Schor Article

As the era of TV became prominent people began spending less and less time with their neighbors and friends, and more time on the couch in front of the tv, which they became exposed more heavily to advertisements and the knowledge of what others had. So in a middle class family, if they are watching tv and seeing how the upperclass lives and what desires they have fulfilled, then if a lower class or more peverty stricken family who owns a tv is watching those same commercials and viewing the same ways of life, are they thinking the same thing?

Because if the middle class family is watching tv, sees an ad, and realizes they cannot afford it, but then they go out and put it on a credit card, how does the lower class family react to that same commercial, who maybe doesnt have a good enough credit standing to obtain a credit card, and they know they cannot afford the items being displayed, does the ad affect them the same way?

Schor Article

I enjoyed Schor's argument on the need for society to focus on the Quality of life rather than the quantity of stuff. People do care far too much about what they can buy rather than what they can do with their time. I also agree with the fact that as time has progressed, the less amount of time spent doing alternative things with family, friends, etc., has also led to an increased amount of television viewing, subsequently leading to an increase in consumerism. Despite these facts, does Schor's proposal to divert society's focus from working and spending to quality time seem feasible? I'm curious to know how we as a society would get there, or at least to a happy medium.

Schor noted in the article that there exists a long conservative complaint that "Americans just don't realize how good they have it, that they have become overly entitled and spoiled." Do you believe this to be true or do you believe there are many different psychological reasonings for consumerism? Do you agree that simply reducing our expectations will help cure consumerism?

Schor Article

After reading the economic model in this article, and the part that said that consumers were not impulsive, it made me think of the Youtube "haul" community and how I believe that almost all of that shopping is impulsive. There is a whole community that makes videos of "hauls," basically a bunch of clothes/makeup/anything they buy, and then shows it all in a video for people to watch. I think this huge phenomenon is just another example of how consumer obsessed many of us are, and how a younger generation is starting out this way. Shopping is extremely social for them, they buy what they think will look "cool" to show to others. Making the "haul" videos seems like a way of fitting in to a lifestyle, even if the person isn't wealthy like others who make videos. I think many people watch to live vicariously through them, which is what reality shows like the Real Housewives also do.

I also have to agree with Ashley in that I don't understand how many people think that credit cards are free money. I'll be the first one to say that I am horrible at saving money and I blow through my paycheck every week. I don't have a credit card, but my friend who does has tons of school loans and 3 different credit cards with very high balances. I just wonder what is going to happen to her, and other people with insane balances? When will people learn?

Schor Article

- Since money is apparently the root of all evil, will we ever be able to sustain a lifestyle that we are truly happy with and intent on living? Or will we have this continuous struggle within ourselves to maintain the deluxe apartment in the sky notion that we all desire?

- With advertising at every glance we take, is it possible that we really can decipher between brand preference and individually choose what we want? I mean consumers stand behind certain products for numerous reasons, so it is out of the realm of possibility to say that consumers can differentiate between the those things they spend their green on?

Schor article

I like Schor's argument about those who can't afford day to day necessities because they spend so much on wants. For example, I lived by a very large apartment complex my whole life that was really crappy yet the people living there had better cars than my family and we had a house. I'd also see satellite dishes hanging out of their windows, if they just thought about what they were spending their money on maybe they'd not live in poor housing, I never understood that. Schor uses the line "luxury rather than comfort" which fits with what Im saying.

The idea of noninterference stuck out to me. The idea that we are able to buy whatever we want without any judgment from others I think is not the case. Family is what is most important to people and they often cast the harshest judgement. For example, my girlfriend just bought a new laptop and when her very opinionated brothers asked what kind, she told them nothing because they would criticize her choice. And if I buy anything over twenty dollars my girlfriend yells at me, so I think the idea that our consumer culture is one of noninterference is not the case, in fact I think it's the opposite.

Schor

Schor refers to sociologist Bourdieu's idea that family socialization and educational experiences are primarily responsible for consumer tastes. In current times, the media also plays a key role in socialization. If consumer education and finances were mandatory elements of school curriculums, would it be enough to counteract the consumeristic effects of the media?

Schor seems to believe that if the environmental damage incurred in production was included on the products we purchase that it would deter our tendency to over-consume. Would this actually be the case, or would the need to fit into identifiable social groups through consumerism prevail?

