I have never been fascinated with end-of-the-world films and ever since our class on movies and the Apocalypse, I have been trying to understand why so much of the world loves to imagine the end of its own being.
Conrad Ostwalt, in his chapter on apocalyptic films suggested people are preoccupied with the end of the world imaginations because it is connected to the postmodern context that tends to deny anything absolute. As he stated, “if the absolute falls, so falls all else.” I think it’s a little more complicated than just a tendency to deny anything absolute… but I have yet to understand what that may be.
I definitely find comfort in believing in a world that will exist long after I am gone. Surely, my need for the world to be absolute is partially what results in my disinterest in apocalyptic films. But I also enjoy feeling connectedness to the people around me. Apocalyptic films bring about feelings of desolation and loneliness – feelings I don’t yearn for on a daily basis.
I have seen several end of the world films but the one that stands out in my mind is Left Behind. Now that I think of it, it was a bit of a funny experience. My friend (who happened to be Muslim) invited about 15 friends to watch a movie for her birthday. None of us expected to watch such a horrible film as Left Behind proved to be (4.5 stars on IMDb). I clearly remember leaving the movie theatre feeling as though I had lost an hour and half of my life forever. But at the same time, I felt a small sense of relief know I was “safe” if the apocalypse were to come since I had been going to church at that time. Perhaps I am just being ignorant to reality but I would just rather live without having to worry about the end of the world looming over me.
With so many successful end-of-the-world films such as Independence Day and Armageddon and the extremely long list of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction listed on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction) can you please help me understand why it is so popular? Surely, there is something I’m missing out on.
Hi Georgia, I can sense your frustration about Bristol Palin and what the Republican government has done. I agree with you in that abstinence-only education is utterly ineffective.
I believe there are advantages and disadvantages to both abstinence-only education and sex-education that need to be addressed. Neither is perfect but in my opinion, sex-education is definitely safer and more effective than abstinence-only education.
Abstinence-only education promotes refraining from sex until marriage and avoids the discussion of use of contraceptives. Advocates for abstinence-only education believe education around the use of contraceptives and safe sex encourages sexual activity. In my opinion, their thinking is flawed. However judgmental this statement may be, I know many will agree that teenagers aren’t the most willing people to refrain from what they are told not to do. Questioning authority and making their own judgments is part of the process in going through the teenage years (I can personally attest to that). I disagree with those who say abstinence-only education is ineffective because teenagers will be sexually active whether we like it or not. This views teenagers as animalistic beings with no agency. Instead, I believe abstinence-only education is ineffective because sex becomes forbidden and strikes even more curiosity among teens.
Underage drinking can serve as an example of how keeping something prohibited will be more detrimental than allowing for its familiarity. In 2004, The Washington Post found that Europe has a lower prevalence of underage drinking than in America. Researchers concluded that the familiarity of moderate alcohol drinking (i.e. wine with dinner) within European families likely resulted in less binge drinking among youth. On the contrary, in America alcohol was seen as more of a prohibited activity for youth and therefore resulted in more binge drinking.
Having sex-education classes for youth and teenagers will be more effective than forcing abstinence-only education upon them. Not only is abstinence-only education an interference of religious teaching in schools, but it is also fails to prepare teenagers for the real world. Critics of sex-education say that it encourages teenagers to be sexually active. They are pointing the finger at something that is seeking to help teenagers make safe choices, should they need to rather than looking at the broader social context and the thousands of pro-sex messages teenagers encounter everyday. Sex is everywhere in the media and I don’t imagine it disappearing anytime soon. Trying to tell teenagers they should not and cannot do something while the media is sending the opposite messages will not be a difficult battle. The media will be more powerful and transmit more enticing messages than any abstinence-only educator. It is only logical to help teenagers be aware of safe sex than trying to deny its existence altogether.
Condit (1987, 1990) categorized representations of abortions on television into three types: 1) regulatory programs, 2) miscarriage/false pregnancy and 3) pro-abortion. These three types form the norm of generally acceptable abortion themes on television. Women going through abortions were portrayed as having autonomy over their decisions, but were always depicted as having to endure emotional conflict throughout the decision process. Press & Cole (1999) believe a woman’s decision to go through with an abortion and social class codes the viability of their choice.
