Analysis of Fiske's "Popular Culture"

In Fiske's essay, "Popular Culture," he makes a very astute observation in that there is a distinction between popular culture and other cultures such as "high" culture and "mass" culture. Contrary to mass culture which is the saturation of a society by industry's products and ideals, popular culture is the use of mass culture to satisfy the individual wants of that specific person. It usually takes the form of a piece of mass culture and then redefined in terms that relates to that specific indivual or collective group. Thus, certain works of mass culture will relate differently to different classes of individuals and groups.

Likewise, "high" culture is also different from "popular" culture, according to Fiske, in that high culture usually is a work that embodies some universal truth. It transcends the popular and "low" class of work and is able to be assimilated through many different cultures because it is universal. This is contrary to popular culture, because popular culture deals only with the specific. It can only be made upon the "mundane" because it is only when built upon the mundane can popular culture be made to matter. As Fiske elaborates, "culture is ordinary, and the ordinary is highly significant" (335).

The rhetorics of Jodie Foster

Dear Jodie Foster,
You are a brave woman.

After doing some digging into the delightful character and Hollywood iconic actress, Jodie Foster, I found that what makes this Golden Globe Cecile B. Demille award recipient so unique is that her address to the millions of viewers is distractingly personal. I choose to say “distractingly” because all that Jodie Foster has strived to do, much of what she has come to signify in popular culture clashed with her speech.

It would be an understatement to say that Jodie Foster is a personal woman. Essentially, she has been coerced into keeping her live private once she began to show signs of her homosexual identity. She began to date ex-girlfriend Cydney Bernard in 1993 during a time when homosexuality among celebrities was best kept under wraps. During her speech she has her “coming-out-not” moment when she states, “I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met.” It is little wonder why she strived so hard to keep her private life as low-key as possible during all of those years. For how would a huge Hollywood actress be received by a public in which homosexuality was, at the time, best kept in the closet?

Perhaps the nature of the Cecile B. Award she received was just that excuse she was looking for to make her long-awaited declaration. After all, the honorary award could be considered a stamp of approval for the actress for all her years of exceptional contribution to the field of movie making, no matter her personal beliefs.

Regardless, the public declaration of her sexual-orientation, her intimate declaration of love toward her ailing mother and her discussion of the nature of privacy among Hollywood icons is bested described as surprising due to her diligence in keeping her life as private as possible over all her years as an actress. Is this the beginning of an age of a new Jodie Foster? Time will only tell. Regardless, it was a woman of courage to take such a public stand as she did during that acceptance speech

Documentary "Secrecy": A Critical Anaylsis

           “Information is power. Some information is so potent is can be dangerous” -Steven Aftergood Government Secrecy project, Federation of American Scientists.

Secrecy is a documentary which exposes the issue of government concealment and the ensuing arguments of national security. It debates whether secrecy should be allowed in the United States, and if so, to what extent should its powers be limited.

                To begin, there seems to be an underlying debate on what constitutes as “secrecy” and how it differs from “privacy.” In the documentary, this term of “secrecy” is sometimes used ambiguously by  agencies and critics which leads to debates on how much power a certain entity (in this case, the government of the United States) may have. Secrecy seems to be agreed upon as the concealment of highly sensitive information which if revealed can result in harm for the United States. This would differ from the definition of privacy, which is “the freedom from unauthorized intrusion” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). I would add to that definition that privacy is usually applied to the individual and is used to protect the personal life of that individual, whereas secrecy has more to do with protecting of information and entities.

                Secrecy has come to the forefront of debate recently because of the “State Secret Privilege” which is the ability of the United States to throw out certain court cases based solely upon the fact that the case deals with “sensitive information” and “would compromise national security.” This privilege was the result of a court case in 1953, United States v. Reynolds, in which the widows of the civilian casualties of the crash were denied the accident reports because the supposed revealing of the information would “seriously [hamper] national security” by the  Federal Court (this later was proven to be false). The controversial ruling led to continued debates for years on whether the ability of the government to deny information and/or throw out court cases was constitutional.

In his book, Rhetoric and Popular Culture, Barry Brummett observes that “cultures entail consciousness, or ideologies” (26). He uses one of the definitions of ideology from Raymond Williams that ideology can be defined as “a system of beliefs characteristic of a particular class or group” (26).

One such ideology that is predominant in the United States is that of a nation established and devoted to the rule of law. This is one ideology that has made the United States emerge as a world leader. The opposition to the rule of law is power without checks and balances. Secrecy, when unchallenged, can lead to unchecked power and unlawful behavior.

There has been a lot of scrutiny of the U.S. Patriot Act and the covered-up reports of torture among detainees suspected of terrorism. The resulting court cases were denied under the cover of secrecy and “national security.” Charles Swift (Lt. Cmdr, U.S. Navy JAG) argues that our laws and rules of engagement – especially those regarding morality of conduct, are more to protect us than they are to protect others. He argues that a “great nation’s character is what makes it great—ours is a society devoted to the rule of law…fear is the enemy of character. Courage is the ability to follow your principles even when you are scared to death.”