Schor Article

Instead of keeping up with the “Joneses,” we are now having to keep with the Kardashians and “Real House Wives.” Though many of these shows are there for us to see how the upper class lives, does the average person subconsciously realize that these types of lifestyles are most likely going to be unattainable? How much worse is reality television making the aspirational gap?

I grew up learning the importance of bargain shopping and comparing generic to name brand. Through reading this article, it appears that most Americans don't realize how much they could be saving yearly by making a few changes to their buying process. How will people change their spending patterns if they already have brand loyalty to so many products? How can the message of being savvy be sent out in a way that overrides the advertisers?

Schor reading for 9/30/10

1. I found it very interesting to read about what Schor calls "competitive consumption". My neighbors back at home remind me of that concept. What are all of the factors that go into a "reference group"? Is it just money and social status or are there behavioral traits that go along with that?

2. How well-informed do you think consumers really are? Are they brainwashed by all of the advertisements in today's society or do you think they really are well-informed?

Schor article

I found the part of the reading regarding "competitive consumption" to be especially interesting and it really does make a lot of sense. I know that I am probably guilty of it myself, without even thinking about it. Do you think the idea of "competitive consumption" applies to families. The reading defines it as keeping up with the social groups you identify with. But what about seeing how you were raised and trying to follow the footsteps of your parents?

In terms of social status, I feel like it has been around ever since society existed. People are always going to be concerned about their status, wealth, possessions, and social circles. So to say that it is becoming an increasingly bigger problem seems a little far stretched. If anything, our means to increase these things have only grown. New products come out daily, social networks create new ways to increase social circles, etc.

The New Politics of Consumption

Are people sacrificing happiness for tangible objects? People are under more pressure now to live up a unreasonable set of standards that they are losing sight of the simple joys that often don't cost anything.

"Psychological research suggests that even the visual cue of a credit card logo spurs spending." I've always been taught that credit cards are a tool for emergencies or for building your credit wisely when you are young. Why is it that some people still think that a credit card is "free money"? Are credit card companies deceiving the public?

Wang

It's common in American politics to glorify past heriosms and deffer attention away from the most gruesome details of history. Forrest Gump is not the only media piece to try to reframe U.S. history. Can this practice in media possibly be as or more influential as this tendency in the political realm?

Forrest Gump not only follows the ideology of "family values" but it also systematically follows the pattern of Propp's analysis of a folktale. How might the strong adherence to the formulaic production of a folktale further the film's influence?

Wang Article

In the article in the section with the free love and black panther parties it mentions that Gump argues consistently for "revisioning" the 1960's as an era of cnfusion and conflict. Also, that Gump represents the 50's, and Jenny represents the 60's; but there is a sentance in there that kind of disturbs me, and I am not sure how to interpret it. "When a country loses control of its white women, all hell breaks lose." This seems like a generalized statement, what is this meant to mean? I understand the context, and know Jenny is this poter child for the 60's, and the country is in the time of a rebellion, but want to get a better understanding of that quotation.


I find if funny that the film was awarded in the National Review "one of the best 100 conservative movies," and the same source also awarded them with the "best picture indicating the 60's counterculture." Do you believe the film to have favored one side of the political spectrum more than the other? Do you the think the portrayed acts of the conservatives and the liberals were accurate?

All of the talk about the 1992 election and the desire to "restore family values" makes me think who gets to define family values? Even now, in 2010, Bill O'Reiley attacks Jennifer Anniston for speaking in favor of a single mom household. Do all families have to fit a certain definition to be considered a family?

The way that the author is writing the essay, it seems as though the film provides an excuse for the American public to assign issues of gender and race to a different time and ignore the fact that they are still happening today. Does the film just gloss over these issues because it doesn't want to take a steadfast political stance or is it trying to make light of these series issues so that people can believe in the concept of "a simpler time"?

Wang

In her article about Forrest Gump, Wang cites political speeches that ascribe tremendous power to individual texts such as Murphy Brown and Forrest Gump. These statements assume that these texts are themselves capable of having monumental effects on society such as causing the riots of South Central Los Angeles and the disintegration of the nuclear family.

Do you agree with the speakers of these statements about the degree of power they attributed to individual texts?

How do Dan Quayle's disparaging statements about autonomous women and his Republican Party's then plan to reestablish the male patriarch in the nuclear family relate to Marx's ideas about the dominant structure of society and how it functions?

