Mainstream

Being that New Keywords is a book encompassing words dealing with culture and society, I thought it would be fitting to discuss the word, “mainstream.” It has a transitional yet subtle difference between being used as a noun and adjective. Originally meaning the "principal current of a river," 1667, from main (adj.) + stream, hence, "prevailing direction in opinion, popular taste, etc.," a fig. use first attested in Carlyle (1831).” Also looking through already given Keywords I expected to see mainstream but came to no avail, but I did see the word “mass” which can be very closely related. Especially in this age of the ever growing popular culture, mainstream has become a term familiar in every which way to describe a certain aspect of what the mass of people do.

A combination of two words “main” and “stream.” This can literally be taken as the most important flow of something. And that’s exactly what it has become. It has since then changed and used more symbolically to mean “the common current of thought of the majority.” As an adjective it’s used to describe the “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.”

A common term that goes along with this word is mainstream media. We are so affected by the media in a collective sense that one can fall into the category of subconsciously associating things with mainstream media. When we discuss things with our friends, teachers, parents, etc. we usually can relate through things seen or heard in the mainstream media. “Did you hear that band on the radio?” or “Did you see that show last night?” Comments of this nature usually can be answered with a yes and can be related to.

But can we really define mainstream to one particular group belonging to music, art, sports, etc.? It’s something that is used so specifically yet one can question its ambiguity. Much related to this is what the word mass describes. Taken from New Keywords, “…not with the entire population but with ‘the popular or lower orders.” And can’t be taken as a synonym for mainstream per se, because mainstream embodies and connotes more than just the masses, but more the ideals, thoughts and feelings of a group. It can maybe be taken as a more updated term of the word mass by being related in every which way to “popular” culture, whether it is through music, art or anything that can be thought belonging to a large group. It is said that it is “the loss of individuality,” which in a sense can be true with being mainstream by being apart of something thought of as unauthentic by the masses.

References:

An interesting blog about mainstream I found, while searching for sources, can be viewed here: http://jenasblog9817.logme.nl/2008/07/22/myth-of-the-mainstream-3/ I didn’t read it myself yet because I didn’t want my post to have similar ideas.

"Mainstream." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream. 2008 ed. 2008.

"Mainstream." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 22 July 2004, 10:55 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 10 Aug. 2004. <>.

Morley;, David. New Keywords : a Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 2005.

Final Impressions

First impressions definitely did not tell anything about this class. The moment I sat down, knowing that it was a writing class; on the first day of summer session I knew and felt that it was not going to be pleasant. However, when Mr. Schaberg introduced the idea that we would be doing all of our writing through blogs I felt intrigued. Days go by turning into weeks and now we’re finally approaching the end.
My overall feeling about writing in this format is surprisingly pleasant and enlightening. I feel this idea was a good “experiment”, because we’ve definitely come a long way from writing on paper. On a side note, this class kind of reminds me of the film “Freedom Writers” in which a teacher goes about an “unorthodox” way of teaching by making her students write in diaries. The internet has allowed spontaneity and creativity at the convenience of media such as blogs and facebook. But although providing a sense of anonymity, these blogs have created somewhat of a loss of privacy, in comparison to traditional writing. Comments and critiques made to one’s writing can be read throughout. And most importantly is what the teacher has responded to. This could be more positive than negative though, because others can gather information about how to change their own writing as well. As opposed to traditional writing I feel that I wouldn’t be writing on as a personal or creative level. Because for one usually writing topics are somewhat bland and subjective, and secondly because not everyone would be reading what I’ve written, just the teacher. And I can honestly say that I’ve been able to read at least one or more posts from every student in this class, which has helped me grow in my writing and critiquing. And from this realization I’ve noticed my own way of writing has changed. I’ve allowed myself to put a little bit of my own personality in my writing rather than just writing for a grade.
Of course I’m only basing this off the English AP course I took in high school and the one English class I took during freshman year. But I wonder up to what point and how much writing would one have to do to be deemed “sufficient” at it? And how much about writing would be taken from this class? To answer in my own perspective, this “high level of writing” has kept me both intellectually and creatively thinking while being sure not to treat it as casual. And yes I’ve somewhat said this already but that’s just the thing that is so important about this style of writing. It’s interesting to have watched my own evolution, as well as others, in writing throughout such a short period of time. Maybe it’s because I haven’t had a thought stimulating class such as this in a while, because numbers and calculations do not promote this level of creativity.