The authors go on to suggest middle-class women portrayed on television are often shown contemplating abortions under selfish motives for a problem that has multiple solutions. In contrast, lower-class women are depicted as having financial hardship, which is considered a legitimate circumstance for choosing abortions.
I agree with Press & Cole in that abortions on television (and in film) have become dependent on the character’s social class, however, I believe a character’s age equally reframes the viability of choices for abortion.
In the television program Glee, the popular cheerleader Quinn Fabray becomes pregnant and at one point is not sure whether she will keep the baby. Although in the end she decides to go through with the pregnancy, the question of abortion was brought up immediately, without any thought. Also, in the movie Juno, the sixteen-year-old high school character, Juno MacGuff, becomes pregnant. Her first instinct is to visit an abortion clinic but, like Quinn in Glee, decides to go through with her pregnancy. Both characters later give up their babies for adoption. In both situations, it seems as though youth, like financial hardship of lower-class women, is seen as an equally legitimate circumstance to choose to have an abortion.
Press & Cole’s study aimed to understand the relationship between women’s ideas about abortion, the family, and their own identities with television images. Their findings resembled Detweiller & Taylor’s (2003) arguments on the roles of television in that they looked at how television acts as a teacher in both molding social behaviour and reflecting our values in its programs. If television acts to inform us and molds social behaviour, will this result in society adopting an even more exaggerated ageist mentality? Perhaps young characters on television and in film will continue to be portrayed as having legitimate circumstances for abortion because of their youth and this will be reflected in the attitudes of individuals. I believe this would be an unfortunate outcome since every situation is unique and complex and needs to be looked at under its own lens.
I enjoyed reading your post and I think you brought up some really important points.
The growing rate of teen pregnancies in America is definitely concerning. I don’t think we can point the finger at one cause for teen pregnancies… rather, it is a very complex issue that is likely a result of several sociocultural factors.
Firstly, like you mentioned, teen pregnancies have taken the spotlight in the media with television programs like MTV’s Teen Mom and 16 & Pregnant. Celebrities’ babies are more famous than ever before and share the covers of People magazine with their famous parents. This growing trend of having pregnancies so popular in the media makes me wonder whether media is driving the increase in teen pregnancies or whether popular culture is just a reflection of what is actually happening in America.
Another contributing factor to the growing rate of teen pregnancies is the lack of education on safe sex. Earlier this week, my classmate told me about her experience teaching health education to a class of grade 7 students. When discussing methods for practicing safe sex, she was shocked when many of her students believed withdrawal was one of the most effective methods to avoid pregnancy! It seems as though the popular culture and the available education (which is lacking) send contradicting messages to teenagers - the media seem to often glorify pregnancy while of course, education seeks to control it.
Is media just a reflection of the population? Perhaps popular culture is partially responsible for the rise in teen pregnancy rates. Or maybe they are mutually informing.
The last point you made about the four eighth grade girls was definitely a shock. This just speaks to the fact that there is a lack of parental guidance, which is another contributing factor to the growing rates of teen pregnancies. There is not enough critical dialogue happening between parents and children about the responsibilities that come along with raising a child, how to deal with peer pressure, and methods of birth control. If teenagers were more aware of the realities of pregnancy, it is very likely that fewer would be getting pregnant.
The issue of growing rates of teen pregnancy is complex and there are many causes that contribute to the problem. Influence from the media, lack of education, and lack of parental guidance all contribute to the increasing trend. I believe the key to lowering teen pregnancy rates is communication and education.
I enjoyed reading your post! This is definitely a topic I am unsure about… so I might as well spill my thoughts and blog about it!
Are musicians just artists or are they public figures? All musicians lie along a continuum measuring their status as public figures. On one end of the spectrum, there are musicians who create music for the sheer purpose of artistic expression. They don’t have articles published about them in the magazines and they don’t have to worry about the content of their lyrics based on who could potentially be listening to their songs. On the other end, we have artists like Akon and Eminem (like you mentioned) who are definitely public figures whose music reaches large audiences. It is these artists who are often criticized for any explicit content in their lyrics and are blamed when violent acts seem to parallel their music.
