A House of Mirrors

The idea of simulacra and the diversion of a reality is something that Jean Baudrillard discusses in his piece The Procession of Simulacra. Baudrillard uses an epigraph in this piece that states, “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true” (Baudrillard 1556). This idea is that the legion of copies or simulations does not add depth to the truth of the idea, it becomes the idea. This is a popular belief in post-modern analysis and creation that, in idea, copies something that has already happened but changes the meaning, therefore changing the truth. Television shows such as South Park and Family Guy can be seen as post-modern by relying on pop-culture reference to create comedy.

When the aforementioned shows reference historical or contemporary creations, they broadcast a simulacrum, which I what Baudrillard means when he says that “[t]he real is produced from miniaturised units, from matrices, memory banks and command models” (1557). This real that he mentions is not the original meaning. That original point, or in the case of my analysis, the figure standing that enters a carnivalesque house of mirrors. Each mirror is a one way window with a video camera on the other side. The mirrors consist of a regular mirror and then assorted ones that distort the image. Some reflections become short and stout, others become giants, or like the reflection in a rippled body of water. The camera acts as a public eye, where meaning is created or discussed depending upon what image is seen.

Each of these distorted reflections that a person sees becomes, in essence, a reality despite the original source material. Becky Sharp in William Makepeace Thackery's novel Vanity Fair does a sufficient job acting as a house or mirrors. In the novel, she adjusts her personality by drawing in the “proper” reflections of her surroundings and broadcasting the appropriate image. This act of reflection becomes the truth of Becky Sharp, at least to the reader, while the characters in the book assume the reflection they are shown as the truth.

Back to the television shows, Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, and countless other contemporary forms of entertainment reflect/distort an image or idea and create something new. To people unaware of the original state, they will create meaning from what they see as truth. Others that can catch the references will create a new truth from the simulacra depending on what setting the reflections take place in.

The early modernist writers, like Ezra Pound, made an effort to re-craft language and tradition into a new contemporary meaning. To paraphrase Pound, it is only through the knowledge and understanding of the past that a contemporary truth can be revealed. Post modern analysis can challenge that view point to say that truth lies not only within the original, but with the simulation of that original. Or at least the truth evolves with the procession of simulacra.

Baudrillard, Jean. "The Precession of Simulacra." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and, 2010. 1556-566. Print.

Zizek get's White-boarded

Public "Illusions" of Private "Realities"

Jürgen Habermas, in The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article, seems to describe the evolution of ideology. Specifically the ideas of the public v. the private. “In the second half of the eighteenth century literary journalism created serious competition for the earlier news sheets which were mere compilations of notices” (Habermas 1574). The piece was written in 1964 and is very relevant today in looking at modern news.

If I were to turn on the television today I would be bombarded with thousands of channels, all vying for an opportunity to inform about or distract from the world today. As a viewer, there is a sense of empowerment, since the remote control is in my hands. Many analysis of popular culture have viewed the potential problem of outlets in both negative and positive ways. The main idea of the news channels is to provide a viewer with complementary views of their own. What the news channels seem to think is that people abide by certain guidelines depending on religious, political, or social ideologies. They, in turn, make these privatized ideas a public mass.

Looking even closer, each of the news channels employ analysts. These people take their own viewpoints and publicize them. A statement by Habermas, “often enough today the process of making public simply serves the arcane policies of special interests” (1576). The special interests could be seen as each individual analysts desire, whether that be to educate or motivate towards their own privatized ideas. This idea of making public for service could be seen in practice when a company goes public, or to some conspirators, the act of voting since they're all rigged anyway.

The act of going public is merely an illusion of an individual's private ideologies, that once bought in to, becomes a reality. People vote for a presidential candidate not by platform, but by party allegiance just like brand loyalty. Publication simply seems to give the closest, most similar outlet of private view.

Chopping at the Capital Infastructure

According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “It is only by being exchanged that the products of labor acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility” (Engels 665). What is presented by both Marx and Engels is that value is created socially. This value is a culmination of all the labor that is invested in to a certain product. Take a stroll down any supermarket aisle and you will find yourself with commodities. The bright colorful packaging of breakfast pastries to the roasted “Fair Trade” coffee beans. Each of these items comes from the work of labor, and this labor is what helps set a value when it comes to the act of purchasing.