                What has allowed certain people and agencies to act in appalling ways is the lack of check and balances that secrecy inherently forgoes. Within the transparent system of government in which we have, the three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, are all given powers to prevent the other from overstepping its assigned powers. What has allowed unlawfulness is the lack of checks and balances under the cloak of secrecy.

                The media claims that they can help provide this balance and check within the government. They claim that by seeking out and reporting these “secrets” they can help to alert and educate the citizenry of the United States of the procedures, mechanisms and results of government agencies. Thomas Blanton of George Washington University is convinced that networks of information actually empower. By providing certain (formerly secret) information to the public, they can help these agencies “connect the dots.” The ability of a single organization to decide who is in on the “need to know” basis is overly presumptuous and dangerous.

                Blanton concurs that “there are some secrets that would make the world a lot more dangerous, and we should and would want those protected (e.g. nuclear and biochemical warheads).” But he argues that secrecy is not making us safer. Less secrecy would make us safer.

                While there are plenty of examples in which revealed information was beneficial for the United States and its citizenry, they are also times when it can become a liability. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) argues that they have the responsibility to protect sensitive information in the name of national security. They view secrecy as a survival mechanism in which if compromised, can and has resulted in deaths among their agents and U.S. citizens. They view the media as an entity out to expose secrets as if it were a “game.” They try to reduce the amount of secrecy and at what cost? Sensitive information, once leaked, can be hugely detrimental in the fight against terrorism. Take for example when the press leaked information that the CIA had the ability to listen in on satellite phones that Osama Bin Laden had been using. Almost immediately that lucrative source dried up completely all due to a “pointless and needless press disclosure.” Was it in the best interest of the American citizen to expose this information?

                The debate continues and there have been recent court rulings that have limited the amount of power that the executive branch can have under the “State Secret Privilege.” While secrecy is important for the safety of the nation and her interests, does that entitle amnesty under the law? And who is going to be that check and balance?  

Crosswalk Complaint Corralled

After a couple of days of being able to collect some thoughts on the rant that I posted earlier, I spent a little time doing some good ‘ol research into my rant to see if there was any validity to what I was going on about. So I called upon my good friend Mr. Google and asked him to find me any news reports about UVU students getting hit by vehicles on campus. Lo and behold! The first five articles were each different accounts of UVU students getting punished by ignorant people—all within the last two years. Granted one article was about some UVU students who were struck by a vehicle off campus, but my point stands.

Apparently, at least three of the stories were of students who were hit by vehicles while they were crossing the crosswalk. I am beginning to wonder how much this adds to the adage that, “Utah drivers are the worst drivers out there.” This doesn’t look good for their record.

What really irks me is an article written by Mallory Black of the UVU review posted December 6, 2012 in which an UVU admin professor who happened upon the scene of an auto-pedestrian accident shared his insight that, “This event just told me some [drivers] are not watching. I’ve seen a lot of people not even bother” (Black). What is wrong with this picture?! People just blowing through crosswalks like they own the place? Perhaps I just need to view this with an open mind. Okay, so maybe I’m justified running cross walks because I don’t understand that state law mandates that I must stop at crosswalks when there are people crossing. Or, I’m going to be late to class and that extra ten seconds I save is definitely worth the risk of hitting somebody. Besides, I love life-changing accidents that will haunt me for the rest of my life!

But of course! What was I thinking?

Work Cited

Black, Mallory. "Student hit by car near UVU Testing Center." UVU Review [Orem] 06 Dec 2012, Web. 16 Jan. 2013. <http://www.uvureview.com/2012/12/06/student-hit-by-car-near-uvu-testing-center/>.

Rant of the Day!

Crosswalk Complaints

Walking to campus can be a tricky endeavor. It's bad enough that there is the lack-of-parking bug that has infected the majority of our fellow commuter students (I'm a recovering commuter now that I live closer to campus), but some of the symptoms seem to be road rage. Making one's way across the south-west crosswalk by the WB building and 1200 South becomes a gamble. While I start my way toward the other side, I find myself staring down the oncoming traffic--daring them to keep speeding down that road right at me. As I finish my journey to the other side of the road safely, I see a fellow student glance quickly at the traffic tuck his head, wave at the stopped vehicle, then run across to the other side as if the stopped car was doing him a favor. C'mon man! We pedestrians have rights! Especially at crosswalks!

I'm amazed at my charged response and I think it stems from my two-year stint of living in inner-city Baltimore. I didn't drive very often while living there, but the times that I did were full of emotionally-charged memories of stabbing incessantly at the horn, jockeying for position with the bullying public transit buses, and, most importantly, glaring at the purposefully ignorant pedestrians and their nonchalant attitude of crossing the road at any place and time when they so desired with no consideration to traffic. I found this practice to be common in the lower-income areas of the city when (usually) African-Americans with their black liquor bags would meander into the middle of the road and begin a lively discussion with somebody on the other side for a full minute, then slowly finish their journey across. After all, these were their roads, and anybody else using them would be accommodated at their convenience.

Perhaps I feel that I've in a sense paid my dues. Or maybe I've missed my morning happy pills. Either way, the next time when I enter those white parallel lines, you can just wait a whole ten seconds, commuters. Because in those ten seconds, I own the road.