But, aren’t these “famous” musicians, who are now public figures, once artists creating music for the sole purpose of artistic expression too? How do we differentiate between those musicians who are allowed to say whatever they want in their lyrics and those musicians who should be more cognizant of their content?
On one hand, I don’t think it is fair that musicians who have “made it” should be expected to compromise the content of their lyrics because of people who might potentially listen to their songs. This takes away from the artist’s freedom in their expression and becomes less of an honest work of art. As discussed in class, Eminem was criticized for stating such violent fantasies in his songs, yet he claimed those songs served as an outlet for him to remain non-violent.
On the other hand, perhaps these individuals who are now in the public eye should realize they could potentially influence audiences through their music, so they should encourage positive messages, rather than controversial themes such as violence. There is little to no regulation of who is able to listen to what music. Although radio stations have “clean” versions of songs, all they are doing is taking out explicit language, but leaving all the violent themes. Other media outlets such as online file sharing and iTunes have nearly no regulations on who is able to download and listen to explicit songs. So, perhaps it is now up to the artists to take responsibility for restraining people from listening to violent themes through music and shield those who are unable to differentiate artistic expression from reality.
There is definitely a dilemma between artistic expression and social responsibility. This is certainly something I will continue to question in the future.
This is a post in response to: http://ekhoy.blogspot.com/2011/03/gaga-fame-monster-monsters-and.html
Lady Gaga's New Breed of Monsters
As discussed in class, the problematic most often used in popular culture is that monsters are beings that can’t understand themselves as not being forgiven, so they one thing they desire most is redemption. I believe there is a new breed of monsters being born in popular culture today, thanks to Lady Gaga.
Lady Gaga has become notorious for her outrageous outfits (see pictures below) and when asked about her fashion, she said that she is expressing herself in a way that she was unable to do in high school. She has also become widely known as an advocate for LGBT rights. With the release of her newest single “Born This Way”, Lady Gaga made a very positive and bold statement to her fans: that it’s okay to be who you are and we are all born this way. The music video for this song begins with the Manifesto of Mother Monster, the prologue, where Gaga talks about a new race, born without prejudices and concludes with the view of a city populated by this race.
Lady Gaga’s theme of monsters has been apparent since the release of her third EP in 2009, called The Fame Monster. She has also referred to herself as Mother Monster on several occasions and she affectionately refers to her fans as “Little Monsters”. These fans came to her “Monster Ball Tour” concerts often dressed in unique Lady Gaga-inspired outfits.
In class, it was mentioned that the word “monsters” derives from the Latin “monstrum” or “moneo/monstrare” and demonstrates, shows, or reveals something to us. What are Lady Gaga’s monsters showing us? I believe Gaga and her “Little Monsters” are showing us a reflection of the true selves we often wish we were courageous enough to be. Unlike vampires, werewolves, and other monsters prominent in popular culture, Lady Gaga’s new breed of monsters are not yearning for redemption. Instead, all they are yearning for is to be themselves. In my interpretation of Gaga’s affectionate view, monsters are more human than humans. Monsters are honest representations of ourselves and humans are drone-like beings filled with hatred. Being a monster is encouraged in this sense so that we can strive to and be comfortable with who we truly are.
We have been exposed to monsters that represent fear and falling from grace. We have also seen monsters that show us at our best. We are now being exposed to a new sense of monsters that show us our true selves.
In my opinion, the two definitions of violence brought forward in class were both unsatisfying. The maximal definition only looked at the brutish, harsh view of violence and the minimal definition did not consider implied and discursive violence. This just speaks to the complexity of violence and the difficulty in accurately defining what violence truly is.
We often talk about violence in sport and whether it can be justified. As mentioned in class and as discussed in Tracy Trothen’s (2009) article on violence in Canadian hockey, the ubiquity of violence in sport has resulted in its normalization. There is a tendency for people to think of violence in binary terms such as right or wrong. When discussing violence and sport, the focus is primarily on the perpetrator and the victim. For example, the recent widely discussed hospitalization of Max Pacioretty (the victim) after experiencing a violent hit from Zdeno Chara (the perpetrator) focused entirely on whether Chara should be suspended and how violence in hockey can affect youth. Rather than looking at violence under binary terms, I believe the theory of violence on a continuum (Falk, 2002) more accurately takes into account its intricacies. Violence can be seen as utility, risk management, and significant.
