YEAR 13 Communication Studies A2
SPACES AND PLACES: This topic is concerned with 'the constructed environment', i.e. any environment whose meanings have been constructed in a cultural context, for example buildings, parks, town squares, alley ways in fact any space or building which has a cultural meaning and is used by different groups of people, in different ways, for different reasons. For example, a town square may be used by young people for skate-boarding, by old people for reading the paper and meeting friends, by couples for romantic assignations etc.
OBJECTS OF DESIRE: This topic is about cultural products; items that are invested with meaning in a cultural context. More specifically, these are the goods of consumer society, the items that we are encouraged to covet, to buy, to own and to cherish. Examples might include cars, mobile phones, laptops, jewellery, designer clothing etc. You will be asked a question in the formal examination, on this topic.
YEAR 13 EXAM: For exam revision please read and remind yourself of the theories and ideas below. Here is a really good website designed to prepare you for your exams. (A2 Module 3)Homework Reader 1:
Ideology
Most of us in Britain are not aware of there being a dominant ideology. In fact, ideology may consist of knowledge that is so taken for granted and seems so natural that we seldom bother to question it. Ideology is influenced by economic ideas. In this country John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman have both, in turn, shaped the economic and social policies of governments. The dominant ideology is capitalist. During Mrs Thatcher's rule, the business entrepreneur was idealised and competition was always 'healthy', while the role of the state was downgraded. To most people, the idea at least of speculating in stocks and shares and foreign currencies seems perfectly normal, and details of the stock markets are given daily in the mass media. But looked at another way, speculation is gambling and regarded by some religious minorities as immoral.
However, our dominant ideology is not pure unfettered capitalism. As the 1997 Labour landslide victory showed, people widely accept that the state still has an important role to play in ensuring that the community as a whole enjoy education, health care and social security. Will Hutton's book The State We Are In (1996) is a recent attempt to set out an ideology which combines the dynamism of capitalist enterprise with state responsibility in what he terms stake holding society.
The dominant ideology suggested above is not accepted by everybody. Many women today perceive society as male dominated a state of affairs perpetuated by a largely man made ideology and are creating feminist alternatives,. Other groups reject the materialism which underlies the dominant ideology and depart into New Age mystical beliefs and practices. Travellers and gypsies, wanderers in a settled world, will always find themselves at odds with the dominant way of thinking.
Identity
"Identity is a negotiable concept" Jenkins
What is identity? Perhaps the simplest way to explain it would be to say it is the aspect of our self image which we wish to present to the outside world.
Why and with whom is it negotiable? We don't have a free choice when constructing an identity to present to others - we negotiate or agree with others in our culture and society how far or close to the norms of our society we wish to be. What sort of woman or man do we want to be and what sort of woman will our society allow us to be?
If we are Muslim and living in Saudi Arabia, our female identity will be constructed differently and reflected to others differently than if we are Christian and living in the UK. This reflection of our gender identity will be done through clothing, language and personal possessions.
QUESTION: Using the key concept of ideology and identity, analyse the three spaces and places below for their ideological meanings.
Image 1: Regents Park, London
Image 2: Bournemouth Pier
Image 3:
Homework 2: ESSAY QUESTION
It has been argued that places and spaces ‘speak’ to us in ways which reinforce our cultural identity. Drawing on contrasting examples, critically evaluate this view of places and spaces.(40 marks)
Homework 3: READER
Windows of the mind
Why do some spaces feel 'right' and others make us anxious? What makes one person a minimalist and another crave the cosy hearth?
Why do some spaces feel 'right' and others make us anxious? What makes one person a minimalist and another crave the cosy hearth?
Homework 4: ESSAY QUESTION
Explain why mode of address is a significant
concept in the understanding of Spaces and Places.
(40 marks)
Homework 5: Key Reading Material
Marxism
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) was a German philosopher, most famously known for writing “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital”. His approach to culture and the media concentrates on social conflict in capitalist countries (e.g Britain, France, U.S.A etc). Marx argued that the dominant class (those in control) creates a dominant ideology (set of ideas and beliefs). The media play a major role in transmitting this ideology to us as if it were commonsense along with the education system, the government and the legal system.
