprise) a negative thing. They believe that things such as the media have made the younger public passive. Things such as this bring out trivial issues and distract from the important issues. The modernists believe that young generations are important and the way they communicate is also important. Mckee mentions how through the use of things like the Internet young people get politically involved (which is left up to interpretation of whether or not this is political involvement.) Mckee also gives examples from the 60's and the Merry Pranksters who elected a pig as a candidate to be the next president of the U.S. Which by the way I loved.

I really enjoyed this reading because I am part of this younger generation who is believed to be apathetic. However, I am politically knowledgeable and I do have an interest in what is happening or what is going to happen to my generation. I believe being involved in issues is important because a lot of the time young people are ignored. I'm not saying I think everyone should be like me, but I do think that people should try to at least know what's going on around them. However, if the time called for it I would act to protect my rights (in a very non-violent way of course.) I really enjoyed this reading and it's been a very awesome class. I learned a lot and about people who think differently than me too. Good luck too all of you in whatever you choose to do:)

Michelle Peterson: Apathy

This chapter is mainly concerned with the varying views of how to bring about change. Postmodernists believe that through "culture jamming" people have the ability to bring about political change by changing the way people think about things (173). Spectacle would be a good example of how this can work. Through spectacle, people can appeal to other's emotions and get people to think about change. Other examples would be demonstrations and marches. In fact, there was recently a demonstration in which people dressed up as sharks and picketed in order to raise awareness about the mortgage crisis. I agree that "culture jamming" is used mainly by younger crowds. I think that that could either be a shift in politics, perhaps the traditional form of politicizing will not be around much longer. Or, it could be that younger people are less familiar with politics, so a more radical way of politicizing is necessary in order to reach young crowds. Anyway, modernists disagree saying that "changing how people think is a waste of time" (176). Modernists believe that "traditional forms of politics are more real than cultural politics" (187). I think traditional forms and cultural forms are equally important but I agree with the modernists that the media doesn't really deal with what's really important. Too much of what's on the news is trivial. I don't really think that there's a news channel that balances trivial (Britney Spears) with actual news (primaries). I think they are both important, but not equally important. Anyways, I think that postmodernists and modernists both have good ideas. I agree more so with postmodern ideals, but in the case of "Apathy" I think a mixture of the two is necessary.