While continuing with the topic of violence in sport, I want to focus on the individual athlete and the violence they inflict on their bodies. Physically, athletes prepare for competition by working out at the gym and practicing technical skills. This physical preparation is an example of violence individuals willingly carry out on themselves. The underlying theory of exercise is the principle of overload – when an individual applies a greater than normal stress load on their bodies, training adaptation takes place and the body is stronger as a result. This type of violence can lie anywhere on the continuum of violence as utility (since the body is being made stronger for a useful purpose) and also as risk management (preventing physical injuries). The violence athletes inflict on themselves also have great significance to audiences. People who do not put themselves through physical training understand the importance of preparing the body for competition and see the importance for conditioning in sport.
Seeing violence under a continuum of utility, risk management, and significance not only takes into account the audience, but also understands the construct as more than just a binary. Defining violence is a difficult task since it is such a complex and our understanding of violence is constantly changing.
This is in response to Leah's post 'Athletes and the Fall from Grace http://popculturedisciple.blogspot.com/2011/03/athletes-and-fall-from-grace.html
Great post! I agree with you in that the worshipping of sports figures as “gods” can lead to the undesirable fall from grace. Athletes are humans too. Olympic athletes are people who live next to you. . . or sit next to you in class. Although there is the possibility that these people may make mistakes and these errors in judgment will likely be made public, I don’t think idolizing sports figures is such a bad thing. They represent very important values – hard work, determination, persistence and the list goes on. In the overwhelmingly obese North America that we live in today, I believe these athletes can also help promote healthy, active lifestyles.
In response to your original post, Marica (above) suggested that athletes who take performance enhancing drugs may do so to fulfill the image that fans place upon them. I would have to disagree with this. I don’t think athletes engage in banned practices to enhance performance to meet the expectations of fans; I believe they do so for their own selfishness and greed. If an athlete claimed to take banned substances or engage in illegal performance-enhancing practices as a result of their fans’ expectations, I would have to say it is more likely that it is the result of an athlete’s in own skewed perceptions of fan expectations. Expectations from fans are inevitable. If a person is competing in professional leagues, as unfortunate as it may be, they have become mere commodities that can be traded or sold.
This discussion of athletes as role models reminds me of last week’s talk about musicians as role models. If I were to compare both groups, I would have to say that on average, athletes are more positive role models for the general public than most pop stars or rap artists. What both groups have in common is that they all chose to be in the professions they are in. They worked hard for their dreams knowing full-well that they would be public figures. If they are willing to remain in their professions, they must all accept the fact that the public viewing them as role models is unavoidable. By accepting this, they should act accordingly based on what kind of person they would like to be perceived as. Too often, the mistakes people make are justified under the notion that “they are human and all humans make mistakes.” Yes, they are human. But no, they must understand that as professional athletes, should they make mistakes, the world will know about it.
There are many ways in which sports and Christianity overlap. The two share a dynamic and complex relationship. Two situations in which individual athletes interact with Christianity, which I find are both equally interesting and important, are: athletes are supreme god-like beings and God’s role on the playing field.
Athletes as Supreme, God-Like Beings
LeBron James, also a known as “King James”, has been portrayed as a god-like athlete. He is worshipped, idolized, and has a strong legion of “believers”. The slogan “we are all witnesses” was first introduced by Nike in November 2005. In June 2007, this particular advertisement (photo) was released as an “integrated marketing campaign” to celebrate James’ first appearance at the NBA finals. What, exactly, were “we” witnessing?
The world was witnessing LeBron James’ apparent “greatness, power, athleticism, and beautiful style of play”. I, personally, don’t follow the NBA, nor do I know very much about LeBron James but this advertisement and this marketing campaign is all too blatantly similar to Jesus or the second coming of the Christ. His outstretched arms below a sea of black nothingness, the melodramatic effect of the black-and-white design, and the Biblical slogan are almost too much for one to handle. The image may be too small to make out the small print at the bottom-left corner, but it says: “believe at nikebasketball.com”. As Leah mentioned in her post (Athletes and the Fall from Grace), viewing athletes as more than just a standard of good role models will almost always leave fans disappointed. In my response, I agreed what she said, however, I also said that athletes should understand that as a result of their membership in professional leagues, they should be prepared to be seen as role models to the public. This portrayal of LeBron James as almost the second coming of Christ is over-the-top and offensive.