The Labor Theory of Value is an interesting way to explore how value is created. There is a structure of labor that flows upwards until it reaches the consumer. Each level of labor is applied to the value in which the consumer then pays for. The end goal is for a manufacturer to provide a commodity to a consumer with a surplus value in order to make profit. Sometimes this surplus value is jacked up according to social standards, which is why the same product, marketed towards different economic groups, have large variations in price. For the most part, the labor defines how much a product will cost. Take for example a clothing item that is produced on American soil in comparison with one that is produced overseas. The value of the laborers is drastically different, according to cost of living, insurance, taxes, etc. This is, in theory, why American made or commodities developed in “first world nations” usually have a much higher market value than those which have been outsourced.

Many multinational companies have moved to outsourcing labor in order to cut production costs, although many times it is in order to increase surplus value. As lightly touched on in the Flight of the Conchords song “Think About It” (found at about 1:26 into the video clip).

“They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers.
But what's the real cost?
'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper.
Why are we still paying so much for sneakers
When you got them made by little slave kids
What are your overheads?”

Capitalism has driven many businesses into finding a way to lower the cost of labor in the products they produce while offering similar or higher prices. This leaves a giant gap between the laborer and the consumer because the wages paid to create the product no longer effect the value the same way it used to. This is why in some sectors of the labor force there are such large pushes towards a living wage, because as the values of commodities rise with inflation, and the payment of laborers remains stagnant, the entire infrastructure of capitalism will collapse because of its own values.

Works Cited:

Engels, Friedrich. "The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. By Karl Marx. 2nd ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 663-71. Print.

It's a Free Country and I'll Make My Own Meaning

There are many forms of art in the world for a person to set their eyes upon. As the brain receives signals from the eyes, it begins to analyze and interpret what it is seeing. A consciousness is necessary for this interaction to occur. Jean-Paul Sartre stated that “our perceptions [are] accompanied by the consciousness that human reality is a 'revealer'” and that “man is the means by which things are manifested” (Sartre 1199). Ideas and meanings are manifested within the individuals interaction with an object, “by introducing order where there was none” (1200). Roland Barthes states that “text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings […] blend and clash” (Barthes 1324). The idea surrounding this analytical way of thinking is that there is no singular meaning within a piece of art, and that the meaning is found outside of the work itself.

In effort to really look into the reader response style of analysis, I will use examples of a word that is sure to entice controversy but must add that I am in no way attempting to use any of this as a means of offense or hate. Take a sketch by a comedian, Louis CK. In the clip presented, he uses the word “faggot.” Now as the word is presented either in the clip or through the symbols that write the word, the receiver (reader or viewer) will begin to interact. Through this interaction the receiver applies a plethora of catalysts to what is being received. These catalysts range from emotional connections to social ideologies also taking into consideration the context of the situation as well as gauging the tone or manner in which the word is presented. These elements together create an end product, a meaning so to say.

Some receivers will take offense to Louis CK's use of the word “faggot” while others will laugh and still others will have no opinion of the matter. This all boils down to the catalysts the person applies to the word. To some it holds a very negative connotation of anti-homosexuality and hate, while to others it has a completely different meaning as slightly explained by CK himself. South Park also dealt with the meaning of the word in an episode where they labeled loud and obnoxiously intrusive motorcycle riders as being “faggots.” It should be said that the creator of the object of interpretation must know how it may possibly be interpreted by the public before releasing it into the wild. This is why Louis CK explains his use of the word as well as South Park going into detail to attempt to avoid a negative backlash from potential receivers. Although, they have no control once it is exposed to the public. A copper statue begins to oxidize when the metal interacts with the atmosphere, the same may be applied to words interacting with the public consciousness.

