This week, I have been faced with all sorts of challenges to the space I choose to inhabit. As I stood with my family beside a stretcher in a hospital hallway, while one of our number was being wheeled off for surgery, we were approached by someone who seemed to be an administrator of some sort, telling us to clear out the hallway. The nurse pushing the stretcher was clearly offended, and we were just bemused. Who was supposed to be occupying that space, we wondered, if not patients and their families? It was baffling.
The entire place was defined by places one was allowed to enter and places one was barred from. Those who were not medical professionals could approach a line in the hallway, but not go past it. People having procedures done could enter a certain room, but others could not. Many restrictions upon people’s ability to be in various spaces within the facility were, of course, based on safety, but others seemed arbitrary and based on power dynamics. Surgeons, for instance, could freely enter the waiting room where families were gathered. There was no space entirely set aside for families alone.
Prohibitions on entering spaces for safety reasons were enforced within the building, but it was interesting to note that those same safety regulations did not always translate into preserving the safety of people in public spaces, as nurses left the building, and the hospital grounds, in scrubs. When one enters the hospital space as a patient or a family member, it becomes difficult to preserve autonomy. Every action is proscribed by the staff or administration, sometimes to avoid litigation, but most often for the convenience of those who work there. It seems to be in opposition to what one might expect to have happen in a hospital, a place that is sometimes considered public space, as the public funds it, but is, in truth, extremely private.
Being asked to leave the hospital hallway put me in mind of a gypsy punk group I learned about a couple of weeks ago, called Gogol Bordello, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM1Ahn0Osjo who were evicted from CBGB’s, the ‘birthplace of punk’. Having watched their video, I don’t wonder that they were evicted, but I have some empathy for them. When we were shooed from the hospital corridor, I wanted to say to the administrator, “I have worked in this space! I belong here!” If you’re not wearing the uniform, though, your identity in that particular place is lost and you can be evicted. This is reminiscent too, of O’Brien and Szeman’s observations about the “ violent dispossession” of Native Americans. In truth, Native peoples did not “possess” the places they inhabited; they just lived in harmony with what was there, without concern about ownership. Many of them still do this, but their space is defined. Place and space, and who can inhabit them seem to be determined by power these days, and not by who is making logical use of them at the time.
3.7.11
Still Working Toward the Dream
This week’s examples of counter- and subcultures illustrate the vast differences between the counterculture movements of the 1960’s and the milder, but still insistent cultural movements of today.
I suspect that, rather than causing society to progress, as those in the movements hoped that they would, ‘60’s counterculture movements have instead brought about a backlash of consumerism and environmental degradation, within mainstream society. As Hebdige points out, subcultures have to find some middle ground between the dominant culture and the parent culture, and both of these were fairly liberal by the end of the ‘60’s. This is not to say that there has not been significant progress among subcultures today, as a result of the groundwork laid by these movements.
Radical environmental subcultures like Earth First! are pushing the boundaries of legal expressions of dissatisfaction , but they have not had the impact upon mainstream consciousness that commune dwellers 40 years ago might have desired. An increased open-mindedness about spirituality, as opposed to a cultural insistence upon religious affiliation, has allowed the expansion of faith practices. The feminist movement, as well, has opened the door for women to pursue careers in most areas, although they must still work harder to succeed than their male counterparts.
With the advent of the Information Age, we, as a society, expect immediate results when we express ourselves politically through counterculture. There isn’t much of that sort of expression here in North America, (although there is some),but it was certainly evident in Egypt earlier this year, when a corrupt government toppled within weeks of a plea on YouTube by Asmaa Mafouz, a dissident Egyptian woman.
Canada is rife with subcultures; groups who want to have the freedom to live without pollution, who choose to have their babies at home, or grassroots organizations who are dissatisfied with the political climate of the country-not necessarily counterculture groups, because Canada is not that radical, but subcultures, all the same, who are trying to secure new freedoms.
I suspect that, rather than causing society to progress, as those in the movements hoped that they would, ‘60’s counterculture movements have instead brought about a backlash of consumerism and environmental degradation, within mainstream society. As Hebdige points out, subcultures have to find some middle ground between the dominant culture and the parent culture, and both of these were fairly liberal by the end of the ‘60’s. This is not to say that there has not been significant progress among subcultures today, as a result of the groundwork laid by these movements.
Radical environmental subcultures like Earth First! are pushing the boundaries of legal expressions of dissatisfaction , but they have not had the impact upon mainstream consciousness that commune dwellers 40 years ago might have desired. An increased open-mindedness about spirituality, as opposed to a cultural insistence upon religious affiliation, has allowed the expansion of faith practices. The feminist movement, as well, has opened the door for women to pursue careers in most areas, although they must still work harder to succeed than their male counterparts.