This control of the ‘means of production’ meant that the working classes were oppressed and controlled by the ruling classes. It meant that they never got the opportunity to change their lives, have a say in how they were governed or a share in the wealth being created by the things they helped to produce. In Marx’s time this resulted in revolution in Russia and various other places in Eastern Europe which then spread to South America and parts of Africa. Communism replaced capitalism and was supposed to create a more equal society were ‘the people’ were in control of the means of production. Human nature being what it is (selfish, greedy etc!) meant that certain people gained control of the communist regimes and became the new ‘ruling classes’ or ‘aristocracy’ under a different name!
However, like feminism, the ideas of Marxism were and are still used to analyse how structures like the mass media and popular culture work in our society. The Marxist perspective or approach encourages us to look at the structures and people who control the media, architecture and organisations, not just the message they are sending us. We need to look at who is exercising power, how and over whom.
Althusser, a Marxist theorist, felt that people were socialised into the dominant ideology through institutions like families, education and church – he called these ‘ideological state apparatuses’. He also felt there were more coercive institutions which were also part of this process such as the police, the law and the army which he called ‘repressive state apparatuses’. You will be expected to be familiar with these terms and other ideas like ‘false class consciousness’, ‘hegemony’ and ‘dominant ideology’.
Homework 6: KEY READING MATERIAL
Post-colonialism deals with the effects of colonisation on cultures and societies. Many European cultures, including Britain, once had empires which involved sending settlers to areas of Africa and the East and colonising those areas – taking them over and imposing their culture on the culture already there. For example, the French and Dutch both had colonies in Africa, perhaps most famously, the Dutch Boer people who settled in South Africa, leading ultimately to the apartheid regime which has just been overthrown. Britain had colonies in India and many South Pacific islands. The British finally withdrew from India in the early 1940s causing the partition of India into India and Pakistan. The language of law and official business in India is still English in fact.
Post-colonialism is the study of the power relationships between previously colonised cultures and people and the way they are represented by us, the colonisers. Do we represent them as ‘third world’ countries, struggling, backward people? Certainly, we tend to do this with India which ironically, has a very ancient and sophisticated culture, much older than ours and much more civilised!
The empire began to fall apart in the period after world war two as most of the colonies successfully fought for independence, kicked out the British rulers and set up their own governments.
The influence of the former colonial powers, including Britain, still lingers on in the cultures of the former colonies. A most obvious example is the English language, but there are many other legacies of imperialism in politics, migration, sport, architecture, music and other forms of entertainment.
The influence of the former colonial powers, including Britain, still lingers on in the cultures of the former colonies. A most obvious example is the English language, but there are many other legacies of imperialism in politics, migration, sport, architecture, music and other forms of entertainment.
DO FREE MARKETS EXIST? -Read the article here
DISNEYIZATION - BY ALAN BRYMAN
PDF Quick View File | Download PDF
OBJECTS OF DESIRE
We live in the endless projection of our desires. We are aware of our desires, but only in the sense that we have set out to satisfy them. We experience their pull and the unrest they create; we dwell in the instability desire generates, we are carried hither and thither by our desires and it is once again gnawing desire that is troubling our thoughts. We suffer from frustration and, forever malcontent with what the present has to offer, wish for a place where our all desires would be fulfilled.
Yet has being cast in the midst of our desires ever taught us what exactly it is we are desiring? For example, the teenager craving for a motorbike, does he really know why he wants it? Is it absolutely certain that it is the motorbike he wants and not something to give him pride, make him feel more confident in front of his pals, give him a feeling of strength and even virility? If this is so, then it means that what he desires is in fact one thing for another without knowing exactly where his desire is taking him.
The difficulty is therefore first of all to identify the true object of desire. Are we aware of the object of our desires? What exactly are we looking for through our desires?
Here is a fascinating essay on The Obscure Object of Desire. Full of interesting and thought provoking ideas.
Homework 6 | Reader: Iconic objects of the last decade
Marxists, in common with other materialists, answer this question unambiguously in the affirmative, but that is by no means the end of the problem of knowledge, the problem of the correspondence between thought and the material world. Can thought adequately apprehend the material world - the material world may exist, but is it knowable? Further, what are the respective roles of reason and experience in knowing? Do intuition and faith have a necessary role in knowing?