Passing the time.

Unable to find my creative side this week, I figured that I would use a picture I took last year. Recently purchasing a DSLR I experimented with the exposure, aperture, and f stop of the camera and ended up with a "time-lapsed" image of people passing in a mall. Although being that it was a pretty expensive camera it’s still hard to take a clear image without a tripod in this manner. I’m not quite sure what made me decide to take a picture like this of this, but it might’ve been because I find human traffic interesting. I find it curious how people move while certain objects stay still. And also the opposite, how people can be perfectly still while others around them are moving. The dispersal of people also makes for an interesting sight. Everyone’s line of paths are all unique, we don’t see all people following one another forming a uniform line. Everyone is moving about doing up to their own desires. I wonder if prolonging this image for a longer period of time would just turn the picture out to be a big blur. Even in this short time lapse individuals lose their identity and appear as ghostly images. This is a moving world and there is little time for standing around. It makes me think of how things are always advancing and people looking for new things to make life less monotonous. Everything changes in one way or another.

The mall seems to contain its own world. No matter day or night, bright lights and crowds make up the essence of the environment. And could you guess where this mall is? Probably not, since most malls take this familiar form and shape. Logically, there should be a large walk way and outsized pillars supporting the infrastructure and separating levels and stores. And what is a mall without a barrage of “kiosks” in the middle lining the whole walk way? I probably wouldn’t even have to explicitly mention what was pictured. Taking a closer look at the kiosks, it seemed like everything they were selling was targeted for tourists, i.e. keychains, postcards, jewelry, clothing. And why do they have a kind of sun shade when they’re indoors? What kind of setting are they trying to provide to that whole mall atmosphere? Some of them look to be left unattended to as well. And this is a thing I notice in my own “walking through the mall” experience as well.

Addressing a recent post as well, in Carol’s photo entry Chris brought up the curiosity with the “blending” of "nature and modernization.” If you look hard enough you can see in the top right corner a small little plant amongst the midst of everything man-made. What are they trying to accomplish by having it there? It could also just be fake and just for decoration, but why have it there if it serves no purpose? I guess people want that feeling of being outside while they’re inside. Almost like containing nature, how ironic…But, although being in another country, this mall still looks like any other you would find in the U.S. and probably all around the world. Specifically this is in the heart of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The mall sits underneath the other infamous twin towers (not to be confused with the ones that were in New York). It seems to be a universal structure containing what seems to be the desire of most tourists. Sometimes people travel to get away from the “normal” life but find themselves in a similar atmosphere in place away from home.

Mediated Image

In Arlen’s earlier post on image he views the word, “image”, as how people see objects. But it’s not just objects but how people perceive everything. And as stated in New Keywords image “…has always been marked by a fundamental ambiguity.” (pg. 178) Leaving the term to be more than restricted to only objects. He also states that a seemingly nice guy can have an image of looking like someone overpowering and strong for their size. And some people may not see it or you that way but rather a self proposed image seen through a mirror, which can be deceiving. He discusses a phenomenon called “mirror strength,” which makes me believe it is just nothing more than just a one’s self-image.

Taking it to the video of Ali G, he is a funny character because of his image as a gangster-wannabe thuggish European foreigner yet doing a “serious” interview on media. I won’t discuss media per se, as I’ve already done so in a previous post, but more rather about image and how it can change the view of someone’s character. And as was discussed this week in class, he satirizes things to the point where it’s so ridiculous and innocently ignorant that it becomes comedic. Much like the Daily Show and many other comedies. They satirize what the media portrays as so important and serious, which makes them more entertaining than bland old regular news. Through these kinds of media we can ridicule and laugh at serious matters. Especially in the way that their film is edited. I forget where I figured this out but after I realized that the Daily Show cut and edits parts and puts them together to make it awkwardly funny I began to see the show in a different way and not too comedic and just silly.

