Stephanie Velona on Spectacle

McKee’s main point in the chapter on Spectacle is that each culture needs to use forms of communication that are relevant to their culture to communicate the needs of that culture. He uses the example of rap music in the African American community. Although I know some white people who listen to rap music, it is predominately an African American genre of music. McKee speaks a lot of the group Public Enemy, and the kind of lyrics that they use to communicate their political beliefs as well as injustices that they see being done to their community. These songs do seem pretty spectacular, and a little over the top, but as McKee points out, it is what that particular culture is used to. As a white middle class woman I find their lyrics highly offensive and I choose not to listen to that type of music. I think they could communicate what they are talking about without the “F” bomb in every other sentence.

I do understand what McKee is saying though that each culture is different. I personally think that it is important to remember that we are all equal but we are also all very different. I do not think though that it is beneficial to a community that those differences become so great that our society can find no common grounds, which I guess is what the next chapter is about. So I guess in this respect I would be considered a modernist.

From Lorraine: Spectacle

The chapter on spectacle was as infuriating as the others on the grounds...you know what, I reckon it's safe to assume that for the rest of this course/book that Modernists and Habermas have and may even continue to ignore the history and the burdens of inequality, especially in the United States. I emphasize the US because we are one of the most pluralistic societies in the world, and have more of a foothold on giving women and minorities the shaft...after all, we've been doing it ever since some holier-than-thou white folks landed on this land mass, beginning with the Native Americans.

That said, I grow weary of the fact that the Modernist's approach to Black culture is a negative one, boiling down to the sentiment of "If only you people (read:black people) would be more like us, then no one would give you any problems and you'd have a legitimate voice in the public sphere." I guess the same can be said regarding Modernists and working class folks as well.

I grew up in a lower class family, and as a result, lived in minority neighborhoods and was (and still am) the token white chick. I also took Political Economy and am very well aware of the fact that economics is used as a weapon against the working class and minorities. I'm well aware of the "double consciousness" conundrum that African American in this country face. The thing, I guess, that no one wants to seem to talk about is the awkward subject of white privilege--if you're white, you automatically have some privilege in this country, and more so if you're a male. Racism and prejudice in this country is systemic, from language to policy. For example: The widely held belief that "Ebonics" or African American English isn't a language or dialect, but rather language deficiency. It is indeed a language: it has it's own set of rules, just like English. Another example: that rap music promotes violence and drug use. Rap, in its inception, was primarily political...just listen to "The Message" by Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five or "Fight the Power" by Public Enemy.

One thing I have noticed, as the token white chick, is that rap shares something with punk and heavy metal: Rebellion against authority. Instead of a Monty Python clip, I have found, for your listening and visual pleasure, "Warhead" by Otep, a female-fronted, politically inclined heavy metal group. I see a comparison of this to Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" in the respect that it's a calling out of unjust politics and calls for empowerment.

Kristen Reagan: Commericailization

One of the biggest things that stuck out to me in this chapter was the idea that the media is "dumbign down" their information to make it easy to understand for undeducated consumers. Some might beleive that by doing this, they are ruining the public sphere. However, I agree with McKee when he said that by dumbing down the informaion, we are also making it acessable to so many more people. Why should it be that the only educated people are allowed to be a part of the public sphere? Shouldn't we live in a society that wants to involve everyone, no matter of their academic standing?

When McKee started talking about reality television, I found myself agreeing completely with what he was saying. I beleive that while most of reality television is merely for entertainment, you can also look at it as learning experiences. McKee also points out that some people would say that reality television is vulgar...but he quickly responds to that by saying that it is not necessarily vulgar, but it is just a different culture than the one that some people might be used to. Some people might look at the reality show Real World, as vulgar because the participants in it spend months doing nothing but partying and fighting with each other. However, growing up in the generation that I, and the participants of this show did, I know that this is actually how many people my age live their life. So does that mean most of the young people today are vulgar? Hum...I guess some would say we are. :)

LaReinaAllen.. Commercialization.

The more I read this book, the more I wish McKee would tell us what he thinks with conviction. "Habermas, this. Habermas that." All of the in formation he gives us is based on what someone else said. Now about 'commercialization'.. I couldn't be happier that it's a part of my life. Without reality TV, I wouldn't have anything to watch (besides Law & Order). After being in school all day doing "intellectual" stuff, I want to see other people do whatever it is that they do. I've learned a lot about what goes outside of my realm by watching this commercialized television. I'm not saying I take it as they give it. I take it as a spark for interest in something I otherwise wouldn't know existed and then I go learn about it. So, being a member of the working class AND aspiring member of the formally educated class, I will say that I can't wait for Rock of Love 2, Flavor of Love 3, Making the Band 4, and Top Model (like, 9) to come on. When I finally do cross over to the educated side, I may say "What a waste of air-time.." I doubt it though. =D