Materialism and idealism have quite definite meanings in relation to epistemology (the study of the nature and validity of knowledge). Materialism is the correct standpoint and most people will have no hesitation in affirming the materialist position. However, maintaining a consistent materialist position proves to be no easy matter. Whenever we turn to reflect on things we will find it almost impossible to avoid momentarily reasoning along a line which, if looked at in isolation or if extended beyond a certain point, will show itself to be consistent with idealism, not materialism.
Most of us, when surprised by a turn of events will choose to revisit our ideas, rather than deny reality and do not have any doubt about the priority of the objective world. Even the philosophical pedant who denies the objectivity of experience looks before crossing the road.
Idealism shows itself usually in such presumptions as assuming that people do as they say, for example, or in extending a principle beyond the domain in which it is known to be true or failing to subject to criticism a belief that has in fact long out-lived its validity, believing that a person's social position is a matter of their personal choice, that social movement express "new ideas" rather than social interests, etc..
In fact, 99 per cent of the time we operate within a particular system of concepts and the materialist or idealist content of our thinking and practice is determined by the content of this system of concepts. Most of the time we do not question the concepts with which we operate, but it is a merit of Hegel that he directed us to criticise the content of our concepts, rather than limiting ourselves simply to what follows from what.
In other words, our capacity to act consistently as materialists is to a great extent limited by the philosophical content of the concepts we use in our practice. For example, if we only know the concept of "capitalism" as meaning "accumulating wealth", or "job" as some thing which is offered as some kind of gift by employers, or believe that "money makes money", then we cannot get close to a materialist understanding of day-to-day events and changes in capitalist life. To revolutionise your understanding of "capitalism" you are either the one person in a century who creates a new concept of capitalism, or you acquire a new concept of capitalism through Marxist education.
Furthermore, materialism is limited by the level of development of scientific knowledge. If we unable to subject a given proposition to criticism, simply because we have no knowledge of the relevant subject matter or there exists no established body of scientific knowledge about the subject, we will have no choice but to reason idealistically, on the basis of guesswork! [Until we have the opportunity to scientifically investigate the matter]. If we deny ourselves the luxury of reasoning from unproven facts, presumptions and principles and guesses, we will be unable to reason at all.
Thus it is that until the middle of last century, by which time the mass of scientific knowledge had built up to a certain level, idealism was the dominant "camp" in philosophy. The thousands of years of human culture before the middle of last century is proof that idealism is perfectly capable of producing valid knowledge. Or more accurately, the rigorous idealist line is even more difficult to adhere to than is the consistent materialist line. Despite the idealists' epistemological belief, objective reality enters into his/her thinking! And Hegel is the supreme example of this phenomenon.
Attempting to adhere to consistent materialism means to continuously direct our attention to the source of knowledge in the material world, to be continuously aware of the genesis of our ideas from material life and to continuously subject the concepts with which we grasp the world to criticism. For this latter task, Hegel has given us the most powerful instrument.
(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean08.htm)
Anti-Capitalist Protests: St Pauls Cathedral
In this statement the protesters outline the reasons why they are protesting in the centre of London despite heavy criticism from press an the public.
Who is Judith Butler?
Judith Butler (1956-) is Professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, and is well known as a theorist of power, gender, sexuality and identity. Indeed, she is described in alt.culture as "one of the superstars of '90s academia, with a devoted following of grad students nationwide". (A fanzine, Judy!, was published in 1993).
What has she said?
In her most influential book Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argued that feminism had made a mistake by trying to assert that 'women' were a group with common characteristics and interests. That approach, Butler said, performed 'an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations' -- reinforcing a binary view of gender relations in which human beings are divided into two clear-cut groups, women and men. Rather than opening up possibilities for a person to form and choose their own individual identity, therefore, feminism had closed the options down.
Butler notes that feminists rejected the idea that biology is destiny, but then developed an account of patriarchal culture which assumed that masculine and feminine genders would inevitably be built, by culture, upon 'male' and 'female' bodies, making the same destiny just as inescapable. That argument allows no room for choice, difference or resistance.
Butler prefers 'those historical and anthropological positions that understand gender as a relation among socially constituted subjects in specifiable contexts'. In other words, rather than being a fixed attribute in a person, gender should be seen as a fluid variable which shifts and changes in different contexts and at different times.
The very fact that women and men can say that they feel more or less 'like a woman' or 'like a man' shows, Butler points out, that 'the experience of a gendered... cultural identity is considered an achievement.'