With the advent of the Information Age, we, as a society, expect immediate results when we express ourselves politically through counterculture. There isn’t much of that sort of expression here in North America, (although there is some),but it was certainly evident in Egypt earlier this year, when a corrupt government toppled within weeks of a plea on YouTube by Asmaa Mafouz, a dissident Egyptian woman.
Canada is rife with subcultures; groups who want to have the freedom to live without pollution, who choose to have their babies at home, or grassroots organizations who are dissatisfied with the political climate of the country-not necessarily counterculture groups, because Canada is not that radical, but subcultures, all the same, who are trying to secure new freedoms.
17.6.11
Who Am I If We Don't Have the Cup?
Nationhood, as a concept, is fraught with complication. It’s all about the “other”, about Us versus Them, but it’s more complex than that. Canadians define themselves through what they are not (American), but neglect to recognize that the line between us and them is blurry, and also don’t see that the notion of “Us” comprises many identities, as does “Them”. The idea of the stereotypical Canadian doesn’t include indigeneity, which is actually a source of satisfaction for some Aboriginal people. As western nations become more politically correct and examine their past, a “post colonial nationalism” emerges, according to O”brien and Szeman (244). This situation has been ironically addressed by Sykes, who asked “What? Post colonialism? Have they left?” (Smith 24)
Our own version of being Canadian doesn’t lend itself to racial difference. Black Canadians are generally “Afro-Canadians” (in case we couldn’t work out their racial background by visual cues). It seems to be important to give someone a niche, to slot them into a non-threatening identity. “Where are you from?” we might ask a person of a different skin colour, “when did you get here?”, we ask people with an accent. We want to avoid danger and we have to assign outsiders an identity so that we know our turf is safe. Then we can decide if they are “us” or “them”. This identity isn’t static either, it changes depending upon how secure we are in our assessment of whether or not we’re threatened. Having watched race riots on tv as a child, I am amazed now to see the relaxation of this insecurity in the election of a Black president.
Nationalism is about protecting our own; our own land, our own identity. The riots in Vancouver this week weren’t so much about anger and disappointment in our inability to win a game; they were also about the attack on our national identity as a hockey nation. Canadians feel threatened all the time by Americans; by their superior military strength, by their power, and by their disdain for us as a nation, as we frequently see in popular American television programs. It is interesting to speculate on what people would be like without the need for comparative identities.
Our own version of being Canadian doesn’t lend itself to racial difference. Black Canadians are generally “Afro-Canadians” (in case we couldn’t work out their racial background by visual cues). It seems to be important to give someone a niche, to slot them into a non-threatening identity. “Where are you from?” we might ask a person of a different skin colour, “when did you get here?”, we ask people with an accent. We want to avoid danger and we have to assign outsiders an identity so that we know our turf is safe. Then we can decide if they are “us” or “them”. This identity isn’t static either, it changes depending upon how secure we are in our assessment of whether or not we’re threatened. Having watched race riots on tv as a child, I am amazed now to see the relaxation of this insecurity in the election of a Black president.
Nationalism is about protecting our own; our own land, our own identity. The riots in Vancouver this week weren’t so much about anger and disappointment in our inability to win a game; they were also about the attack on our national identity as a hockey nation. Canadians feel threatened all the time by Americans; by their superior military strength, by their power, and by their disdain for us as a nation, as we frequently see in popular American television programs. It is interesting to speculate on what people would be like without the need for comparative identities.
2.6.11
Harper, Horkheimer and Swedish Hiphop
I am trying, this week, to come to terms with the reality of the ‘culture industry’ in my day to day life. It is still a distressing thought that my cultural indulgences are based almost entirely on the profit of someone else. Something that I find baffling, moreover, given the fact that Culture is no longer just the artistic personal expression of an individual or group, but a means for creating surplus value, is that Stephen Harper does not support the Arts wholeheartedly. One would think that the economic value of popular culture would occur to him on some level.
One of the criticisms of the theorists Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s notions about the culture industry is their cynicism regarding our ability to resist it. I think that the Internet, the impact of which these theorists and their contemporaries could not have foreseen, is providing us with means to create our own cultural reality, quite apart from that which is offered up by a few conglomerates.
My children, who regularly introduce me to independent musical artists, visit a website called Last.fm, which offers subscribers (I am aware of the irony) the opportunity to create their own radio station. Last.fm relies upon the same licensing laws that govern mainstream stations; they may not play the same artist more than five times in an hour, and they may not play one song over and over. The website also recommends artists similar to those the subscriber likes to listen to, both familiar and independent.
Through this alternative station, they have discovered artists like Movits, a hiphop/swing group who were obscure until they were featured on the Colbert report, and Zacke, both from Sweden. My boys’ cultural landscape is so far from the mainstream that they are unfamiliar with many currently popular artists. Maybe the issue of resistance isn’t about the fact that we are spending money to support culture, but that we choose where our money will go.
