Week 7: Extra Post.

Sorry it took so long, but here are the sites I mentioned in class. In the first site, the one with the fates of some of the characters, the section that explains it is blocked out, so you have to highlight that section to be able to read it (because it is sort of a spoiler).

http://uberdionysus.livejournal.com/407822.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V7MeewG_MU

Week 7: Trivialization and Sensationalism

I have been trying to think exactly which public sphere concept would go along with the unique narration style of What Is The What. After some reflection, I believe that the story telling, the breaking of the fourth wall, and the falling in and out of borrowed stories all relate to trivialization because by these means we are forming a relationship with the narrator and the other characters. Trivialization is obvious in most parts of the story, as it is highly personal, bodily, and relationship-oriented, but take that aspect of trivialization and mix it with narration style and we are sort of hit with a one two punch as far as being invested in Valentino and those he cares about. So, now we care, and the author can kind of have his way with us, which is where sensationalism comes in. Valentino's story is enough on its own, but we know things are added and exaggerated, and with a some research we can find out more about the small betrayals of our trust. The beauty of this book, though, is it comes with the disclaimer of being fiction, so all must be forgiven, and as another blogger said (Sabrina, I think) all of these stories were true for some one at some point; in other words, they didn't materialize out of thin air. I think Eggers was necessarily resourceful in both getting readers to care and then shocking them in hopes of inciting action.

Week 7: Sensationalism & Apathy

It's a stroke of serendipity that pushed Valentino Deng into the company of Dave Eggers. Had a creative relationship been formed between Deng and another, more traditional biographer, the result would have been far different than What is the What. Eggers, a notably experimental novelist, uses literary techniques and styles that fall far beyond the bounds of the standard biographer.

Admittedly, What is the What is sensationalized. The book discusses the sensationalizing that takes place around the stories the Lost Boys tell in America; boys being eaten by lions, drinking their own urine. This happened, Deng says, but probably not as often as the stories would have people believe. In addition to the discussion of sensationalism, What is the What does a little sensationalizing of its own. Not that these stories aren't true, but some of the things Valentino experiences are extremely harrowing and traumatic. The graphic and emotional descriptions Eggers uses are included for a significant reason: To make the reader care.

Apathy is another significant device in What is the What. Throughout the novel, Deng mentions the apathy he sees around him in America. People don't seem to care about their fellow citizens in this country, and the stark contrast between the apathetic, me-first culture of America and the unified collectivism of Dinka life troubles him greatly. Obviously, Eggers uses this discussion of apathy for a reason. In this case, the reader is obliged to consider their own apathy. Reading about the blatant disregard for our fellow man in What is the What is enough to get any reader to consider what they've been apathetic about and what they can do about it. Clearly, Deng and Eggers use this self-evaluation for one reason: To make the reader act.

What is the What and Trivialization

One connection I have made between What is the What and the concepts that we learned earlier in the quarter is the use of personal story/flashbacks and trivialization. The modernists would say that trivialization present in the novel and the fact that personal narrative is used to inspire people to act on the behalf of the Lost Boys. I’m sure Habermas would like it if the discussion in the public sphere about the civil war in Sudan was strictly political. A postmodernist would view the trivialization of the topic of the Lost Boys as beneficial to the cause, and a useful tool for motivating people to help Sudanese refugees. My personal view on this issue leans towards the postmodern point of view. I believe that reading Valentino’s story is important because it humanizes the issue. Personal narrative also is more palatable to the public and is more likely to prompt readers to do anything they can to help.

Week 7: Post Modernism and Lost Boys

What happened to the lost boys is something that no one should ever go through. To endure walking for months just to make sure you can live safely is not something anyone should endure. The fact that the lost boys tell their story in order to get other people to care is Post-Modern. Post Modernism is when details about what happened in a person’s private life is discussed openly with others. The Lost Boys want their story to be known and want others to care. The fact that they are encouraging Americans to try and make their country safer and better for their citizens is great. Post modernism is essential for the lost boys cause. It makes people aware and want to do their part to help. The importance of having people hear the lost boys stories is clearly explained in What is the What through Valentino, “It is wrong to say that I used to tell these stories. I still do, and not only to those I feel have wronged me. The stories emanate from me all the time I am awake and breathing, and I want everyone to hear them. Written words are rare in small villages like mine, and it is my right and obligation to send my stories into the world…”(Eggers 29). This shows that they want their stories to be known for people to realize the hard times they had to go through and that no one should take the good things they have in life for granted.