Butler argues that sex (male, female) is seen to cause gender (masculine, feminine) which is seen to cause desire (towards the other gender). This is seen as a kind of continuum. Butler's approach -- inspired in part by Foucault -- is basically to smash the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors.
Butler says: 'There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.' (Gender Trouble, p. 25). In other words, gender is a performance; it's what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are.
Butler suggests that certain cultural configurations of gender have seized a hegemonic hold (i.e. they have come to seem natural in our culture as it presently is) -- but, she suggests, it doesn't have to be that way. Rather than proposing some utopian vision, with no idea of how we might get to such a state, Butler calls for subversive action in the present: 'gender trouble' -- the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of genders -- and therefore identity.
Butler argues that we all put on a gender performance, whether traditional or not, anyway, and so it is not a question of whether to do a gender performance, but what form that performance will take. By choosing to be different about it, we might work to change gender norms and the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity.
This idea of identity as free-floating, as not connected to an 'essence', but instead a performance, is one of the key ideas in queer theory. Seen in this way, our identities, gendered and otherwise, do not express some authentic inner "core" self but are the dramatic effect (rather than the cause) of our performances.
David Halperin has said, 'Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.'
It's not (necessarily) just a view on sexuality, or gender. It also suggests that the confines of any identity can potentially be reinvented by its owner...
And finally -- What has this got to do with Communication studies? Well, the call for gender trouble has obvious media implications, since the mass media is the primary means for alternative images to be disseminated. The media is therefore the site upon which this 'semiotic war' (a war of symbols, of how things are represented) would take place. Madonna is one media icon who can be seen to have brought queer theory to the masses.
Are you a boy or a girl? This 1966 novelty single neatly satirised confusions over gender roles with rough and ready charm Old music: Read the article!
Homework 6 | Reader: Iconic objects of the last decade
Materialism and Idealism
Philosophical idealism and philosophical materialism are opposite camps in relation to the fundamental question in philosophy the relation of being and thinking. Does thinking reflect a material world which exists independently and outside consciousness, or contrariwise, is the objective world a product of thought or altogether a fiction?
Marxists, in common with other materialists, answer this question unambiguously in the affirmative, but that is by no means the end of the problem of knowledge, the problem of the correspondence between thought and the material world. Can thought adequately apprehend the material world - the material world may exist, but is it knowable? Further, what are the respective roles of reason and experience in knowing? Do intuition and faith have a necessary role in knowing?
Materialism and idealism have quite definite meanings in relation to epistemology (the study of the nature and validity of knowledge). Materialism is the correct standpoint and most people will have no hesitation in affirming the materialist position. However, maintaining a consistent materialist position proves to be no easy matter. Whenever we turn to reflect on things we will find it almost impossible to avoid momentarily reasoning along a line which, if looked at in isolation or if extended beyond a certain point, will show itself to be consistent with idealism, not materialism.
Most of us, when surprised by a turn of events will choose to revisit our ideas, rather than deny reality and do not have any doubt about the priority of the objective world. Even the philosophical pedant who denies the objectivity of experience looks before crossing the road.
Idealism shows itself usually in such presumptions as assuming that people do as they say, for example, or in extending a principle beyond the domain in which it is known to be true or failing to subject to criticism a belief that has in fact long out-lived its validity, believing that a person's social position is a matter of their personal choice, that social movement express "new ideas" rather than social interests, etc..
In fact, 99 per cent of the time we operate within a particular system of concepts and the materialist or idealist content of our thinking and practice is determined by the content of this system of concepts. Most of the time we do not question the concepts with which we operate, but it is a merit of Hegel that he directed us to criticise the content of our concepts, rather than limiting ourselves simply to what follows from what.
In other words, our capacity to act consistently as materialists is to a great extent limited by the philosophical content of the concepts we use in our practice. For example, if we only know the concept of "capitalism" as meaning "accumulating wealth", or "job" as some thing which is offered as some kind of gift by employers, or believe that "money makes money", then we cannot get close to a materialist understanding of day-to-day events and changes in capitalist life. To revolutionise your understanding of "capitalism" you are either the one person in a century who creates a new concept of capitalism, or you acquire a new concept of capitalism through Marxist education.