One of the criticisms of the theorists Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s notions about the culture industry is their cynicism regarding our ability to resist it. I think that the Internet, the impact of which these theorists and their contemporaries could not have foreseen, is providing us with means to create our own cultural reality, quite apart from that which is offered up by a few conglomerates.
My children, who regularly introduce me to independent musical artists, visit a website called Last.fm, which offers subscribers (I am aware of the irony) the opportunity to create their own radio station. Last.fm relies upon the same licensing laws that govern mainstream stations; they may not play the same artist more than five times in an hour, and they may not play one song over and over. The website also recommends artists similar to those the subscriber likes to listen to, both familiar and independent.
Through this alternative station, they have discovered artists like Movits, a hiphop/swing group who were obscure until they were featured on the Colbert report, and Zacke, both from Sweden. My boys’ cultural landscape is so far from the mainstream that they are unfamiliar with many currently popular artists. Maybe the issue of resistance isn’t about the fact that we are spending money to support culture, but that we choose where our money will go.
26.5.11
Power and Representation
In my studies of Indigenous culture, the concept of linguistics constructing our understanding of reality has been prominent. Anthropologists sometimes argue the validity of equating language with cultural identity, but clearly, structuralist theorists see the truth behind this. Aboriginal communities,such as the Mi'kmaq from my own heritage, are endangered as nations because of loss of language, along with the more obvious and recognized reasons. The dominant culture in the Maritimes fails to realize the intrinsic connection that the Mi'kmaq have to their language, and their land, both of which are intertwined in their identity.
Language seems to be a superficial representation of a culture's actual understanding of itself and the world around it, with signifiers and the signified making up a good part of what is unseen. While watching the White House Correspondent's Dinner remarks on Youtube this week, I noticed much of what was left unsaid by Barack Obama in his pointed counterattack on Donald Trump. A significant power struggle was evident here as well, represented by Trump's financial acumen pitted against Obama's status of being one of the world's most powerful men. Trump has undoubtedly made some trouble for the President, and could be further disruptive, but as Seth Myers pointed out, Obama is the leader of "the most powerful/poorest nation" in the world.
This power dynamic appears to deny Foucault's premise that power comes from below. In the United States, power is particularly associated with wealth. It is unusual to see what we might consider a 'powerful' poor person.
There is a point to be made, though, for the shifting nature of power relations between the dominant culture and Aboriginal Nations both here and in the States, in which an apparently compliant culture chooses to exert its power subtly, for the most part, as opposed to doing it overtly. "Power" is defined by the culture discussing it, as is every concept.
Language seems to be a superficial representation of a culture's actual understanding of itself and the world around it, with signifiers and the signified making up a good part of what is unseen. While watching the White House Correspondent's Dinner remarks on Youtube this week, I noticed much of what was left unsaid by Barack Obama in his pointed counterattack on Donald Trump. A significant power struggle was evident here as well, represented by Trump's financial acumen pitted against Obama's status of being one of the world's most powerful men. Trump has undoubtedly made some trouble for the President, and could be further disruptive, but as Seth Myers pointed out, Obama is the leader of "the most powerful/poorest nation" in the world.
This power dynamic appears to deny Foucault's premise that power comes from below. In the United States, power is particularly associated with wealth. It is unusual to see what we might consider a 'powerful' poor person.
There is a point to be made, though, for the shifting nature of power relations between the dominant culture and Aboriginal Nations both here and in the States, in which an apparently compliant culture chooses to exert its power subtly, for the most part, as opposed to doing it overtly. "Power" is defined by the culture discussing it, as is every concept.
20.5.11
Ideology and Hegemony
Last semester, while taking a journalism class, I was introduced to the notion of media being owned and operated by corporations, and what that meant for programming and cross-promotion across television, print media, movies and websites.I was aware, of course, that these were all owned by someone, but it really hit home just how much all the various media scripted our lives, and how this is all based on money. So disillusioning.
This whole idea of hegemony really bothers me, and it becomes clearer to me just what was behind the Hippies 'dropping out'. What thinking person wants to feel that she is at the mercy of what conglomerates are telling her what to think? I want to believe that my favourite radio station, CBC, which I will not be mentioning again, is actually presenting a reflection of current Canadian thought, but, as evidenced by the recent federal election, that clearly isn't the case. Maybe it's a promising example of media that is not telling us what to think as a country, perhaps it's just telling the socialists among us what to think.
