Davey Neubauer; Commercialixation

Philosophers suck!

When reading this chapter about the trash working class comercialization it was really hard for me to not become emotionally enraged by what Habermas was arguing. He claims multiple times that the working class opionions are none other than worthless. However Mckee is very willing to defend Habermas for this stance insisting that he (meaning Habermas) "makes this claim not because he dislikes the working class... indeed his position is the opposite". I don't see how this is Habermas's position for he repeatidly says that he sees the working class's contribution as worthless. To me this is dumbing down anyone who doesn't have a college degree. Honestly it makes these rich "thinkers" seem like rich snobs who need to be punched in the nose. Just because they contribute to society does not mean what other people contribute isn't important just because they are not highly educated.

An example of someone who is highly educated but is not nessicarily smarter would be politicians who are the ones who decide how are school system is to be run. Not the lower class teachers who are with the kids on a daily basis and see first hand what works and what doesn't work for the kids. So of course our schools are so messed up when "these so called High-class" citazens decide that the best way to get kids through school is to test them till they have blood shot eyes.

The other point Habermas made which other classmates have already made and i think is wrong for Habermas to say is about entertainment, which he basically says is worthless as well. So in fact all the people who work twice as hard to earn half the income are not allowed to enjoy some personal entertainment because they are particapating in a "dumbed down" part of society is lame. Its entertainment for heavens sake, one benefit if nothing else would be to relieve stress away from their own life maybe the persons crumy job.

This is probibly a lot of rambling but overall I think these "high class thinkers" are truthfully really lame for writing off people in the working class just because they are not educated. Just becuase a person is not educated doesn't mean he/she can't bring their own life experiences to the table/public sphere.

Michelle Peterson: Commercialization

This chapter was an interesting one. I really appreciate the history of the "chap books." I didn't know any of that! What I find most interesting is the concept that the elite and working class citizens share the same culture, and do even today. Duh! I've never in my life thought of this. Culture, or our society as a whole, has things in common that unites us. Although the wealthy elite class would never want to admit that they have anything in common with the working class. We cannot escape the fact that we all see "yellow journalism," and although some people watch different television news channels, inevitably, they all deliver the same message. It's funny, no matter how we might try to escape from each other, we can't! If the media is a window to our culture, then we see ourselves and each other on TV, in the paper, and on the internet. Our media reflects where/who we are as a culture. . . That's pretty scary.

Karalynn Schneck: On Commercialization

First of all, I am very torn about McKee’s chapter on “commercialization” mainly on the issue of the value of trash culture. Being raised as a lower-middle classed, conservative Christian Caucasian in a quasi-ghetto neighborhood, I realize that there is probably a reason I don’t attribute any value to trash culture. I very much agree with Habermas that educated culture is superior to one that includes vulgar language, the loud playing of raucous music, an addiction to television over books, and an almost complete apathy to socioeconomic and political issues of our day. I disagree that books are only for the educated—there are so many free local library programs and community classes teaching adults and tutoring children in reading, writing, etc. that there is no excuse for people not to learn and understand the value of literature over television. The academic who “argued that for people growing up in working-class cultures, there were forms of informal policing that ensured that they knew that books were not for them” (McKee 91) has obviously forgotten that our nation as a whole has taken great strides to help underprivileged individuals in accessing this “foreign” media. I think that television should not be so trivialized as it is—that it should include accessible information about economics, politics, health care, human rights, sexual education and social issues. After all, McKee states (and I agree with him) that “there’s nothing genetic in any member of either group that forces them to like one kind of culture over another” (McKee 88); So why not value a culture that educates and uplifts the masses, opening up new possibilities and making the American dream more realistically achievable? I think Habermas is right when he says that working-class Americans suffer from “false consciousness,” and I think it is high time they expand their minds and their boundaries. The only reason there culture is the way it is (in my opinion) is because they are stuck in the mindset of the oppressed and impoverished. Yes, life is depressing, and yes oppression exists—but it’s not going to end if working class people whine to each other and then go home and watch TV.