Veronica: Commercialization

This chapter was interesting but a little emotional in a way. Coming from a working class family in a way I am almost offended that from what I took out of the chapter or I was unable to move past was the fact that the middle class was made out to be uneducated, worthless, lazy people. Those who are considered the "Elite" with degrees and are highly educated really aren't that different from the working class. We all watch the same television with reality shows, news stations that pick and choose how to spin a story, or that seem to focus more on the ridiculus lives of those rich and famous who have too much money to know what to do with. Whether the elite or the working class watch fox or abc they get the same stories. I know plenty of working class individuals who are not college educated but their opinions are backed with facts and are worth listening too, and I know people who are educated and as soon as they open their mouth with an opinion I want to shut them up because they feel just because they have a degree they should be heard no matter what mumbo jumbo comes out their mouth. The whole "dumbing down" really gets to me. The newspaper is written at a tenth grade level. Supposibly, the majority of people even those "uneducated" can read at a tenth grade level. People don't need things "dumbed down" for them. Information should be presented as it is no matter how complex it seems, minds should be challenged to find answers and research.

I work with youth who come from a working class backround just like I did. Youth who listen to obscene music and use vulgar language and watch MTV religiously. Who are inked up the yin yang. Who many of these youth their parents never graduated from high
school. These youth still can hold a more mentally stimulating and interesting conversation on any topic from the current political stories to "why the sky is blue?" than most of the highly educated people I am surrounded with on a daily basis.

The other day while engaging in a conversation with a youth in my program and a city official who has been greatly involved in a current injunction against a gang in Riverside; a young man who was gang offiliated, from a working class family, dropped out of school in 7th grade. He knew more about the laws and peramiters of the injunction than the city official. Mind you he is part of this injunction which would make him want to seek information about what exactly they are charging him with. But his knowledge of the demographics had surpassed the "dumbed down" version. He could have seen a district attorney, and received the easy version in 5 sentences and walked away, or not even wasted a breath. Yet he researched and studied and made that offical look like a fool. The highly educated city offical was preaching the "dumbed down" version to this gang member with million dollar words as if he was going to be intimidated or not understand and just agree. He was in for a huge surprise. This made me feel good inside.

To me its more like, I can give all the resources and information out there for people to either research and come to their own conclusion or go with the footnotes and have spare time; but if I don't encourage the youth in my program to find out the truth then they might not seek it on their own. Alot of people working class or povershed seek information and research whether they listen to classical music or rap, many people just don't make their knowledge known to the world until they are put in a position like that young man was in. Where he had a chance to make that city official go back do his research and look at this young man and many youth in a different light. I could go on and on and on but basically it was an interesting chapter and out of all of it this is what stood out and I just ran blindfolded with. sorry.....

Ruby Valdez on Commercialization

Mckee gives us a postmodern and modern views on commercialization. The modernists believe that what the media does is try to get high ratings by which they dumb down what is sown on television. Though not all, most television programs aim as low as possible to help themselves out. The other side of this debate is the postmodern view in which it is believed that the media is merely giving us an outlook on life that differs from what we're used to. Both of these sides make interesting points. For example, I agree that the media has dumbed down what is being shown on television. I always feel like television has just gotten ridiculous and it's just showing nothing but trash. On the postmodern side there are the people who believe that this is just the working class' way of bringing their culture into the public sphere and that it shouldn't be seen as negative. Also, this is the working class' way of breaking away from only believing what the leaders of their nation believe. This very different outlook on the "mass" media made me alter my view. I guess we need the "best" of both worlds in order to balance out the public sphere.

Janet Payne - Commercialization

This whole chapter on commercialization was intriguing. There were sections that I could relate to and others that I took umbrage with. In the section, Arguments that all commercial culture is less worthwhile (77), McKee explains that academic writers argue that "all commercial culture, whether quality or trash, is bad because it's produced under capitalism." He further explains the term capitalism used to describe forms of social organization where the ultimate level of decision-making in society rests on the individual. Since Habermas developed his theories to the exclusion of minorities and women, he left whole cultures in abeyance. For example, Langston Hughes, a prolific writer during the Harlem Renaissance and beyond, developed a character named Jesse B. Semple. Jesse B. Semple was certainly no romantic hero, protest victim, militant leader or a charismatic character for the younger generation to emulate, but through this character, Hughes reached his most appreciative and widest audience because Jesse B. Semple appeared in newspapers readily available to black audiences. Hughes began to publish the tails in book form when he began to reach white audiences. Hughes identified with the black masses and could speak their language. By reaching an audience that was disenfranchised, Hughes discussed issues of the day as realistically as possible and created controversy which ultimately leads to growth and creativity. It was through Hughes individual talents that led to a form of socialization for many, thus enlightenment goals were aspired too, if not reached.