Wang makes some serious assumptions about what the producers of the movie Forrest Gump were trying to say about the validity of various political and social movements of the 1960's. Do you think that Wang is correct in her identification of their true agenda?

Wang/Gump article

1. The article says that the movie answered questions of when and where the U.S. went wrong. Obviously these answers are a matter of opinion and there are really no right or wrong answer. But you are given that right, as a film maker, to interpret history and tell the story the way you want to. Do you think there is a responsibility on the shoulders of a film maker to present certain facts a certain way?

2. It goes on to say that the audience may perceive history differently as a result of the film. But isn't there a bigger problem if the audience has a false grasp of U.S. history. Or if citizens of the U.S. rely on entertainment films for their history lesson, there seems to be a bigger problem. Is there a way that films can enhance or compliment U.S. history, in a similar way Foresst Gump has, in other historical settings?

Wang Article

1. I disagree with the statement that the film was 'conservative' in nature. Many issues are discussed that disputed conservatism at that time. For example, Elvis Pressley and his music, The Beatles and their music, the war in Vietnam, drugs, alcohol, Water Gate, the Black Panthers, the list goes on and on. I was just curious as to how they thought this movie as "aggressively conservative."

2. The way they describe the movie is that Forrest Gump emulates the good American by reitterating the ideas of Christianity and consumerism and that adiences relate to that. To me however, he seems too dumb to question anything and assumes that what he is told is how things are supposed to be. In no way do I see him as revolutionary conformist, he's just a loveable idiot who did what he was told.

Wang reading for 9/28/10

1. I was surprised to see how much political discourse the movie Forrest Gump contained. What do you think about the concept of "counterculteralism" as it pertains to the film?

2. Do you think Forrest Gump accurately portrays the struggling family structure? If so, how?

Mittell post

1. This whole "TV is a drug" thing just seems a little blown out of proportion. Yes there are definitely damaging effects from television and stuff that probably shouldn't air. But isn't that true with any form of media? Just about any form of media, there is going to be something out there that brings down the "quality" of the medium. The correlation it has with children, race, class, addiction, etc. can all be said for just about anything.

2. I think people are putting too much blame on everything around them. Who cares if ABC ran a campaign claiming "Watch TV - Don't Worry, You've Got Millions of Brain Cells." It is the responsibility of people to control their habits, decipher reasonable content, and make their own decisions.

Mittell Reading- TV as Drug

1. This article brings up the argument that instead of watching television, people should read a book or listen to music. If an Anti-Television movement is arguing that TV is making children lazy and it is not healthy for them, one could also argue that listening to music constantly or reading constantly is also unhealthy. Anything in mass consumption probably isn't good for a person's health, and while sitting around reading all day will help a child learn more words, it could also make them unhealthy because they might be avoiding exercise. The same goes for listening to music for hours. I just don't think watching a little TV at night is bad.

2. Mittell refers to Winn (1985) when he brings up the argument that the original television generation, the baby-boomers, have a symptom of TV's influence and that is not being able to speak well and mumbling sentences. I'm a little confused by this. What is he referring to exactly?

Mitell

1. I like how ironic the effort of TV Free America is. They are trying to get people away from television, yet that is the way most people get their info and a news station isn't going to cover an issue that's anti their industry. It's a losing fight that has good intentions, because I agree that people watch too much tv, but it's never going to work.

2. The fact that the average student goes to school for 900 hours and watches tv for 1500 is not surprising at all. I mean, sometimes tv is used as a device for teaching so we can't assume that television is mindless entertainment that provides no values.

Mittell Reading

Point 1: "The TV-Drug as Addictive"

"A 'reformed' TV addict suggested that he went into 'news withdrawal' and began to buy two newspapers a day to make up for the loss of the evening news on television...(p.229)"

If you take anything away from a person that they are used to/habitually use, they are going to experience withdrawal symptoms. What if the situation were turned around? Does this mean that if a newspaper were taken away from somebody that read it daily, they would make up for it by watching the nightly news on multiple channels for a longer period of time? In this instance, based on some of the properties that classify a subject as a drug, could the newspaper be considered a drug? If the critics of television were prompted to take a stance on the topic, would any of them agree that the newspaper could be considered a drug based on its addictive properties to a person craving the daily news? I know this example sounds a bit farfetched, but so does a lot of what is being said throughout the article.