Moving beyond the aforementioned word and onto art in general. The piece of art itself goes through different phases. The creator of the piece installs their own meaning to it, but as it enters the public sphere, their meaning is not totally discarded, but set aside. The art enters the public sphere as an empty shell. The public, individually or collectively, then fills that shell with their own meanings and ideas, possibly taking into consideration the meaning placed by the creator, possibly not. Each receiver will apply to the object their own set of catalysts, creating different responses to the exact same object. There technically is no wrong when it comes to analysis of interpretation of a text, and it is purely subjective, making a single word a very powerful thing indeed.

For safety sake I must again apologizes to anyone who may have taken offense to the content posted, I chose this subject merely for the controversy surrounding the aforementioned word and the multiple meanings it that have been applied to it in an effort to analyze a Reader Response theory.

Works Cited:

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 1322-326. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. "What Is Literature." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 1199-213. Print.

"MotherBoy" Love

Freud in his studies often referred to the formative years of development that creates the self. The most prominent stage is the phallic stage where the Oedipus Complex comes into play. While the Oedipus Complex deals with a male's fear of castration in some way, whether that is a literal or figurative castration depends on how you read it, it focuses on the relationship between a son and his parents, and how that shapes the self in the coming years.

Bring in Buster Bluth, the eccentric, immature, and inept of the Bluth Family featured in Arrested Development. Buster shows a strong attachment to his mother Lucille, to the point of being unhealthy. He still lives at home with his mother and has even competed in MotherBoy, “an annual dance promoting mother-son bonding. Lucille has gone with Buster over 30 times, and on many occasions, won cutest couple.”

The Oedipal Complex of wanting to make love to your own mother could easily be exhibited in his romantic relationship with his mother's best friend, biggest enemy, and even shares the same name, Lucille Austero. While this relationship could be construed as an act of rebellion against the wishes of his own mother, Buster still is fulfilling what could be considered coitus with a mother figure.

The father that raised Buster is not George Bluth, but his identical twin brother Oscar who shares some of the same mannerisms that Buster does. Since the mannerisms exhibited by Oscar can be seen as those that won over Lucille Bluth, Buster does adopted them as his own.

This is merely a shortened version of what I have gone over in my head, but from a quick psychoanalytical view on Buster Bluth, he fits into the undeveloped Phallic Stage that Freud has discussed.

The Immortal Archetype

A question was brought up during last weeks class that dealt with the idea of archetypes. The archetype in question is that discussed by Northrop Frye in "The Archetypes of Literature". This dealt with the signs or story progressions that are prominent within any story as a universal idea. Professor Wexler asked the class if they could identify a novel or even a movie that had no archetypes. Immediately I filtered through the index of anything that could apply in attempts to gain the extra credit that was promised.

The first character that came to my mind was Patrick Bateman of American Psycho fame. This thought came merely as the idea that the character never goes through a change of sorts. As said in the novel and in the film, “there is no catharsis.” There is no birth or death of the hero and the progression of the plot, while it does go somewhere, feels as though it ends where it began. A similar storyline is that of the movie rendition of A Clockwork Orange. Alex does go through a typical storyline, but it ends with no change in the character.

Even if these ideas confirm a preliminary idea of a story lacking heroic archetypes, by integrating the idea of laws of binaries, the non-archetype idea breaks down. The rule of binaries is that one object, idea, or character is defined by what it is not. When defining anything, a critic has to take into consideration what the object is, and also what it is not. There is an idea that God can not exist without the Devil, that we can not define hot without defining cold, love without hate. Everything requires it's binary opposites.

So now, we come back to the idea of a story without an archetype. Within the phrasing of the inquiry itself, there is a necessary need to define what the archetype is. With this definition of what the archetype is within the mind of the critic to point out the lack of, the archetype occupies the negative space within the story. It may not be a concrete idea within the story, but the archetype is there, and it is within defying the archetype that it reinforces the existence of the archetype. The same idea applies to that of the creation of the anti-hero.

So, since the creation of the archetype idea has therefore made its existence prevalent throughout all works of literature and other storytelling devices either in its presence or notable lack thereof. The archetype will live on.

And now for something completely different:

Source:

Frye, Northrop. "The Archetypes of Literature." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. 1304-315. Print.