Stephanie Velona-Commercialization

It is obvious by reading the history section of this chapter that there has always been a place in society for the sensational and the entertaining. It is not just a phenomenon of today. As McKee states there was a dividing line along the way, the elite classes did share the culture with the common people that they despised. It was not until the 1800's that their descendents stopped participating in popular culture. There has always been a place for this popular culture, this commercialized media.

I think that it is important for information to be disseminated in a manner that is accessible to all. The "dumbed down" version of the news is not always a bad thing even for the elite, it provides a quick hit on all the topics going on in the state or nation. If these elite want to find out more information about important topics they will need to research them and find the proper source for what they are looking for. The news media wants the ratings so they will dissimenate information that they feel will draw the biggest number of viewers. The old saying of "if it bleeds it leads" still holds true today.

Entertainment seems to be a leading draw for the popular culture. As I stated in my last blog the fact that we spend more time on the troubles of celebrities than on the election really bothers me. If I want to know what is going on with my favorite celebrities I would tune in to one of the many entertainment "news" shows like "Entertainment Tonight" or "Inside Edition". These shows that present entertainment news just like the "serious" news shows, yet they are all about celebrities. I believe that when a celebrity dies, it absolutely needs to be one of the leading stories on the news, but I think there is definitely a place for all of the other entertainment goings on. Don't get me wrong I am the first one to have compassion for these celebs and their alcohol and drug problems, but I do not think it warrants being on a "serious" news show before things like politics.

There is one statement that McKee makes "one's thinking is formed in part not only by rational arguments and informatin, but by 'key formative events of (one's) intellectual biography...(and) formative situations' {Matusik, 2001: xv}, by 'all sorts of contingent circumstances-who teaches us, how and where, what we read, when and with what resonances in our memories, senses of experience and identity' {Beliharz, 1991:9, see also Ingram, 2003; Bernstein, 1985:1-2)". I believe there is definitely some truth to this statement and for that reason some of what I see on television (when there is time) now a days does not say a lot about what kind of a world we are becoming.

McKee presents both the "modern" perspective and the "postmodern" perspective on this topic. While I am very conservative and think that part of Habermas's arguement seems to be something that would be wonderful if it could be attained, I think on this issue I would side more with the postmodernists. I think that we need a venue for both the elite and the working class to get information about what is going on in the world in a way that best suits them.

From Lorraine: The upper class can kiss my working class...

While I do agree that we essentially have a 'junk' culture and the population at large has a 'here today, gone later today" attitude, I find Habermas' and the Modernist's attitudes infuriating. Entertainment, to them, seems out of the question--there goes most music, comic books, paperbacks, and the like. Anything that produced that doesn't force one think or work to understand it is worthless in the public sphere. While I agree that the masses need to be educated and/or be more politically aware and active, I really think that Modernists and Habermas need to get blue collar jobs, just to see how taxing manual labor can be and know at the end of a back-breaking, demoralizing day how a working class person just wants to have a beer and a laugh, because they don't have much time or energy for much else.

I also want to take a crack at Habermas, because he's all for media owners pushing their opinions on the outlets they own and the grounds that 'the point of the public sphere is for competing voices to come together presenting different positions, expressing their own private thoughts' and again ignoring the burden of inequality due to the fact that the most major media outlets are owned by people with money, and so they get to use their money to buy a huge voice in the public sphere, stomping the majority who are the working class and have been worked into apathy (at least in the US--I've heard there are magical lands where citizens not only get health care, but they also get more time off to tend to their families and more vacation time than the US working class do) or are just too busy working to keep the roof over their head and food on their plate (79). Furthermore, if he wants the working classes to be educated so much, then why can't he convince governments (especially the US) to make it easier for bright working class kids to obtain a formal college education? My guess is that Habermas was/is disgusted with the US because we seem to be the worst offenders of junk culture consumption and one of the least educated populations in the industrialized/modern world, and so has given up on us (though, I would have loved to see him tear the Bush Administration a new one).