Furthermore, materialism is limited by the level of development of scientific knowledge. If we unable to subject a given proposition to criticism, simply because we have no knowledge of the relevant subject matter or there exists no established body of scientific knowledge about the subject, we will have no choice but to reason idealistically, on the basis of guesswork! [Until we have the opportunity to scientifically investigate the matter]. If we deny ourselves the luxury of reasoning from unproven facts, presumptions and principles and guesses, we will be unable to reason at all.
Thus it is that until the middle of last century, by which time the mass of scientific knowledge had built up to a certain level, idealism was the dominant "camp" in philosophy. The thousands of years of human culture before the middle of last century is proof that idealism is perfectly capable of producing valid knowledge. Or more accurately, the rigorous idealist line is even more difficult to adhere to than is the consistent materialist line. Despite the idealists' epistemological belief, objective reality enters into his/her thinking! And Hegel is the supreme example of this phenomenon.
Attempting to adhere to consistent materialism means to continuously direct our attention to the source of knowledge in the material world, to be continuously aware of the genesis of our ideas from material life and to continuously subject the concepts with which we grasp the world to criticism. For this latter task, Hegel has given us the most powerful instrument.
(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean08.htm)
Anti-Capitalist Protests: St Pauls Cathedral
In this statement the protesters outline the reasons why they are protesting in the centre of London despite heavy criticism from press an the public.
Powerpoint Presentation: Free Market & Idealism: Communication and Culture HEGEL IDEALISM MARKET LIBERALISM FREE MARKET »
Hegel: Idealist? i·de·al·ism (-d-lzm) n.1. The act or practice of envisioning things in an idealform.2. Pursuit of ones ideals.3. Idealized
Hegel: Idealist? i·de·al·ism (-d-lzm) n.1. The act or practice of envisioning things in an idealform.2. Pursuit of ones ideals.3. Idealized
Who is Judith Butler?
Judith Butler (1956-) is Professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, and is well known as a theorist of power, gender, sexuality and identity. Indeed, she is described in alt.culture as "one of the superstars of '90s academia, with a devoted following of grad students nationwide". (A fanzine, Judy!, was published in 1993).
What has she said?
In her most influential book Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argued that feminism had made a mistake by trying to assert that 'women' were a group with common characteristics and interests. That approach, Butler said, performed 'an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations' -- reinforcing a binary view of gender relations in which human beings are divided into two clear-cut groups, women and men. Rather than opening up possibilities for a person to form and choose their own individual identity, therefore, feminism had closed the options down.
Butler prefers 'those historical and anthropological positions that understand gender as a relation among socially constituted subjects in specifiable contexts'. In other words, rather than being a fixed attribute in a person, gender should be seen as a fluid variable which shifts and changes in different contexts and at different times.
The very fact that women and men can say that they feel more or less 'like a woman' or 'like a man' shows, Butler points out, that 'the experience of a gendered... cultural identity is considered an achievement.'
Butler argues that sex (male, female) is seen to cause gender (masculine, feminine) which is seen to cause desire (towards the other gender). This is seen as a kind of continuum. Butler's approach -- inspired in part by Foucault -- is basically to smash the supposed links between these, so that gender and desire are flexible, free-floating and not 'caused' by other stable factors.
Butler says: 'There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.' (Gender Trouble, p. 25). In other words, gender is a performance; it's what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are.
Butler suggests that certain cultural configurations of gender have seized a hegemonic hold (i.e. they have come to seem natural in our culture as it presently is) -- but, she suggests, it doesn't have to be that way. Rather than proposing some utopian vision, with no idea of how we might get to such a state, Butler calls for subversive action in the present: 'gender trouble' -- the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of genders -- and therefore identity.
Butler argues that we all put on a gender performance, whether traditional or not, anyway, and so it is not a question of whether to do a gender performance, but what form that performance will take. By choosing to be different about it, we might work to change gender norms and the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity. This idea of identity as free-floating, as not connected to an 'essence', but instead a performance, is one of the key ideas in queer theory. Seen in this way, our identities, gendered and otherwise, do not express some authentic inner "core" self but are the dramatic effect (rather than the cause) of our performances.
David Halperin has said, 'Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.'
It's not (necessarily) just a view on sexuality, or gender. It also suggests that the confines of any identity can potentially be reinvented by its owner...
