America the Undermining Society

Response to “The Conquest of Cool” By Justin Purvis

This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.

One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.

During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.

My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.

Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.

So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.

Brainwashing: A way of American life?

Through both of these readings multiple questions now come to mind. “Why do we listen to what they say” is a great one coming from the Rushkoff reading. I feel like people today hold people with obvious media direct control to be almighty and unquestionable. It’s funny that these people giving us this information are simply passing on to the masses the altered and restructured stories that might be similar to the truth but far from the actual truth. Even if these people do give raw true information the way the story is represented in a visual sense could lead viewers to a wrong view on the subject at hand. After reading both articles it’s obvious that people are being manipulated and according to Rushkoff this trend is an undying one.

For instance an example from my life I can connect to is ESPN’s take on professional sporting teams. The facts could be on the table that a team isn’t going to fair well against their upcoming opponent maybe due to games in the past or current injuries of the team. What amazes me is that if ESPN gives a glorified analyst or sports legend ten minutes of airtime to share a exotic idea on how this team will magically do better in their next game because of this persons inside information then it’s likely that people that whole week will be talking about this team as if it’s obvious that they will emerge victorious. This motion is not because of the person watching ESPN really feels inside that the team will win but the idea that an educated sports analyst told him so. Its radical, its unavoidable and overall its brainwashing.

Now connecting Rushkoff to the online article, what connection do Liberal Arts really have to people’s ability to ask why they perceive the world in the way they do instead of how they will perceive the world? Maybe if Liberal Arts were injected more to the curriculum than America would give birth to more liberal independent thinkers. These people might be able to refuse the almighty public authority (mostly distributed to the public by ways of television and radio).

Also secondly is it not a bit scary to you that government is trying to of all things limit the amount of liberal arts classes available in the school system? What are they trying to do exactly? Are they trying to dumb down America’s people to being susceptible to their economical plans of controlling the mind to do their economical bidding? Are they trying to fill up young peoples’ minds with black and white knowledge of facts and ways of evaluating to induce the public to act in one simple manner? While this view might be exotic it’s debatable and almost scary.

While we view business officials and politicians to be role models of American society is that anywhere close to the truth? What are they really doing within their job responsibilities? To me it seems they are putting out information that is fake or spun. They put out stories and media that will engage the viewer by portraying a certain mood or false conclusion of successfulness and not even come close to the true characteristics of the subject at hand. These people are manipulators working in a manner not because they feel it is right, but because they know it will work. For example gum companies even though all gum is similar use ads and commercials to sell a product conveying mood or energy far from the true characteristics of the product.

Overall a piece of gum is a piece of gum. No gum or body was will give a man multiple female admirers or a brand new Mercedes no matter what media displays. The whole gig is tricking the American mind, even though how unfair it might be.

Tarantino: Ingenious Bastard

A review of Inglorious Bastards by Justin Purvis

Watching the previews for Bastards I was anxious and totally ready to view Quentin Tarantino’s next work of art. Considering I’m not a huge Brad Pitt fan (and was caught a little off guard when he landed this lead role) I still had huge expectations for Tarantino’s latest blockbuster. Everyone I had talked to before viewing the film said it was intense and worth the wait. Afterward I was pleased but still had a lot of quirky thoughts on the film.
At the first scene I was ready for something heavy and loud but I got the exact opposite. Even though I like the ending of the first scene I still thought it was slow. The dialogue was quiet at times and I could see where some people could get bored with the introductory scene. Then obviously all hell breaks loose and I was reassured I was watching a Tarantino film.
The story I thought was good because it was unique. I enjoyed the weird spin on WW2 different perspectives mastered in this film by the director. I guarantee if you will not see any other WW2 movies similar to this one. Bastards was serious but not serious, laid back then intense, totally formal then extremely sarcastic, again personally I know I enjoyed the film but afterward don’t know what to make of it.
My favorite characteristic of the film was the evident, key, jaw dropping scenes. Also you knew when these hit scenes were going on because the theatre filled with these loud theatrical sounds that only Tarantino would think to put in his movie. I really think that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard it get in a theatre, maybe I was just caught up in the moment. Overall by far the best scene was the ending scene where the place goes up in flames, pure genius, pure madness, pure Tarantino.
The structure of this film in a lot of ways reminded me off Resevoir Dogs. The unique style of having chapters and voice overs during the film almost resemble the way he introduced the “Mr.’s” in Resevoir Dogs. The notion was odd and irregular to your mainstream movie viewer but to those like me who appreciate the out of the box tactics made for a great film.
Now thinking of the intent of the film I find myself almost puzzled. What was the director trying to get across in this film? I didn’t really think this movie was a “serious” historical film like say Pearl Harbor or Schindler’s List, but it had some factual parts, right….. Maybe the director was trying to give a quirky representation of WW2 through this film.
Basically this movie can be enjoyed by just about anybody, especially those who enjoy those not so everyday movies. Bastards has encouraged me to go back and watch some of Quentin Tarantino’s older stuff just because I enjoyed this film so much. To tell you the truth I intend on seeing this film again because I enjoyed it so much the first time. Also I see how you might have to watch this film two or three times to get its full impact.
Even after watching this film I now don’t mind Brad Pitt as much as I did before. I think he did one hell of a job in the film staying true to his characters role of a hardnosed southern gentleman from Tennessee. His accent and all round swagger was perfect. I can’t say when I picture the character In the film the first movie star to come to mind would be Brad Pitt but all in all he pulled it off and made for a great character.