Also, if the governments should be in charge of the arts or other elements of 'culture,' you might end up with this:

Kristen Reagan: Trivialization and "Sydney White"

For the movie, I watched the movie Sydney White, which is a modern spin on the Snow White story. In the movie, Sydney White is a girl whose has been raised by her father, a constructionist, after her mom died. Needless to say, Sydney is pretty much a tom-boy. All she knows about her mom is that she was in a sorority in college, so when Sydney heads off to college herself, she is determined to join the same sorority. However, once she gets to school, she figures out that the girls in the sorority are boy-crazy girly-girls, the complete opposite of her. This ties in to gender, because it is stereotyping girls. Most girls are seen as prissy girly-girls who only care about their hair, makeup and who they are going to date next. And then you have Sydney who is the non-stereotypical girl, who knows how to do hard labor thanks to her dad, and is not interested in the latest designers.

With the chapter on Trivialization, what I found most interesting was the part about trivial information in the media. McKee points out that we have the typical gossip magazines, which we would expect to publish trivial stories about celebrities lives. However, there are also the more "serious" media outlets that publish this material. He asks the question of it this should be applauded, or condemded. He asks if this material actually destroys the public sphere. He quotes someone who says that it should be illegal to publish this "trivial" material, because it takes the attention away from more important issues. In a way, I agree with this. When I am watching the news, I do not only want to hear about Britney Spears' latest breakdown. I would expect this if I were watching Entertainment Tonight, but not when I am watching CNN or MSNBC. Especially in the year of a Presidential election, there is more that can be discussed than the latest celebtiry gossip. However, I do not believe that the "trivial" material should be made illegal. I am a full supporter of the gossip magazines, and when I go to the grocery store, I pick up one of each kind. I just do not beleive it should be society's main focus...there are many other important things that can be discussed.

Jill Smith- "Trivialization" and "Chuck and Larry"

Interestingly enough, I watched "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" over the weekend. This movie really tied into the discussion that we had today regarding main stream homosexuality. The movie is about two heterosexual firefighters who pretend to be domestic partners in order for Larry's kids to be taken care of in case something should happen to Larry. Larry's wife died three years before and he wants to make sure that the kids get his pesion and that Chuck can retain custody of the kids because he is the only person that Larry trusts. The movie itself was quite enjoyable, it was extremely funny as one could imagine. The interesting part about the movie is that Larry is a homemaker for his two children, he is the all American father. Chuck is the ladies man bachelor who is with quite a few different girls every night, yeah, that's right, the most girls that I counted in one scene coming from his bedroom was six. Larry's children, a boy named Eric and a little girl named Torry are healthy and happy. Eric however, may indeed be gay, he is very flamboyant, wears feminine clothes, is into musicals etc, very steriotypical "homosexual" traits. Larry loves his son very much, but still he tries to push baseball and masculine traits on him. Chuck on the other hand, the more masculine of the two kind of encourages him to be himself, making him tap dancing shoes, practicing a musical with him, etc. The only female actually protrayed in the movie is their lawyer, Alex protrayed by Jessica Biel. She has a gay brother and is very comfortable with the homosexual lifestyle. That being said, she treats both Chuck (who is majorly into her) and Larry like they are her girlfriends. She is free to be what ever she wants because there is no threat of masculinity. She is a lawyer and independent of a man's support so she can be seen as being a strong woman who is also very active in gay rights.
This movie is a prime example of the trivialization that McKee talks about. Because the media brings all of the controversial topics to the forefront, movies like this are becoming more and more popular and kind of becoming necessary as a way for people to become comfortable with the new social "norms." The news uses sound bites all the time involving celebrities "coming out of the closet," they use them as a ploy to get the publics curiosity going so that they will sit there and see who is gay. The media knows that the public is fascinated with celebrities and they use it to their advantage, can you blame them?

Unfortunetly we live in a time when nothing seems to be private anymore. At least not for people who are in the public sphere. Brittany, Tom and Katie, and poor Heath Ledger are all products of the public sphere. They chose to become movie stars, therefore their life is not private. Fortunetly for us "normal" people, we can still be considered private citizens and have our little secrets without the entire world finding out about it. I believe that Habermas' idea about having a private and a public sphere is valid, however, I believe that it is somewhat unatainble for some and quite possibly guarenteed for others. There will always be certain issues that would like to stay private that need to be a matter of public information, they are just unavaoidable. Certain topics such as abuse, child molestation, rape and even homosexuality need to be taken seriously therefore, they need to be brought into the public sphere. It is important that society is aware of issues that go on in their backyards so that they can educate themselves and educate their children.