Point 2:

At the very end of the article, Mittell notes that TV-Free America takes no position on how they view the Internet despite how similar it is to television. I was waiting for this to be brought up while reading through the text and never came across what I was looking for. Obviously they do not want to criticize it because they use it as a communication medium to publicize their efforts, but I would like to know what their response would be if they were questioned about it. Would they give a response? How would they defend the Internet in a way that would make it appear completely separate from television?

Mittell

Television has systematically become naturalized by many as a drug. What other non-narcotic cultural products may also be naturalized as drugs and therefore stigmatized?

The TV Turn-off and TV Free America movements are clearly interested in agenda setting. What other agendas may be fueled directly or indirectly by these movements and their suppositions?

Mitell Reading for 9/23/10

1. When Mitell talks about TV being a "drug" in America, I feel it makes TV sound like it's a terrible thing. TV can be a good thing most of the time. It is how most people get their news and learn about what's going on in the world. What do you think about when you hear TV labeled as a "drug"?

2. After reading the part about TV being an "addicition", I thought to myself what it would be like living for a year without TV. Do you think you could adapt to that type of lifestyle? Would you get to the point where you dont feel you need TV anymore?

Mittell reading

Since many families were living in fear of the ever-presence of drugs and the war on drugs, do you think that people were more likely to take part in the turn off the tv week because it was something they could actually control instead of just be in fear of?

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the argument for eliminating the use of television. First, people say that it is addictive and dangerous. Then, they are saying that it is okay for adults but not for children. I can't help but wonder was this just a scheme thought up by suburban housewives to try to exert some sort of control over their children and feel good about it? It just seems like another scare tactic cause that people blindly jumped behind.

Sociological Analysis

In his "Sociological Analysis," Berger concludes his brief section about functionality with the phrase "there is a conservative bias to functional analysis in that it emphasizes the maintenance and stability of society, instead of focusing on changes that may be made."

1.) What do you think Berger means by this statement?

2.) Do you think that his assertion is an accurate assessment of a "conservative" bias?

Berger also mentions the common media function of "social teaching."

1.) What are some examples of basic and more obscure social teachings that the media perpetuates?

Berger: Sociological Analysis

Berger explains that psychology deals primarily with the individual psyche while sociology deals with the patterns of social life. How can the difference and/or overlap between a sociological perspective and a psychological perspective be related to Gilroy's concepts of an individual identity and communal identity?

Gilroy

Gilroy states that "differences exist within identities -- within selves -- as well as between them, " and therefore "the longed-for integrity and unity of subjects" are always fragile. What would be some real life or media examples of this theory? What type of difference might result in this fragility?

Gilroy

1. I really like the discussion about the self and how it is made by society and through the interactions with others. I believe that a large part of the self is who and how you raised you and your surroundings. While the author was really wordy and tough to read sometimes, he made good points about the self.

2. I didn't understand what Gilroy was trying to say when he compared the US and Britain. He discussed class and the self, but was one more geared towards one or the other? That article was confusing.

Berger Analysis

1.The part I couldn't get over was the list of 24 gratifications. To me, some seemed repeated, such as experiencing love in #9 then to #14 of being romanitcally in love. The list just seemed long and overstated, I think that list could most likely be reduced to five or so categories. I just thought the article dragged on too long about topics we've already discussed.


2. Unless I missed something, I feel like the article was topics we discussed in 262 or other JMC classes, it was just boring.

Gilroy "British Cultural Studies and the Pitfalls of Identity"

1. Why do you think race is such a big factor in terms of a person's identity? Dont you think it should be a minor factor instead?

2. What do you think of Hoggart's enthusiasm for the "live and let live" vernacular tolerance? I've heard that saying a lot but never really stopped to think about it too much.

Berger "Sociological Analysis"

1. I've noticed before how many people (myself included) form their personalities and behavior after other people. How do we make sure children will imitate models with good values rather than models with bad ones?

2. Going over taboo subjects in class always grabs my attention. Why is it that hardly anyone in society really wants to delve deep into taboo subjects such as homosexuality, rape, incest, etc?

Gilroy Article

- Can/ will identity formation ever not be a chaotic process without any end in sight? Why do we as a society rely on the institutional politics to lead our lives/ identities? If identity formation were ever to stop being a continuous circle, what would be the cause(s)?