Bernay the Dangerous....

The Century of the Self (Part 1) Response

To be honest a minute into this video I thought for the next thirty minutes I would be watching another boring informational video that would leave most students struggling to stay awake. Thirty minutes into the video I was engaged and almost blown away by the content of this short video. In a broad sense the idea’s Bernay put forth during that time period were genius, powerful and overall dangerous. His tactics he used to achieve his goals were in my mind one of a kind and I believe Bernay’s psychological ideas were crucial to society during World War 2.
A student and colleague of Sigmund Freud it was obvious that this man had the potential to produce both knowledge and power to whoever ends up getting him to work for them. Obviously during the twenties Bernay’s ideas shined not only to the government by getting America to go from a “needs to a desire” country, but also his ideas within politics proved to be a outright difference maker. To me his work with transforming America’s society was amazing; but I think almost put people in a position where they were being brainwashed. Although his ideas were used to obtain a national good, did people stand a chance against this ethical mastermind? For instance the situation where he spun the idea of how smoking to men symbolized power, therefore women to gain power in a symbolical sense should start smoking. Pure Genius! These women were simply conforming to their sect of society and the cigarette companies were gaining grounds in business all because of Bernay’s ideas.

Bernay to venture into politics proved to be only another success. The idea of using popular culture icons such as movie stars to fling politicians images upward is again rather abstract thinking but extremely effective. He made mass society associate popular culture with politicians (who in a whole sense had few things in common) and therefore gain support just through recognition. In my mind I think that at this point Bernay could use his profession in just about anything. His work in psychoanalysis could be connected and used with just about any area that consisted of shaping society to act or behave a certain way. What if Bernay dabbled his ideas into other things such as music or athletic events during this time? Would we now be recognizing different sport stars or musicians for their work during that time?
Now you may ask why I regarded Bernay’s ideas as being “dangerous”. It’s not because his motives of that time were dangerous but what if his motives had been different. The ability to alter and control peoples’ minds is outright scary. Now is when World War 2 and the connection between Bernay’s ideas and Germany’s propaganda usage become relevant. I think there is a direct correlation between the way Joseph Goebbels used propaganda to make most Germans during WW2 let loose of their moral and ethical conscience. He simply “manipulated the masses” and led German society to believe that their motives behind engaging in the war were right and anyone that challenged their beliefs were incorrect. Again it’s scary how this idea and ability to use anything from magazines, movies, commercials, etc to control a mass group of people can conduct such immoral activities. The progress in itself is a powerful one that could produce a wide variety of outcomes such as advancements, successes, and even huge mistakes.
Personally after watching the video there was a lot of questions that first came to mind. Questions like; what if Bernay’s ideas connected to different parts of society? Also what if Bernay used his ideas to induce “bad things”, such as revolts or out lashes against certain accepted societal tendencies of the time? Could he of led people of America to believe anything, for any reason?