And finally -- What has this got to do with Communication studies? Well, the call for gender trouble has obvious media implications, since the mass media is the primary means for alternative images to be disseminated. The media is therefore the site upon which this 'semiotic war' (a war of symbols, of how things are represented) would take place. Madonna is one media icon who can be seen to have brought queer theory to the masses.
Are you a boy or a girl? This 1966 novelty single neatly satirised confusions over gender roles with rough and ready charm Old music: Read the article!
Celebrity Culture
Task: Produce an article for a young persons magazine, in which you explore the role of celebrity in today's culture.
In order to get your magazine published you must use contmporary thoery and show evidence of research. To help you get started, look at the ideas of Jeffrey C. Alexander here: http://cus.sagepub.com/content/4/3/323.full.pdf+html
Past Exam Question 1
The impact of “celebrity culture” is significant within the media and according to Baudrillard we have lost our sense of what is real and live in a world of hyper-reality. An alternative view is that the media is merely presenting us with what is happening around us
Opinion is divided on the
implications of this development for contemporary culture.
Study the two contrasting
views below before completing the task that follows.
Use your knowledge of
selected theoretical perspectives and key concepts to evaluate the views of
celebrities expressed here. (40 marks)
Argument A
C.Rojek (2001 – ‘Celebrity’) defines celebrity as ‘the attraction of
glamorous or notorious status to an individual within the public sphere.’ Glamorous reasons might include supermodels, footballers, pop stars.
Notorious reasons would include serial killers or people who have committed lewd acts.
Rojek says the rise in the social importance of celebrities has occurred due to 3 main reasons and inter-related historical processes.
- The
democratisation of society – which has increased our freedom of choice and
allowed ‘ordinary’ people to rise to the status of celebrity.
- The
decline in organised religion – where in a secular society celebrity
culture replaces religious icons and role models.
- The commodification of everyday life – where almost everything in life becomes commodified and purchasable, such as magazines which sell us insights into how to dress like celebrities, or celebrities themselves who sell us clothing ranges, perfumes or underwear bearing their names (Glow perfume by J-Lo, ‘Lovely’ underwear by Kylie)
Argument B
Celebrity narratives, Neal Gabler
contends, are in fact a new art form that trumps traditional media, such as
books, movies, plays and television shows. Today, in a fractured culture with
many niche markets, celebrity is the major way in which we "create a fund
of common experience around which we can form a national community."
Celebrity narratives come in two
basic forms--stories about famous folk or about those whose life events
suddenly flame into media view. They are often tawdry tales, and men behaving
badly feature prominently. But female celebrity tales, more often than not, are
stories of victimization, abuse and betrayal. Or they are stories of women
becoming famous for nothing, except perhaps for having a certain kind of
appearance.
Male celebrities are usually more
active. Their actions may be disgusting, thuggish or tacky, but they are
actions. For example Tiger Woods bedded comely young women while projecting the
image of a wholesome family man. Female celebs rarely seem to be driving their
own fates. Recently we learnt one got
famous just because they could make babies. "Octomom" Nadya Suleman
delivered eight live infants, created by in vitro fertilization, even though
she was unemployed and already the mother of six children. Suleman's own mother
questioned her mental stability. Victim stories are common among female
celebrities. Recently, singer Rihanna got knocked around by her boyfriend Chris
Brown.
A lot of women these days are famous
for nothing. Paris Hilton, the hotel chain heiress, claimed that she was the
new Marilyn Monroe, but Monroe
Meanwhile, actress Heidi Montag
recently got major press for undergoing multiple plastic surgeries. The
Kardashians, a media-hungry LA celebrity clan, exploit family dysfunction and
"The Anna Nicole Show" depicted the doomed actress in the process of
unraveling. "The Real Housewives of Orange County" features a group
of very rich, very vapid housewives just being rich and vapid.
Market Liberalism
Most of the theoretical approaches you will find listed in the specification are broadly critical perspectives. But what are they critical of? For the most part, they are theories that find fault in the way things are, the status quo; they see problems and inequalities in the dominant structures of power. Market Liberalism, however, is broadly supportive of ‘the way things are’ and tends to assert not only the economic benefits of capitalism but also its social, cultural and political benefits.
land
capital (money)
labour.