So, given all of the interesting facts I've read about this past week, it behooves me to come up with ways to avoid living my life in such a way that someone else is reaping the benefits of my labour, and on top of that, convincing me that I like this situation. This seems to be the best time of my life for avoiding hegemony-I am attending school courtesy of the government (until I'm done), I have employment that is based on the barter system, and I make up my own mind about what to think about, for the most part. I do have a weakness for American films, unfortunately, and I'll be off to watch Pirates of the Caribbean this weekend with no qualms whatsoever, although I'm aware that this is just another example of top-down popular culture. Through my culturally enlightened children, I will be exposed to more Indie bands this weekend, and until they're co-opted by the mainstream media, I enjoy hearing bands that start in grassroots culture. I'm guessing that I am engaging in a cafeteria-style of dropping out; rebelling against those things that I find most distasteful, while still engaging in those things that bring me pleasure.
This whole idea of hegemony really bothers me, and it becomes clearer to me just what was behind the Hippies 'dropping out'. What thinking person wants to feel that she is at the mercy of what conglomerates are telling her what to think? I want to believe that my favourite radio station, CBC, which I will not be mentioning again, is actually presenting a reflection of current Canadian thought, but, as evidenced by the recent federal election, that clearly isn't the case. Maybe it's a promising example of media that is not telling us what to think as a country, perhaps it's just telling the socialists among us what to think.
So, given all of the interesting facts I've read about this past week, it behooves me to come up with ways to avoid living my life in such a way that someone else is reaping the benefits of my labour, and on top of that, convincing me that I like this situation. This seems to be the best time of my life for avoiding hegemony-I am attending school courtesy of the government (until I'm done), I have employment that is based on the barter system, and I make up my own mind about what to think about, for the most part. I do have a weakness for American films, unfortunately, and I'll be off to watch Pirates of the Caribbean this weekend with no qualms whatsoever, although I'm aware that this is just another example of top-down popular culture. Through my culturally enlightened children, I will be exposed to more Indie bands this weekend, and until they're co-opted by the mainstream media, I enjoy hearing bands that start in grassroots culture. I'm guessing that I am engaging in a cafeteria-style of dropping out; rebelling against those things that I find most distasteful, while still engaging in those things that bring me pleasure.
12.5.11
I Really Hate Coffee
-I sometimes find myself being a bit of a Cultural snob in my choices of music and art. I listen to the CBC all day long, sometimes even (gasp) to Radio Two, just for the classical music. I have, in my time, been the proprietor of an art gallery, in a city that appreciates artists. Given all that, you would think that my lifestyle choices would reflect my affinity for high art. This isn’t the case, though. I eschew the accumulation of money and a fancy lifestyle. I think that nature is far superior to culture, and when I’m not listening to snobby music or writing academic masterpieces, I’m out in the woods.
I see plenty of examples of my contrary nature, when I come to really look at it. I am a strong proponent of decolonization of all kinds, which poses an issue for my dual Métis heritage, but no matter. This should suggest that I would enjoy the emergence of a more global form of popular culture, but when it comes to sitting and relaxing, I like watching American Idol, and Modern Family. I recognize the fact that I have been programmed, by American popular culture, to expect a certain amount of action, presented in a specific time frame. When I went to the theatre to see the movie Thor last week, I noticed that I was feeling vaguely dissatisfied with the pace of the movie, regardless of the fact that my dissatisfaction was alleviated by the main character’s physique.
In the midst of younger students, I feel that I have the advantage of a time-traveller, who has lived through the cultural changes of the past few decades, both in our Canadian culture and in people’s views of and participation in Culture. Art and music are so much more accessible now, through museum programs and social media like YouTube. I am the happy recipient of an education changed in nature by theorists like Leavis and Williams, and by the feminist movement, although a little more decolonization wouldn't come amiss there, either.
I can appreciate the cultural microcosm of ‘having a coffee’ as a social need for community. But this appreciation will never make me like the taste.
I see plenty of examples of my contrary nature, when I come to really look at it. I am a strong proponent of decolonization of all kinds, which poses an issue for my dual Métis heritage, but no matter. This should suggest that I would enjoy the emergence of a more global form of popular culture, but when it comes to sitting and relaxing, I like watching American Idol, and Modern Family. I recognize the fact that I have been programmed, by American popular culture, to expect a certain amount of action, presented in a specific time frame. When I went to the theatre to see the movie Thor last week, I noticed that I was feeling vaguely dissatisfied with the pace of the movie, regardless of the fact that my dissatisfaction was alleviated by the main character’s physique.
In the midst of younger students, I feel that I have the advantage of a time-traveller, who has lived through the cultural changes of the past few decades, both in our Canadian culture and in people’s views of and participation in Culture. Art and music are so much more accessible now, through museum programs and social media like YouTube. I am the happy recipient of an education changed in nature by theorists like Leavis and Williams, and by the feminist movement, although a little more decolonization wouldn't come amiss there, either.
I can appreciate the cultural microcosm of ‘having a coffee’ as a social need for community. But this appreciation will never make me like the taste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)