God’s Role on the Playing Field
Similarly to celebrities thanking God at award shows, athletes often thank God for their success during games or competitions. Many athletes attribute their wins to the “power of God” and claim God played an important role in helping them succeed. How often have we seen basketball players pointing to the heavens after scoring a basket? We have also witnessed Olympic athletes dropping to their knees in prayer after winning gold medals. Did God really help them win? If so, did God want them to win over their opponents? While I’m sure most of us can think of several times we have seen or heard athletes thanking God after wins, how often do we hear athletes blaming God on losses? I have only come across this one time. Last year, Buffalo Bills player Steve Johnson took to twitter to blame God after dropping the game-winning pass in his team’s overtime loss. "I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO..." I do believe that spirituality can impact the holistic health of a person and can ultimately affect performance in sport. However, I am skeptical to think that God would personally have a hand in helping a certain athlete or team win over another.
Athletes as God-like figures and God’s role on the playing field are only two examples of how athletes and Christianity overlap. This speaks to the complexity and dynamic relationship between sports and religion.
In Brian Schill's (2007) article, he outlined Howard and Streck's topology of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) that divided Christian rock bands into three groups: separational, transformational, and integrational.
Having grown up going to church my whole life (until university), I am familiar with quite a few separational bands. On the other end of the spectrum, I can't name any transformational bands, other than the one discussed in class - U2. Obviously, the one group of Christian rock bands that I am (and probably most of us are) most familiar with is integrational rock bands.
“Integrational bands, while not explicitly evangelical rhetorically or behaviourally, give listeners all the sounds and style of today’s most popular rock and roll but offer symbols, lyrics, and lifestyles that remain consistent with Christian values.”
From Schill’s definition of integrational bands, it seems to me as though there is an enormous range of artists that can fit into this category - all the way from Switchfoot, to Relient K to Carrie Underwood. This definition is so vague that even Kanye West could be considered an integrational artist!
For 8 years, I played drums as part of the worship team at church. We always sang songs written by separational bands such as Hillsong or Chris Tomlin. Although they were good songs and added a lot to Sunday service, they were redundant and seemed irrelevant to many people. One Friday evening, our church had a “seeker sensitive” service where members of the church were encouraged to bring non-Christian friends. The worship team leader saw this opportunity and thought it would be appropriate to integrate popular music with Christian themes, such as “Dare You To Move” by Switchfoot and “Hanging By A Moment” by Lifehouse. I was horrified, and so was the rest of the church.
Ironically, this sort of music (although Christian) just seemed as though it was something that didn’t belong in church. In the song “Dare You To Move”, the lyrics are almost a call to worship. . . however, when singing it in church, not one person in the service dared to move. When singing “Hanging By A Moment”, I swear I heard crickets in the distance. Not one person responded to these songs because they were “too secular” for church.
I find it interesting that Switchfoot is more successful after having returned to the label of Gospel music. It was almost as though their music was “too Christian” for popular culture.
Other than bands who have publicly stated that their music is not at all related to their religious beliefs such as Paramore and Evanescence as well as country music artists, it seems as though integrational bands are the odd-balls in the music industry. They don’t seem to fit in mainstream culture and they don’t seem to be appreciated in the church.
I was planning on making this an original post but after reading ‘Faith + 1’, I decided to post it as a response to Josh!
This weekend, I was driving in my car listening to some of my favourite albums – nothing out of the ordinary. But thanks to SMC305, I had another ‘AHA’ moment about Christianity and Popular Culture.
The first album I was listening to was one of my all-time favourites – The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Although I have listened to this CD dozens of times, it wasn’t until this weekend that I delved deeper than the rhyming lyrics and smooth melodies. The first song that caught my attention was “To Zion”, a song written to her first son. The lyrics of this song reflect the story of Mary and Jesus and it is not difficult to relate the words to the Bible. She describes how an angel came to her and proclaimed she would be having a baby.
However, it wasn’t until the song “Forgive Them Father” that I realized just how deeply rooted in Christianity Lauryn Hill’s lyrics were. In this song, she uses text from The Lord’s Prayer to ask forgiveness for the state of the world. It was just surprising to me that after years of listening to this album, I had never been aware of how “Christian” her lyrics really were.