In a capitalist system, the first two of these, land and capital, are concentrated in the hands of a minority who are able to make profits by purchasing the third factor of production: labour. Land and labour are privately owned by individuals or companies but labour is owned by all of us: everyone has the capacity to sell their ownlabour. Labour power (which can be either physical or mental) is exchanged for payment (wages). The goods or services that are produced in this way are then sold on the open market; a market in which the majority of buyers (consumers) are those same workers who sell their labour to the owners of capital – the capitalists.
The market is regulated by the laws of supply and demand whilst competition between providers ensures that price and quality are controlled. This idea of a ‘free market’ is right at the heart of capitalism.
So far, we have developed only a simple model of the basics of capitalism, but these basics really are essential if you are to understand the implications that capitalism has for communication and culture and the critical perspectives we shall be discussing later in the chapter. Just to make sure that you have fully grasped these principles, let’s try a made up example of how capitalism works.
Capitalism in Action: Flimflam Jam
Two speculators get together. One, named Flim, has land; the other, Flam, has money. They decide to form a company, the Flimflam Jam Company, in order to make profits from the production of jam. Money is invested to build and equip a factory on the land. fruit is grown and other raw materials such as sugar are purchased. Workers are employed for the factory and fields. Flimflam pay high wages to those with specialist skills or knowledge that are essential to the enterprise, but lower wages to those workers who are easy to find and, if necessary, easy to replace.
When Flimflam are ready to set a price for their jam, they have to take various factors into consideration, most importantly:
· The cost of production and labour. In order to make a profit, the income from sales must exceed these costs
· The price and availability of other jams in the marketplace. If there is a shortage of jam, prices will be higher but if the market is flooded, prices will go down. These forces are the so-called laws of supply and demand.
Flimflam decide to produce two ranges of jam: the Flimflam Heritage Thick Fruit Special and Jammy Jam. The Heritage Special is made to the highest standards with expensive packaging to match. Jammy Jam is half the price and competes at the lower end of the market; it aims to be cheap and cheerful. Flimflam realise that selling jam is not just a matter of creating a product – consumers also expect a set of attractive meanings to be attached to the product. For a further discussion of the value of products in relation to packaging, marketing and the expectations of target consumers, see
Objects of Desire
In a world of leveraged buy-outs, hedge funds and quantitative easing (don’t worry, we don’t understand them either) this little tale may seem simplistic as well as rather twee, but it should help you to take some important steps towards an understanding of capitalism. We have already hinted that market liberalism involves rather more than just economic principles; it also embraces a set of philosophical and political notions linked to the core idea of the ‘free market’. The form of capitalism that endorses the freedom of the market in its purest (or, depending on your point of view, most extreme) sense is usually referred to as ‘laissez faire capitalism’. Laissez faire means ‘leave it alone’, so in this form of capitalism the market is allowed to operate in accordance with its internal laws (e.g. supply and demand), without any interference whatsoever.
But who would want to tamper with the market or interfere with its freedom? As far as the market liberals are concerned, the enemy of the piece is the state. For the supporters of laissez faire capitalism the absolute ideal would be no state intervention at all but most market liberals acknowledge that some ‘rules’ have to be enforced by the state. In reality, governments have always intervened in the market, Some governments may seek to control wages by restricting pay rises or, alternatively, may intercede to protect low paid workers by introducing a minimum wage. Sometimes, national governments restrict the freedom of trade by passing laws to protect their domestic industries. This would mean, for example, stopping imports from coming in to a country so that home-based industries would not have to face competition from foreign competitors who may be able to produce goods that are cheaper or better quality.
Another way in which the state can intervene is to remove whole sectors of the economy from the market in order to create a ‘public sector’ alongside the privately owned parts of industry. In the UK, the following institutions are located wholly or partly in the public sector:
· The NHS
· Armed Services
· Education
· The police
· Civil service
· Local Government
· The Roads
· The BBC
· Prisons
Market Liberalism
Most of the theoretical approaches you will find listed in the specification are broadly critical perspectives. But what are they critical of? For the most part, they are theories that find fault in the way things are, the status quo; they see problems and inequalities in the dominant structures of power. Market Liberalism, however, is broadly supportive of ‘the way things are’ and tends to assert not only the economic benefits of capitalism but also its social, cultural and political benefits.
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism is certainly a subject that inspires strong opinions and emotions, as witnessed at the frequent anti-capitalist demonstrations (see Fig. 2.1) held at locations around the world.
