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.