The ‘AHA’ moment didn’t come until I switched over to Leona Lewis, a pop singer from the UK, most famous for winning The X Factor and hit singles “Bleeding Love” and “Better in Time”. The song “Footprints in the Sand” is a musical interpretation of the popular Christian poem. Again, my ears were opened to the deeply Christian lyrics of her song, which sounds just like any other secular ballad on her CD.
It was just amazing to me that after a few years of listening to both these albums, I never truly listened to the lyrics and understood the meaning behind them until now. What’s more is that both artists had songs so deeply rooted in Christianity between songs that have been so successful on secular charts such as Billboard. It seems as though Christian artists are everywhere. Their singles may not always be their songs with Christian themes (Leona Lewis’ Footprints in the Sand was #2 in the UK) but those songs are still making it to these popular artists’ albums! There are other popular bands such as Lifehouse, Paramore, and Evanescence that have claimed to be Christian in interviews. Although many of these bands have decided to keep their music separate from their faith, it is obvious many of their lyrics still reflect Christianity. I think Christian bands are all around us, we just don’t know it!
I had been so annoyed with 'the Biebs' appearing in all the things I love - the Ellen Degeneres Show, Chelsea Lately, and especially GLEE.
...And today, he made his way into lecture!
No more Bieber, please. It's too much hair flipping for one to handle.
When reading the Detweiler and Taylor article, the metaphor that resonated with me the most was television – from a town square to a tribe. The authors pose the question: how did a medium designed to bring people together gradually segregate audiences? In my opinion, this segregation was inevitable and a necessary process that needed to take place for the growth of television. Detweiler and Taylor suggest this niche programming continues to subdivide American viewers by age, class, race, gender, and orientation and that more than half of our television viewing is done alone. However, I do not see this as a bad thing.
I love television. And as a self-admitting TV addict, I can tell you why I believe this direction toward personal programming is so great. Before I get started, it might be significant to note that I just realized when I say “television”, I am not longer referring to the appliance or the television set. When I say “television”, I am talking about the television shows and programs. Although television, as Detweiler and Taylor mentioned, was a medium that was originally designed to bring people together, I believe it is more useful and powerful as a medium for personal entertainment.
Digital video recorders, thousands of channels, downloading torrents, and on-demand streaming of shows online all provide audiences with personalized television experiences. The multitude of channels that airs shows targeted towards specific audiences definitely segregates people but it also caters to the needs of groups with different interests and values. These networks and sitcoms that catered to niche markets provided characters audiences could identify with, which made television more meaningful. With our busy schedules, who is able to sit down for an hour (or two. . . or six) every week to “tune in” to their favourite shows? I can’t remember the last time I sat on the couch to watch a television show when it was on. Instead, I watch shows online! It allows me to watch what I want, when I want it (sorry for sounding like a Rogers on Demand advertisement, but it’s true!) I no longer have to plan my schedule around a 1-hour time slot in the evening, but I can take a break from mid-day studying and watch the show that aired last night.
Although television once brought people together physically, I feel as though the true “bringing together of people” happens when two or more talk about a television show or a recently aired episode. For example, I absolutely love the show GLEE. I prefer to watch the show alone because I wouldn’t want to risk missing one of Sue Sylvester’s witty lines after being distracted by the person next to me. Maybe that’s a bit hardcore, but for me, the social bonding doesn’t happen when a television show is airing. . . it happens when I can talk about it with friends the next day.
Although television was once a medium that brought people together physically, it has evolved over time to cater to individual needs and continues to serve as a “town square” when people discuss television shows.
Leah,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post about sneaker culture especially because I share the same interest as you. I wouldn’t consider myself a bonafide “sneakerhead” but more just someone with a genuine interest in and infatuation with sneakers. I remember walking into a small skateboard shop and instantly falling in love with the Nike SB dunk highs. What is fascinating to me is that over the years, sneaker culture has developed from the streets and now also exists over the internet – an online sneaker culture! Not only does this culture bring about a sense of identity and belonging for its members, but it also gives meaning to life, and there are often stories of how sneaker culture “saved” people. Thanks to Gordon Lynch’s book, my eyes are once again opened to yet another piece of popular culture that has religious functions in society!