For example, if a professor were to take the place of Ali G and carry on with the interview on media it would not give the same sense of satire. Being an accredited scholarly person, him asking the same questions to those people would seem insulting. The question, “Have you ever read a book?” has some seriously negative connotations to it. And because of Ali G’s appearance and image, the way he’s dressed, we can just laugh it off because it seems like “Oh, he doesn’t know more than that person so it’s funny.”

Most Sacha Baron Cohen’s characters (Ali G, Borat, Bruno, etc.) give off such an image that you know can’t be serious. Through the way he dresses, gestures he makes, his physical appearance, accent and speech are already comedic enough. And the people he supposedly interviews seem to take him seriously. And I’m wondering if this were just a thing that youngsters like me would take his appearance as? Or it could all be scripted and just for entertainment, because ratings matter more than telling truths.

And when Arlen states, “Only when the person really gets to know you, the image of you they see is actually what you truly are.” I don’t really believe people will supposedly change their image of you, but rather know more of where you’re coming from when they really get to know you through your personality. One’s image to me always stays the same.

Mobile Distraught

Reading through a few people’s blogs, I found the recurring theme of mobility and its relation to cell phones. Two in particular, Danielle and Peter’s post which talked about two very important points about mobility, our reliance and usage of it. The breaking down of technological mobility in Danielle’s post proves an interesting point. From the moment she realized that her phone was not going to come back from the dead she sought out an alternate source of communication, relying on the internet as a second resort. But what would she have gone to next, if hypothetically, her internet were down? And what if she weren’t in a situation that she could go to a personal computer? This exemplifies the constant importance that mobility has become in our contemporary lives. And as Danielle pointed out that the transfer of email is not instant, unless by some miraculous coincidence the receiving end happens to be there at that moment. And because of the fact that mobile technology has become an almost necessary part of everyone’s lives, communication between two people through cell phones is instant at almost any moment. Even at 3 A.M. something so important may come up that someone feels the need to contact someone immediately. At the moment and location of each person on both ends of this call, mobility plays a major role. And the feeling of not receiving that call can drastically affect someone’s life. Personally, whenever I get a call from my family it’s usually important. And it’s because of this importance that psychologically we are affected and ‘stressed’ when something like this happens. So this brings up the final question of whether this mobility in technology has actually done us more harm than good or vice versa. From here we can only expect advances and maybe soon we’ll be blobs just like the “humans” in Wall-E. For the time being we may be mobilized, but when it fails or goes too far we are left immobilized.

Now going in a slightly different direction, how is mobility exploited in advertising? It was funny that in Peter's post people from outside of this class read his post and were somewhat insulted by his interpretation. The way in which Peter carried out his analysis of the foreign cell phone ad offended people who saw it in a different light and who maybe knew a bit more background information. So we see how there is most definitely two sides to a post subject. But we only see one whenever we read someone’s blog. This brings up the saying “lost in translation”. But isn’t that what an ad is supposed to be? An individual interpretation left up to the reader to determine whether it appeals to them or not? And mobility is not a term to be taken only in one way, there can be variations depending on age, race, culture, and everything else that differentiates us from everyone else. There are lifestyles that demand the need for such an advanced phone. For example the “pop” star in this ad probably needs to keep constant contact with all his managers, producers, promoters, etc. And as Merry commented, the ad could also be just an ad for Leehom’s new album and more than for just the phone itself. And it would seem as if they didn’t just arbitrarily choose a Chinese pop star to showcase the ad. Because as it was also said, Leehom’s album promoted environmental awareness as does the phone by being able to use one’s own energy instead of electricity to change songs on the music player. And there can also be the subliminal message of changing one’s life through getting this phone as Peter pointed out. Again, it is left to the reader and their circumstance to distinguish whether they need the features of this phone or not, and if it may or may not change them. And I’m sure this phone, or any phone for that matter, would improve one’s mobility. But besides mobility would it improve your quality of life? These days the majority of people are looking for convenience in everything (ex. peanut butter and jelly in the same jar), but is this just an excuse for being lazy? Mobility is described in New Keywords as being “an attribute to life…” (pg. 217), but in modern reality it has become a part of life itself.