Week 7: Fragmentation

During week one of class we discussed fragmentation in the Public Sphere. In The Public Sphere: An Introduction, McKee points out that "some popular and academic writers worry that the public sphere in Western countries is fragmenting. There's too much choice" (140). While reading What is the What by Dave Eggers, I kept wondering why the Lost Boys' story was never in the media. Now that I look back on McKee's definition of fragmentation in the public sphere, I can see why. Our public sphere is so fragmented that we don't all have the same interests. If people aren't interested in certain issues, they'll never know about them. Since our PS is so fragmented, we don't know about Africa because the media focuses on other things.

If we take a look at one of the biggest issues Valentino faced as a refugee, then as a Lost Boy-dependency, we can draw parallels to Africa's level of dependency. Africa's structure has evolved from the days of colonialism, into a new independent, socialist continent. Since there are multiple outlets that people use to educate themselves, which is a result of fragmentation, people don't know the level of suffering caused by dependency in Africa. If people don't have information about Africa readily available to them, they aren't going to look for it.

Week 6: Taking the Good With the Unthinkably Bad

I was dumb struck when Tabitha was killed. How much can one person (even a character in a novel) actually take? No family, no country, and now the women who he loves, a woman that can understand and identify with what he has been through, is gone. And she's not just gone--she dies in a horrifying way that is connected, once again, to the SPLA and the war. I find it interesting that a person can take in so much pain, and still remain the kind of person who other people are drawn to, because people are drawn to Valentino. He has such a strong support system throughout the book because he is the type of person people want to help. Dut, the bicycle man, the village lady, the girl who picks him up off the road, Gop, Phil, Bobby, Abraham, and the others all see something special in him. But is that what the author is actually getting at? I like Valentino, so I think the others in the story must, too. But I wonder if the examples of help, which are likely exaggerated in the same way as the trials and tribulations, are really there to highlight that the people who are helping actually become extraordinary themselves once they do so--how something so small as sharing a meal, or extending oneself in friendship does not only change a life, but can actually save one. I think it is proof that even if you don't have much to give, you can make a big difference. Monetary help like the support Phil provides, although extremely valuable, isn't the kind of help that keeps Valentino alive, it is a series of smaller but equally selfless acts that takes him safely (relatively, anyway) through the story.

Week 6: Valentino and Tabitha's Relationship

The Relationship of Valentino and Tabitha seemed interesting to me. At some points Tabitha is loving and sweet towards Deng while at other times she is distant and seems to vanish for days. Deng does not get to upset by this and even seems to admit at one point she probably cheated on him and he was okay with it. For an example, "I imagine her telling her friends that I was 'a nice boy' while she kept her eye open for new opportunities...she was a desirable young woman, new to the possibilities of this country, and she needed attention as much as she needed love (293)." He seems to not think it serious and that she will realize that she really wants to be with Deng when she is ready to settle down. He goes on to say when he learns of her death that, "allow me to assume that you were on your way to deciding that I was the one... I know you entertained calls from other men, men besides me and Duluma. We were young. We had not made plans (358)." I do not think that Tabitha appreciated Valentino as he deserved to be. She seemed to take him for granted and was not as had serious about him as he was about her. It almost seems like Deng was making excuses for her saying they had not made plans therefore it was not a big deal. But if she had seen that he loved her more than anything she wouldn't even want to flirt with another man. I hope she realized what a wonderful man Deng is and the struggle that he went through to be the man he had become.