- Is it possible that identity as sameness and identity as subjectivity get intertwined? From the reading it appears that it's absolutely distinguishable, but is anything ever really absolute? How is this "guarantee" possible?

Berger: Sociological Analysis

- In regards to the Uses and Gratifications theory, do individuals freely choose the media content and the interpretations they want? Or does the public really have no control over the media and what's produced?

- I understand that the functionalist theory states, "that if the original institution no longer works, something must be found to take its place." (82) But how has society come to recognize the replacement of mainline religion with America's favorite past-time football? Is it because society has ingrained into many that this sport has a significant feel of community and connection "with powers beyond"? Or is it as simple as it's entertaining and I'm going to root for the home team?

Berger

Given the greatly increased availability of knowledge in our modern world, do you think that assuming a Marxist perspective when examining our media is still completely accurate? Are these theories as all-encompassing as they once were? More or less?

Do you agree with Enzenberger's assertion that "there is no such thing as unmanipulated writing, filming, or broadcasting?" Does this statement change how you view the very nature of media itself?

1. In the Berger article, the idea of alienation is brought up. The reading suggests that people who are alienated, through unconsciousness, may become separated and not realize that they are alienated. But what about that group of people who consciously alienate themselves and are aware of doing so? I don't think that would fall under the first description of "false consciousness" or "unconsciousness", so how would you describe those groups of people?

2. It was interesting reading about the consciousness behind advertising and how it maintains our consumer culture. In a different class, I had to read a book about how advertising is going to eventually have to put more focus on emphasis on our senses. As it currently stands, most advertising is through sight and sound. But if you can incorporate things such as touch and taste, the product will hit people on more levels and the more senses you hit, the more of an impact it has. It is an interesting thing to think about though because a lot of advertising that does appeal to other senses, you won't even realize. So is that unconsciousness advertising?

Berger

1. When I got to the part titled False Conciousness and Ideology I started to wonder about the ruling class who determine the thinking of the lower classes and what that group would be considered today? Would it be the news? Celebrities? Or the magazines and shows that talk about celebrities making them seemingly important? Where do politicians fit in? I just think there are so many different sections of thinking that it depends on a person's interests to be influenced. For example, I don't care about the news, politics that much, or celebrities and what they're wearing, so what influences me?

2. I found the sentence, "Nevertheless, the mass media still perform their job of distracting people from the realities of our society (poverty, racism, sexism, and so on) and of "clouding their minds" with ideas that the ruling class wishes them to have," very interesting and thought provoking. Does the mass media system really do this? Looking at shows such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or even, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia that continuously bring up these ideas and discuss them with the masses. There are magazines that discuss these issues. Maybe the real issue is of people rather watching entertainment shows like Jersey Shore instead of being educated and up to date with our society.

Berger reading for 9/16/10

1. Why do you think it is so rare for consumers to branch away from the name brand products they see in most advertisements? Do you think it's a comfort thing or is it something else?

2. What do you think the current state of Marxism is in today's super competitive society? Is it at an all time high? Is it lower than in the past?

Berger: Marxist Analysis

- What are the deficiencies and drawbacks that Berger is referring to regarding Enzenberger's theory? Aren't there "raw" truthful pictures/ video footage within the media today ranging on varying topics? From the stupid wacked out videos on Tosh.O to "raw" footage covering the war on news programs world wide to the crazy "What the Stars Really Look Like" photos found in every newsstands magazine, a form of truth is provided, right? Or is it that society today is so use to being manipulated that we believe everything if not all of what we hear, see and understand?

- How is it that the consumer society has allowed the advertising powerhouses to regulate what we want, buy and see? Everyone is pushing the envelope, whether it be the pocket books, the taste in fashion, sports or music. The advertising world bends over backwards for the consumer yet that it never enough. How did the advertising world transform consumer society from the 1950's styles of commercials to todays edgy methods?

Notting Hill

I have always found it interesting how just a few quick changes to a photograph can sway a viewer’s beliefs to mirror those of the editor. It is so simple to do with present technology, but exactly how moral is it? Although the opinions we form are up to our own discretion, edits often lead our minds in the wrong direction. Some people do not even question what they are being "fed," which is how so many become judgmental and easy to stereotype others. The pictures just assist in confirming myths about today's society. I wonder if photo editors ever have regrets about what they do?