WTF Kind of advertising...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Subcultures (revisited)

There are so many subcultural groups everywhere you go. Many are considered different from eachother. In high school I remember how segregated it was between groups of people with different interests. I don’t want to sound cliché, but here is a small list of groups: “emo”, goths, jocks, “nerds”, hipsters, etc. I found it interesting how Asians were a made up of such a large number of groups of their own with no apparent similar interests. Within the group of Asians, I personally saw many subcultures span out more than any other group. There were the smart and nerdy, preppy, "ghetto", ricers, jocks, fob (sorry if offensive) and so much more. But because of the fact that they even share this identity they are able to form a group out of their own difference to the rest of the population. And I’m sure each group of people consider themselves to be “normal”. But the definition of difference in New Keywords states it’s “the quality of being unlike or dissimilar”. And how is being unlike or dissimilar judged? Basing it from being different than “normal” is still so vague and left up to the interpretation of each individual. But the fact is that every subcultural group was formed out of having an uncommon yet common interest that is different to anything else. And you can still see this difference extended into the college atmosphere of clubs and fraternities. They gather and recruit anyone that share a common interest to form a their own society or extend an existing one. And it comes down to whether the word different holds a positive, negative or neutral implication. Having to describe someone as different doesn’t necessarily have a positive sound, since different would mean “abnormal” to many people. Being misunderstood is one of the biggest problems that cause a separation and a possibly negative connotation to the word different. And we still see this separation of ideals that creates misconceptions between each subculture. If it weren’t for diversity there wouldn’t be a difference in the world and everything would just seem monotonous. Nothing would hype your curiosity because you would already know what’s going to happen.

"Ingredients for life"

Safeway, the name in itself doesn't really imply what this store actually offers or provides. It sounds like a medical facility of some sort. But as I make my biweekly journey to this haven for my survival I've noticed quite a few things. The literal translation of diasporas is the "the scattering of seeds" (Pg. 82). This can define Safeway in a literal sense as well. With the wide variety of items they sell at these stores there's really no need to go to a specialty store that caters to any one culture. They sell everything from soy sauce to cottage cheese. And you even notice the people that shop there, everyone of every race, gender, and belief (ok maybe not those who eat kosher). This is a place where almost every culture can be catered, not authentically, but close.

You can often judge a persons lifestyle from what people have in their cart. A woman buying fresh vegetables and raw meat will always be healthier than a woman loading up on frozen “tv dinners”. And is it because of the convenience or rather the laziness of one person to take the time and actually make a healthy meal?

In the recent years (I think) they’ve just added a section that sells cooked food. I see a man dressed in traditional Japanese garb chopping up sushi. And right next to him there’s a woman serving Chinese fast food, as well as sandwiches and fried chicken. This bringing together of the “culture-influenced” foods is almost a "diasporic consciousness" in itself; the longing for return that created this demand for diversified food.

The dispersal of people into designated lines is also interesting. There are self-checkout and “15 items or less” lanes. Why don’t they just replace all the cashiers with self-checkout stations? Granted it’s easier for people to steal things it probably would make up for the wages they would have to pay hourly. And the others search for that numbered beacon of light that indicates an open real life cashier. And once you're done you realize you will have to do this all over again next week.

English, can I write it?

A great point to argue is why our University of California system requires every student to take UWP101 (University Writing Program). And this is not exclusive to any one major; it's everyone from wine making to math majors. On one side you have the English, comparative literature and other literary arts majors who feel this is all redundant of their previous core classes. Then, there are those in the science field, like math and engineering, who don’t get a lot of exposure to the subject and could generally prove beneficial.

There were a few people in class almost “ranting” about how having to take this class as a requirement was just a waste of their time and or a way for the University to hold you back. There are obviously those with the great talent for the English language and writing, yet they have to suffer like everyone else. But on the other extreme there those that may be in the same major but have trouble with writing and everything this course potentially has to offer to improve. And then there are those who feel that even having the knowledge gained through this class will not help them in their future profession.