Week 6: Dependency

A centralized theme throughout What is the What is dependency. As a refugee, Valentino struggles in Ethiopia and Kenya and is dependent upon people like Dut and Noriyake to help him survive. When he comes to the United States, he is dependent upon people like Phil and Mary to help him with every day things. When he leaves the hospital and arrives at his house, he has no desire to stay there. Instead, he travels to the Newton's house and wants to take a nap on their couch for an hour before he has to head off to work. When he gets to their house, he realizes that nobody would be home and starts to get frustrated that he drove all this way to bug them. He's tired of always being dependent upon others and always needing help. Today, Valentino has built schools in Sudan and has started non-profit organizations. What he didn't realize at the time, was in order to be successful here, he needed to be dependent upon people like Phil and Mary. He needed them to teach him the ways of Americans. Although he was frustrated, it was for the better. He now has the tools to help others that are in the position he was in back home. Being dependent helped him gain access to resources he wouldn't have had otherwise, such as an education, a car, and an apartment.

Week 5: Is Valentino credible?

While I am entrenched in my readings, I completely trust Achak/Valentino as a narrator, but if I step back later and think critically, I start to let some of the one-line admissions sink in, and I know that he is pretty much confessing to us that he's embellishing or at least making assumptions at certain points, “None of the boys who walked with me say Monynhial perish in his hole but we all know this story to be true, It is very easy for a boy to die in Sudan” (160), and quotes like that prove it. I am fascinated, though, at the subtle ways that Eggers establishes a sort of overarching air of credibility for Valentino (at least in my eyes). I Think the story telling aspects do a lot to this end. For example, when he is telling the story of how William K made it to the river, he stays in William's mind using only direct quotes, and then without any commentary, he falls back into his own story. Now, I know William K's story is thrown in for effect, but I forget that seeing it recounted this way; it just seems like an honest conversation with his best friend. Secondly, I feel that Eggers keeping Valentino in story telling mode is very effective as well. Valentino recounts the story frankly, and he speaks frankly to his audience--Powder, Michael, and Julian (even if they are unaware they are his audience), and this calm tone doesn't make me feel as if I am trying to be convinced of anything. Lastly, the intimate way he talks to his audience reminds me of a father or a teacher--some who is wise with authority--always calling them by name, and asking them questions as he goes, "Do you know what she wants, Julian?"
(249). I guess what I am trying to say is that, intellectually, I know I am being convinced of something, but not until I think about it; it is innocuous to me while I'm reading.

Week 5: Are All of Valentino's Stories Reliable?

In regards to question 2, Valentino is reliable to what he believes happened with his storytelling. For when he is told someone died he does not feel the need to actually check because death seems to surround him. It is understandable that he would not want to see another dead body, for just seeing one dead body in a lifetime is more than enough. But this does not make him reliable in a factual sense because when someone wants to be taken as credible they should have evidence to back that point up (just like in any essay you need specific reliable sources to back up your claim). Valentino may not have seen the need to see for himself that this death had happened, but since most of his audience for his stories have really no idea what happened there is a sense that he may say something and whoever he is telling this to really has no idea if this is fact or fiction. I think that Valentino does believe what he is telling happened, I just think that he needs to provide solid credible evidence to what he says so there is no leftover questions such as why didn’t he check to see that Monynhial had actually died or just decided to move to a different area. For an example, “On the third day he decided to die in the hole, because it was warm there and there were no sounds inside. And he did die that day because he was ready”(160). This shows that a reader may question what Valentino has to say actually happened for if no one looked to see that Monynhial had died how does he know what happened to him? Who told him? But it is a good book with people like President Obama and Angelina Jolie reading this book and recommending it, it seems like most people will not think about credible Sources. But it is also to be taken into fact that this book is said to be fiction instead of non fiction explaining why there aren't credible sources.

Week 5: True or False

Valentino has two types of truth, the first being factual, and the second being known. Most of his stories are based on known truths. Does this mean he isn't a reliable source? I don't think it does. Growing up, all he ever experienced was friends and family being killed in front of him, dying in their sleep from starvation and dehydration, and boys being carried away by lions or hyenas. He assumes his friend is dead because he has seen this happen to other loved ones. This is why he doesn't need to check on him. One of the examples my group used to support that his knowledge holds true is in Chapter 1 when Valentino is getting robbed by Powder and Tonya, he admits to himself that he "has survived many oppressions, but have never fought with a man standing in front of me" (9). The way we interpreted this is that the oppression he's faced are his known truths. When Powder is standing in front of him, this conflict is present, thus being factual. I trust his narrative because I think that what he's endured in the past is enough to believe him. Not only that, but I've done the research to know he is being truthful. Another blogger had mentioned that we are moved by watching the Lost Boys more than we are by reading about them. I think this is another reason why I trust him; in class we saw them going through the situations Valentino has described to us.