Notting Hill

1. I liked the part of the article that discussed cropping to give photographs a different angle then what it was supposed to be. Today, every picture we see is cropped and that cropping has developed into photoshopping, so the maker can make the picture exactly how they want it. But when does it stop? I remember about a year and a half ago a photoshopped image of a Ralph Lauren model where her head was so large, and her waste so skinny she looked as if she'd topple over. Where does manipulation of the consumer stop?

2. The other aspect of the article is of the headline of the photo. The idea that they are 'young' sheds a bad light on all youths. Also, the idea that they are bitter seems to come from the fact that they are black. So immediately this article is no longer objective, instead it sets up the article to make the black youth the enemy. I thought news was supposed to be unbiased and fair? If they are so mad, explain why, show both sides of the story.

Signification

1. The discussion of myth by Fiske basically plays into stereotypes. Fiske discusses the classic roles of women and men and sees those roles as 'myths.' To me, a myth is a falsehood, or an exaggerated story, and the idea that advertising has a role in changing and determining those roles interests me since that is the field I want to work in.

2. I also found the facts on scientists portrayed on television interesting. The fact that they are seen as 'deceitful, evil, and irreligious' suggests that as a culture, we see science as a bad thing, when in fact it is quite the opposite. That study was pretty old so I'm curious if the numbers have changed now.

Fiske: Notting Hill Article

- Allowing media to alter the perception of myths and connotations in photographs, allows reporters to publicize their bias and explore options of debate. So why do we, as receivers of the projected messages determine the level of intensity and concern when the media is supposed to address those impacts? (i.e. cropping photos to perform myth's function of naturalizing history)

- Is the communication test applied to all instances in media, or is it just applied to those instances that bring up controversy?

Fiske: Signification Article

- In regards to connotation, is there a set number of first order signifiers to pay attention to or do they vary per situation? And if it's a variable of first order signifiers how much does personal interest factor in?

- Why are myths so hard pressed to deny their identity through social culture? If the basis of natural history is social class, why deflect the origination that's made myths through the years?

Fiske Articles

In his article about the Notting Hill picture, Fiske asserts that, "meanings are never just textual; they are always socio-political." Think about examples. Do you agree with this bold statement?

In his articles, Fiske uses the term "intersubjectivity" multiple times, but never clearly defines what he means by it. Using the context of when he uses it and other clues, what do you think he means by this word?

The prevalence of many of the myths that Fiske talks about are fading from our collective consensus. What myths in popular modern culture have seen their social and historical origin "naturalized" so that they seem like the "way things are" or "should be" instead of the way they are portrayed?

How do these myths serve the agenda of a dominant class?

Fiske articles

I really enjoyed reading Fiske's article about signification. I have always been interested in the ideas of other perspectives. So the idea of comparing ideal locations to raise a child with other eras or the photograph of the street example were especially interesting. Shouldn't everything, not just media, be evaluated like that. Why do we have to take everything for face value? Ask questions and get a full perspective on everything. Is there anything in media that isn't filtered, distorted, or edited? It's hard to think of anything off the top of my head.

With the Notting Hill article, I can't help but think that there are situations that call for photo editing. Obviously slimming the waist of a model for a magazine cover isn't one of those situations. But for artistic sake or for enhancing an otherwise poor quality photo, editing is key to really "making" the photo. It kind of goes with what I said about the first reading, you really need to dive in and understand WHY it was published that particular way.

Fiske Articles

I thought it was really interesting when Fiske talked about how different time periods in history have had different ideals of the perfect place to raise a child. Today, people will probably argue that the suburbs are the most ideal place to raise children, but I wonder how that will change in the future? Will big cities ever be ideal? He also said the most powerful people at that time in history set this ideal, aren't most of those people in big cities like NYC, Chicago, and LA?

The Notting Hill article by Fiske made me think of how magazines still try and put thoughts into our heads from their photographs. Magazines always have photo-shopped people made to look perfect. It is just interesting that any image we see on a magazine or TV, most likely, is altered in some way.

Fiske Readings

1. Fiske says that if all photographs were in soft focus, then soft focus could not connote nostalgia. How does this relate to Saussure's concept that meaning is oppositional?

2. Similarly, the commutation test helps to establish meaning by identifying what is "significantly not". How does the concept of opposition within the commutation test assist in establishing the significance of what is?