Being an engineer major, I feel as if I’ve been kept away from any type of critical thinking and writing aside from small research projects. Even then, this doesn’t even require the same kind of thinking as I have to do with English. There is more information to base my writing from in engineering, whereas we would just be given a single word, phrase, or even cartoon in this class. I feel that this opens the mind to a more critical way of thinking and helps me think in an “outside the box” kind of way. And maybe it’s just this class and the way it’s being taught but my house mate is taking UWP104 and complains about writing essay after essay about science type articles.

If anything this class is just a refresher and shouldn't be thought of as a set back. I know this class probably wouldn't do me much good if I am working as an engineer, but it's still good to have some knowledge about writing the language we speak.

Mystory

(Sorry if the image on the right is offensive to some)

What really defines history? Simply put it’s just “a retelling of past events which is professedly true.” (Pg. 156). This definition uses the word “professedly”, meaning to “claim knowledge of.” I mean there’s evidence of what we’ve been told through textbooks throughout grade school, but how do we know such things happen the way they did? A high level of skepticism is always in place when talking about history. We can really only know for a fact what we see through our own experience in life. People will believe in what they want to hear, which it will not always be the case.

I found this picture with Jesus and a dinosaur coexisting to be humorous only because I know, or at least think I know, because of what I’ve learned in school. And the only source to base this on comes from science. It’s only been proved through carbon dating to be false. History in a sense is related to theory, where scientists theorize through mounting evidence that things did or did not exist and when it happened. History can be in the short term also. We always want to know the history, or the "truth", behind things. For example when buying a used car we want to know the vehicles history of whether or not it has been in a crash or not. But can we really trust a piece of paper that says that it's clear of all accidents? Only the person with the first hand experience would know.

I remember in my high school history class we watched a movie called History of the World Part 1. Although having an accurate timeline of events in ancient, medieval, and (at the time) modern history, the way certain events played out were so ridiculous things could’ve never happened that way! Or so we believe. If there were a movie exactly like this, but without all the outrageous scenes and just the way it’s told in a history book, would it be likely to attract more attention, thought, and or ideas? This brings up the point that people will believe in what they want to be true, rather than accepting the actual truth. This is why there are so many questions in history and in turn, the word history in itself.

The need to want.

We are all guilty of being consumed by something. Whether it is by a job or something as trivial as going to the mall. Whatever the case, the action to “consume” and the word consumption has two arguably definitive parts. Consumption is part of everyday life, in the literal sense we need to consume food. But when does one consume to the point where it’s because of a want or desire? Outside of economics I’ve rarely seen or heard this term used positively, neutral at most. Image searching the word consumption brings up a graph, reference to drugs, or a negative cartoon.

Take for example being “consumed” by work. Is this really a necessity or a desire? Taken from MSNBC, “less than 39 percent” of Americans are satisfied with their jobs. By today’s standards you basically NEED a source of income or else survival is out of the question. One of the ways New Keywords describes consume is “to exhaust”, which striving to make enough money, even just to make rent for some, will cause. The “happiest place on earth”, no not Disneyland, is the country of Denmark. Their standard of living isn’t as high compared to the US. Oppositely look at Los Angeles, there's such a high standard of living in certain areas but only because residents are consumed by materialistic desires. And there's a limited amount of happiness materialism will bring you.

Convenience, appeal, and trying to obtain a higher “social” status amongst peers are a few properties that describe desire. The bottled water brand war comes to mind as a desire. Are they all “pure” as opposed to just regular tap water? How do we know they are more filtered? Do they have anything special to offer but a fancy 3-dollar container? There’s always a little blurb on the labels of bottled water claiming it to come from the mountainous waterfalls of (insert exotic region here). This desire for something excessive has suckered people into buying something that is an essential element of life and comes almost free. And some are consumed by anything else that's really unnecessary but "better" than just your basic need.

Even a basic need will put people in a position where they are consumed whether they desire or need it. It's just a standard that has been placed in our "society" (sorry, I don't know how else to describe it) where people almost feel the need to want and desire something unnecessary. Is this kind of ironic or just me?