Extra Post: Deng, "the most commonly found name in Dinka."

I found this on wikipedia, and I thought that others might find it interesting, too :)

"Deng is a first or last name used among the tribes of Southern Sudan. It's shared by the Dinkas, Nuers and shilluk. Its meaning various for instant, in Dinka, it means "Rain" and it also refers to heavens or God. The Dinkas believe that the most powerful God, god of all gods is 'Deng". It's the most commonly found name in Dinka."

Week 4: An Attempt at Democracy and Peace

While doing research about the current state of Sudan, I learned that there will be elections for Sudan’s presidency and parliament from April 5, 2010 to April 12, 2010. The elections were supposed to be held in 2008 according to the peace agreement signed between the Sudan’s People Liberation Movement of the south and the National Congress of the north. Throughout the year, 6 elections will be held: national presidency and parliamentary, the south Sudanese presidency, state governors, the southern parliament and state assemblies. The elections that will be held in April will be the first that have been held in the troubled country in over 20 years. Relations between the two political parties remains tense, however, most are optimistic that true democracy will prevail. According to the peace agreement, southern Sudan should by granted independence from Sudan by 2011. More information about the Sudanese elections can be found here.

Week 4: Lost Boys and Post Traumatic Stress

I couldn’t stop thinking about the lost boy in the film who went missing and then turned up on a city bus in the throes of a nervous breakdown, so I decided to find out if there are any statistics on how the lost boys are getting along emotionally and what, if anything, is being done to help them. Here’s what I found out: A 2005 study of 304 Sudanese Lost Boy refugees found that at least 1/5 of them had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which seems low to me, PTSD in the AZ Lost Boys population has been put somewhere between 80 and 90%). The boys in the study had a mean age of seventeen-and-a-half. 93% of them said that their villages had been attacked and they had witnessed loved ones being killed, and 20% of them said they had been tortured themselves. The boys living in U.S. foster care or group institutions fared the worst with respect to developing PTSD. An article in the Arizona Republic states that the symptoms of PTSD can sometimes take years to develop, but when they do, they put these men and boys a greater risk for broken relationships, domestic violence, and alcoholism. Thankfully the problem isn’t going ignored, and there are avenues of assistance. For example, Outreach Africa: Lost Boy Foundation doesn’t mention mental health directly, but it says that it provides medical and emotional support. Also, the Arizona Lost Boys Center recently received $155,000 that would be used specifically to “address the mental-health issues in the Sudanese community…” In a last example, The Hope of Sudan Foundation provides not only educational and vocational scholarships for NY area lost boys but also trauma healing and emotional support. In short, thankfully, every group I found that works within or to help the Lost Boy community is working in one way or another to offer emotional healing as well, whether that is through counseling, reconciliation with family members, or medical care.

Week 4: What Happened to the Lost Girls?

What happened to the lost girls?

In most of the narratives about the lost children from Sudan the focus is placed mostly on the boys. But what I was curious about is what happened to the few lost girls also placed in the United States. How did they adapt to life in the US? The main reason that boys are the focus in these documentaries is that Sudanese women are taught to be quiet and to not be outspoken. Veronica Abbas, a lost girl, explains Sudanese women further, “In our culture, freedom is not for girls, Girls are polite and keep quiet. It is hard to have a good life when you think you don't have a voice." And also there is not as many girls that came over through the refugee program. In 1999 4,000 boys came to the US, while only 89 girls came. Many of the lost girls were placed in foster homes in Africa and were eventually sold for a valuable bride-price and were lost track of. One of the lost girls placed in a foster home was Aluel. She was raped in her room one night and became pregnant. She is now a single mother and is considered an outcast from society. Kofi Marble, the head of a UN refugee agency does not hold high hopes for the lost girls, “We have lost them... they are completely lost", Mr Mable says regretfully, "They have lost that status of lost girls. Some of them are mothers. They are married...There's nothing I can do - or anyone else can do” Many of the lost girls who did manage to find a way to the US have united and are trying to help other women in the same situation. Southern Sudanese Women's Association was founded by Harriet Dumba, Agnes Oswaha, and Veronica Abbas. This association provides free counseling and education to Sudanese children. This shows that things are looking up for the lost girls but they still have much more work to do to try to help a woman’s place in Sudan be better and without fear.