Berger: Semiotic Analysis

1. In Saussure's discussion on semiotics and that concepts have meaning because of relations, it is concluded that the basic relationship is oppositional. Though the examples fully demonstrate this insight, what is there to say about words with no apparent oppositional relations?

2. Berger discusses the fact that relationships are ever so rapidly changing, which consequently changes the meanings found within these relations as they relate to semiotics. What are some concrete examples of substantial changes in relations of which can convey entirely different meanings than they may have once had in the past?

Berger: Semiotic Analysis

1- It is quite interesting to breakdown signifiers and those signified with everything that we visually take in, molding out minds into the gelatin that drives our interest. But could our interest be peaked if there were no signifiers or concepts to enthrall our minds?

2- In accordance with Propp's functions I find myself trying to apply them to the hit series LOST. Without regarding his functions this show was just a wkly phenomenon that I religiously partook in, but now through his functions I see the underlying base the producers were implying. If there was no breakdown of these functions would entertainment of any kind be able to thrive/ survive without the many dimensions it takes to produce such a tale?

Berger Article

How is semiotics studied when applied to other forms of medium such as medicine and zoology? Does it follow the same suit or structure as it does when analyzing tv and film?


If a sign is a combonation of a concept and a sound image; then how is a meal such as a steak, salad, baked potato, and apple pie looked at as status, taste, and sophistication? (with it being a "sound or prominent image" how can it vary?

Berger Article

I am very intrigued by the "international cultural lag" that he explains when talking about why semiotics took a while to catch on in the US. It seems that more often American's think that we are the epicenter of everything. What could we be missing out on because of this somewhat conceited view of ourselves?

I need clarification on the term "signs" that Berger uses. Are the signs that exist in a text the smallest, simplest components that when put together make the text and the meaning?

Berger Article

In the Berger article, I found the relationship between the signifier and the signified to be interesting. The example of Sherlock Holmes using signifiers to describe what a man is like based on a hat. Holmes said that Watson failed to reason from what he saw. What are other examples of how people "fail" to interpret signifiers?

Berger article

In the article, it suggests that semiotics helps us decipher rules and bring them to consciousness. Going further, it explains that speech implies an established system. While this makes sense, I can't help but wonder what other factors help us decipher these rules. I don't think that semiotics and speech can explain all of it, so I wonder where else it can come from.

When explaining the difference between metaphor and metonymy, it makes a lot of sense. But I can see how the two terms can blur and become difficult to distinguish. Maybe it is because I have used associations with metaphors before, I get a little confused between the two. Is there an easier way to understand the differences between the two?

Berger

Berger refers to semiotician Mikhail Bakhtin's suggestion that language is "dialogic" and is tied to what has been said before as well as what will be said in the future. What would an example of something that we expect to be said in the future in terms of language being dialogic when we speak?

Berger Article

It seems like this article kind of goes against the ones we read yesterday about cultural studies. If Semiotics is all about decoding the meaning of texts and media, who is to say what the 'correct' symbols are and mean? If there is one hidden code in any text, shouldn't we question what that message is that media throws at us? This is the reason why I don't think semiotics is the best way to analyze a text. The fact that there are elaborated codes and restricted codes and a child learns one of them to see his or her life through just shows that the codes wouldn't be consistent.

When Berger talked about 'unconscious intertexuality' it made me think of the TV shows that we watch today. When a new type of show becomes popular, for ex. when reality TV became popular, the creators definitely intentionally related each new show to be like the previous. Each new genre in reality TV, whether it be contest based(American Idol), everyday lives(true life), celebrities, etc., still takes ideas from previous shows.

Berger

1. One interesting point I found was on the topic of paradigmatic analysis where one searches for hidden oppositions that are within the text. I feel like this could be a waste of time with a lot of texts. Not everything is meant to have other meanings than the one portrayed. maybe Berger is trying to say for arguments there has to be an opposing one to make the text valid. It just seems like a confusing topic that can go too in depth at times.

2. I liked Berger's point that semiotic analysis isn't concerned with the art value of the text itself, rather it is concerned with the meanings. And in this way I think it shows that semiotic analysis isn't the best way to analyze a text. It has very valid points, but is only one part of analyzing a text. It made me think of critics and how they look at texts. Do they just look at it semiotically? Or do they use that as a small part of what they do.