Capitalism is
an economic system that emerged in 18th century Europe to become, by the early
21st century, the world’s dominant form of economic organisation. It
is a system in which people are driven to produce goods and services for a
profit. The three pre-requisites for production are:Capitalism is certainly a subject that inspires strong opinions and emotions, as witnessed at the frequent anti-capitalist demonstrations (see Fig. 2.1) held at locations around the world.
land
capital (money)
labour.
In a capitalist system, the first two of these, land and capital, are concentrated in the hands of a minority who are able to make profits by purchasing the third factor of production: labour. Land and labour are privately owned by individuals or companies but labour is owned by all of us: everyone has the capacity to sell their ownlabour. Labour power (which can be either physical or mental) is exchanged for payment (wages). The goods or services that are produced in this way are then sold on the open market; a market in which the majority of buyers (consumers) are those same workers who sell their labour to the owners of capital – the capitalists.
The market is regulated by the laws of supply and demand whilst competition between providers ensures that price and quality are controlled. This idea of a ‘free market’ is right at the heart of capitalism.
So far, we have developed only a simple model of the basics of capitalism, but these basics really are essential if you are to understand the implications that capitalism has for communication and culture and the critical perspectives we shall be discussing later in the chapter. Just to make sure that you have fully grasped these principles, let’s try a made up example of how capitalism works.
Capitalism in Action: Flimflam Jam
Two speculators get together. One, named Flim, has land; the other, Flam, has money. They decide to form a company, the Flimflam Jam Company, in order to make profits from the production of jam. Money is invested to build and equip a factory on the land. fruit is grown and other raw materials such as sugar are purchased. Workers are employed for the factory and fields. Flimflam pay high wages to those with specialist skills or knowledge that are essential to the enterprise, but lower wages to those workers who are easy to find and, if necessary, easy to replace.
When Flimflam are ready to set a price for their jam, they have to take various factors into consideration, most importantly:
· The cost of production and labour. In order to make a profit, the income from sales must exceed these costs
· The price and availability of other jams in the marketplace. If there is a shortage of jam, prices will be higher but if the market is flooded, prices will go down. These forces are the so-called laws of supply and demand.
Flimflam decide to produce two ranges of jam: the Flimflam Heritage Thick Fruit Special and Jammy Jam. The Heritage Special is made to the highest standards with expensive packaging to match. Jammy Jam is half the price and competes at the lower end of the market; it aims to be cheap and cheerful. Flimflam realise that selling jam is not just a matter of creating a product – consumers also expect a set of attractive meanings to be attached to the product. For a further discussion of the value of products in relation to packaging, marketing and the expectations of target consumers, see
Objects of Desire
In a world of leveraged buy-outs, hedge funds and quantitative easing (don’t worry, we don’t understand them either) this little tale may seem simplistic as well as rather twee, but it should help you to take some important steps towards an understanding of capitalism. We have already hinted that market liberalism involves rather more than just economic principles; it also embraces a set of philosophical and political notions linked to the core idea of the ‘free market’. The form of capitalism that endorses the freedom of the market in its purest (or, depending on your point of view, most extreme) sense is usually referred to as ‘laissez faire capitalism’. Laissez faire means ‘leave it alone’, so in this form of capitalism the market is allowed to operate in accordance with its internal laws (e.g. supply and demand), without any interference whatsoever.
But who would want to tamper with the market or interfere with its freedom? As far as the market liberals are concerned, the enemy of the piece is the state. For the supporters of laissez faire capitalism the absolute ideal would be no state intervention at all but most market liberals acknowledge that some ‘rules’ have to be enforced by the state. In reality, governments have always intervened in the market, Some governments may seek to control wages by restricting pay rises or, alternatively, may intercede to protect low paid workers by introducing a minimum wage. Sometimes, national governments restrict the freedom of trade by passing laws to protect their domestic industries. This would mean, for example, stopping imports from coming in to a country so that home-based industries would not have to face competition from foreign competitors who may be able to produce goods that are cheaper or better quality.
Another way in which the state can intervene is to remove whole sectors of the economy from the market in order to create a ‘public sector’ alongside the privately owned parts of industry. In the UK, the following institutions are located wholly or partly in the public sector:
· The NHS
· Armed Services
· Education
· The police
· Civil service
· Local Government
· The Roads
· The BBC
· Prisons