How is sneaker culture social?
There is a sense of social bonds and community within sneaker culture. Members have respect for one another through something that is deeper than a common interest – a shared lifestyle. There is a language that has developed through sneaker culture that is exclusive to its members. Sneakerheads are often loyal to their brands and identify themselves according to where their loyalties lie.
How is sneaker culture hermeneutical?
After briefly talking to you about our shared love for sneakers, you suggested that I watch the documentary Just For Kicks. I absolutely loved it! In the documentary, a recurring theme was that sneaker culture was not just a hobby for collectors or enthusiasts – it was a way of life. People found meaning through their passion for sneakers.
How is sneaker culture transcendent?
Toronto Loves Kicks is an organization that seeks to empower youth by using sneakers as a tool for empowerment. The following is information from their website:
Toronto Loves Kicks is a unique Social Enterprise that aims to strengthen social responsibility, youth empowerment and engagement through creative programs and events. The foundation of these programs and events will be a direct reflection of the urban, youth and sneaker culture which is the key to getting the attention of today’s youth.
Toronto Loves Kicks is one example of how sneaker culture has functioned as a tool for transcendence.
For more information on Toronto Loves Kicks, here is a link to their website: Toronto Loves Kicks
Thank you to Elona and Georgia, for sparking my sudden interest in this topic for this blogpost. Elona's post on Jersey Shore and Georgia's response to my post on celebrities and religion gave rise to this idea.
YouTube was created in early 2005 and in only six years, the website has become the world's most widely used medium for uploading and viewing video content. In my personal opinion, YouTube has greatly contributed to society - and its contributions are not limited to how it has innovated the way we share and view videos.
Just as Dustin Kidd argued in his article that popular cullture, by virtue of its ubiquty is normal, YouTube has also become a norm in society. The website began as a platform for individuals to upload original content and continues to serve that purpose, however, now large media corporations also share material through the website. In November 2006, YouTube was bought by Google Inc. for $1.65 billion.
For the purpose of organization, I borrowed Dustin Kidd's subheadings and tweaked them to relate to YouTube.
YouTube as a Space of Norm Production
I'm sure most people have either been part of or witnessed a conversation about a YouTube video. It is normal to say "I saw this video on YouTube..." or after recording an embarrassing video jokingly (or non-jokingly) say, "I'm going to put this on YouTube!" Media corporations use the website as another means of communicating and transmitting their messages about social norms - what to wear, how to act, etc. Viewers are exposed to more ideas about social norms through video bloggers, music videos, news reports... pretty much every video uploaded on the site!
YouTube and Social Boundaries
As Dustin Kidd argued, popular culture helps constitute our identities and also separate our identity categories from others. In the same way, YouTube offers a system to strengthen our identities by creating lists of "similar videos" for users. Subscriptions help individuals stay connected to other users who share similar identities and the "Trending Videos" section of the website offer users a way of knowing what the rest of the world is watching. These features on the website reinforce social boundaries and our understanding of the norm.
The Rituals of YouTube
YouTube allows for shared sentiment through its multitude of videos, whether it be a new music video, a cute kitten video, or a man talking about a bedroom intruder. The millions of people who watch these videos share a sense of meaning. It is also very common for groups of friends to come together to watch a funny YouTube video together or pass links to friends through Facebook and Twitter.
YouTube and Innovation
YouTube has redefined the way we share and view video. Individuals are invited to broadcast themselves through a medium that can reach the worldwide audience within minutes. Unlike traditional television, the viewer has freedom to search what they are looking for and can interact with the video creators by rating videos, commenting, or making video responses. Not only has YouTube given new meaning to video, but it has also reshaped the music industry. YouTube gave new meaning to music videos, a marketing device that had lost much of its significance at the start of the millennium. Many talented artists who made videos either for fun or to get noticed by record labels have been signed to major labels and everyday people have made themselves into celebrities. Through YouTube, anyone can be an expert (e.g. make-up tutorials) and anyone can be a critic.