Key Words #1 (from first reading)

Justin Purvis

8/19/09

Hum-120

Keywords

(From Handout)
Mnemonic Socialization- A process that usually takes place when a person enters a new social environment that teaches a person how to remember events in history. This process can make a person acquire views on events or subjects that could be irrational or incorrect in a moral sense, but because of that persons social environment their view on the subject seems to be correct. For example when a person enters a new church their views of that church seem to transfer and show in the views of that person, even if a person had different views before entering that church. Overall mnemonic socialization is unavoidable and human nature in a sense that it shapes a person into adapting to their environment.

(From Reading)
Culture- Culture is a group of characteristics one gathers after living in a physical social environment and interacting with the people of that environment. It goes deeper than just traditions a person gains due to the area there from. It’s the type of personality they have due to socializing with other people of that culture and having their ideas and beliefs reflect on them. A culture shapes not only a person’s views on subjects but how they analyze and judge any subject or event that they have to think about. A persons culture overall determines the way a person acts, thinks, looks, and lives to the point where it turns into a natural way of life.

Key Words

Justin Purvis
Hum-120
8/23/09
KeyWords

Informing popular culture- The act of how multi mass medias inform people of other types of lifestyles and popular culture going on within society. These mass media’s communicate forms of alternative culture and hybrid lifestyles to its viewer.

National Popular- This term was derived from the writings of Marxist, Antonio Gramski. National Popular refers to the connection of economical structure of a nation to its superstructure consisting of its values and beliefs in terms of politics, culture, education, and religion. Overall the National Popular raised many questions as to how culture operates within a society.

3rd Paper Proposal (Correct One)

For my next paper I know exactly what idea I want to explore. Music has always caught and held my interest from a young age. But since that young age when I started fir admiring music, it has changed indefinitely. The music world simply isn’t the same as it was thirty years ago. Over the years I have grown to admire all types of music from all genre and era's, but it seems that the present in my eyes has the least to offer in being musically rich and appealing. I want to argue that music is dying! In today’s world originality and uniqueness is growing harder and harder to find. Everything is shaped in a way that makes it generic and socially acceptable, therefore no new types of original music are being spawned. I don’t want to sound like a critic that just favors classic legendary artists with no openness to the present or future but I want to basically overview that the music industry is changing drastically and in my opinion it’s for the worse.

The music industry itself will be my main focus of my paper. Things commercially have changed from the past in a harsh way. The idea of buying albums is almost comical in today’s world. Today it’s all about illegal downloading and buying music individually track by track off the Internet. Now that not what music is about. Instead of today’s society gaining knowledge in music, albums, and history of music of their generation they are simply downloading an ongoing mix tape of individual songs that appeal to them. Maybe this idea might seem economically correct to the person but ethically I think any music enthusiast will have his/her criticism.

What is going to happen to the music industry? According to numerous sites album sales are declining by 20% a year, a year! What is going to happen to that trend when it hits bottom? Is music going to go out of fashion because it’s so hard for artists can’t make money? In my eyes it would be sad but justified seeing extremely talented musicians 30 years from now selling albums out of the trunk of their cars and at shows in fear of engaging in the past commercial way of doing things.

Finally what will the music industry be fifty years from now? To me that questions answer is almost scary to think about. Will the music industry of tomorrow be anything like todays? Is music going to lose its focus of existing out of personal expression and enjoyment to existing to stimulate income? Will artists start replicating music that they think society approves of and wants to hear? There are so many different ideas to engage in when talking about the future of the music industry to people like me it’s an ongoing rant about how this ship is sinking and sinking fast.

I know my ideas might seem scatterbrain and opinionated at times but this argument is just so out there and interesting to discuss. I think I could do a great job of exploring the tomorrow of the music industry and what we can do to affect its revival or demise.......
As for my sources go, my first source I plan to use is a book called Nuthin But A G Thing by Eithne Quinn. This book is very informational historically and it shares ideas about the music of rap and hip hop through the years. My next source is a book by William Mckeen called Rock And Roll Is Here to Stay. This book has a cluster of things concerning the music industry from interviews with musicians to statements from the music industry’s top leaders commercially. Right now I have two legitimate internet sources both concerning the music industry’s future on an economical standpoint. The first article is called simply What is going to happen to the music industry by Melissa Chang. This article questions things like music sales and the process of selling music while trying to determine what will happen in the future. My next source and probably favorite article I have found is out of the New York Times called What’s The Future of the Music Industry. This article is a perfect representation of what I want to write about in my paper. It includes everything from economics to questioning the fate of musical artist of tomorrow’s society….