YouTube as the Road to Change
The main positive contribution YouTube made to society was a bottom-up quality. The public was responsible for the original and creative content on the website. However, after the interference of large media corporations, the website became commercialized and has more of a top-down quality. YouTube allows for interaction between creators and consumers where the everyday person can share their opinions.
I am an absolute YouTube junkie. Often times, instead of Googling topics, I search YouTube to see what opinions people have to say. I never thought I would reflect so deeply on YouTube, but this course continues to surprise me week by week!
Here are some of my favourite YouTube videos... maybe some of these will allow for shared sentiment!
I would fill this blogpost with a million videos if I didn't think it seemed too excessive.
This past weekend, the Golden Globes recognized "excellence" in film and televeision. Ricky Gervais hosted the event and took the opportunity to make some cheeky, yet controversial, jokes about Hollywood stars. Five days after the awards show (which is an eternity on the internet), Gervais' opening monologue is still one of the most viewed videos on YouTube. This is how he ended the show:
Ricky Gervais, who has many times publically stated that he is atheist, reminded me of those celebrities who personify secularity, yet always thank God in their acceptance speeches. Some celebrities, most likely, are genuinely thanking God in that moment; however, it is obvious that other celebrities are nonsensically offering their thanks and just going through the motions of acceptance speeches.
In the past, actress Scarlett Johansson and comedian Kathy Griffin both made public statements about the absurdity of other celebrities’ thanks to God during acceptance speeches.
Claiming actors and actresses who thank God in their acceptance speeches are an embarrassment to the profession, Scarlett Johansson said in an interview, "Some people can be so goofy, especially the ones that say, 'I'd like to thank our Lord Jesus up above!' I'm like, 'For the love of God, keep your mouth shut. That's why the world is so f***ed up because God is focusing solely on your career.'"
At the 2007 Emmy Awards, Kathy Griffin, in her acceptance speech she said, “Now, a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn't help me a bit. If it was up to him, Cesar Millan would be up here with that damn dog. So all I can say is suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!”
She later explained that her comments were meant to be a satire of celebrities who themselves are controversial yet thank Jesus for their awards.
It seems as though the act of thanking God publically has become such a routine part of awards shows. And regardless of a person’s faith or secular themes they promote, God can still have a hand in helping the rich get richer. The lines between Christianity and popular culture are blurred. Perhaps while these celebrities are selling sex through their work, the mention of God helps these individuals remain moral beings?
Good point at the end! I didn't even consider the fact that Ned should have been at church too.
I agree with you – the Flanders are not good Christian role models. But I believe they are very accurate representations of many “Christians” in the world today. Having gone to church since the day I was born, I have come across every type of church-goer, which includes people or entire families that act very much like the Flanders. Like you mentioned, the Flanders seem more interested in keeping their church’s membership up than in being true to their faith. I had been part of a church that split into two sides after years of political tension. The church that had split formed two separate, new churches and fought over the remaining members. Both churches played a game of tug-o-war to increase their membership and frowned upon individuals who decided to attend the church that opposed them. Although both churches continued to practice the same religion, the people seemed to care less about whether individuals were true to their faith than whether they attended the “right” church. The Flanders and their concern for their church’s membership over faith seems to be an accurate representation of many people involved in the Christian church today.
The scene with the Flanders singing the hymn was probably my favourite part of the episode because it reminded me of Christian missionaries who do the same thing around the world. Many of these missionaries decide populations of low- and middle-income countries need Christianity more than anything else and spend resources without looking at what communities might actually need. More often than not, people who go to LMICs end up gaining more out of their experience than the communities they were visiting (Darnell, 2007). The Flanders remind me very much of people who travel across the world with missionary zeal to sing hymns and talk about Christianity whether the local populations want to listen or not.
Darnell, S. (2007). Playing with race: Right to Play and the production of ‘whiteness’. Sport in Society, 10(4), 560-579.
The title of this first post is borrowed from my favourite band's most recent album. The band explained the meaning behind that title in an interview "in order for our band to move on to whatever's next — and also us personally, as individuals, in order to grow up — [we needed to start] seeing each other, seeing everything, in a whole new perspective."
This was what resounded with me the most after today's first class.
I'm going to start looking at mass media in the context of North American culture through 'brand new eyes'.
...It's nearly 2AM, but I wanted to get this blog started for now. More reflection later, sleep now.