Week 4: Extra Post

I know we aren't talking about the public sphere anymore, but I was pumping gas when a man came up to me and our encounter made me think of this class. He asked me which pump he was supposed to use and if it was regular, so I told him it was fine. I thought he was confused about whether or not it was Diesel. So he asked me, "'Do you pump it?" And I said, "Yes, you pump it." And he said, "No, you pump it," and he was pointing at me. I was so confused, but before I could starting yelling at him for being a jerk, he asked, "You work here, don't you?" I was like, "oh, no buddy. I don't work here." He pointed to my car like I stole it and asked, "Is this your car?"

He didn't know how to pay for gas, or how to pump it. So after a crash course in gas-station 101, I asked him where he was from. He was from Israel and was here with his friend on vacation. Where he is from, the gas station works the same way, but they have people to help you pump it. Whenever I've thought of employees that pump gas at gas stations, I've envisioned guys that look like the one on the left--not ME! At least I know I have a promising future in the gas station biz.

Week 4: What is the current status of Sudan?

After seeing the video about the Lost Boys last week, and moving on to the text, I was curious about the current status of Sudan. Such as if they still have these conflicts. Upon doing my research, I found this website to answer those very questions http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/sudan/?gclid=COCUl4Ga-J8CFRcdawodhyuuXwyuuXw. In 2005, the conflict of fighting ended as a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Sudan still has three major conflicts occurring: 1. between the north and south, 2. in Darfur, and 3. Arab-African. Major problems within Sudan are because of oil, and much like many other African states, politics. Politics is a huge issue within Africa because it is ethno-centric. In Sudan alone, there are 56 ethnicities and about 600 sub-ethnicities. Although this number sounds large, it's nothing compared to ethnicities within Africa as a whole. These issues have raised concerns that the conflicts could trickle into neighboring countries and result in a regional war. Today, in Darfur, there are still heinous crimes being committed. In fact, in March of 2009, Sudan's President was arrested for engaging in genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Darfur currently has a strong peacekeeping force that the United Nations and African Union have jointly created. According to Transparency International, Sudan is one of the world's most corrupt states. In class, a student asked why America didn't do anything in Sudan during the war. This was one of my questions as well, in regards to today. I was wondering why America doesn't cut off ties with Africa (as far as the money we send their way), and just barge in there and take over. But we can't do this because this would shed light on the shady politics we take part in within the United States. In regards to Sudan, insightonconflict.org has said that, "US policy has recently become more proactive with respect to Sudan". Thank goodness!

Week 3: Geeking Out

I fully admit to many different types of 'geekery.' I play video games, I read all kinds of books (including comic books), I love computers and technology, I adore old zombie movies. Heck, I honestly don't even know how many times I've read the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Seriously. I'm a giant geek. Thanks to the Internet, though, I don't have to feel ostracized by all the cool people.

I spend tons of time browsing several technology/gadget-oriented web-sites and their forums. Some of my favorites include CNet, Engadget and Gizmodo. These sites, however, pale in importance to the resource of resources, the apex of Internet geekery, TWiT. TWiT, which stands for "This Week in Tech," is a podcasting network run by Leo "The Tech Guy" Laporte. They produce multiple netcasts/podcasts covering a wide range of technological sub-genres. It's really geeky, and I love it. The forums/chatrooms are vibrant and informative.

One of the most interesting aspects of TWiT's coverage is their absolute, obsessive detail. This sort of in-depth coverage of a niche market of information is the real service they provide. To that end, it should be obvious that only the Postmodern perspective would welcome their sort of involvement in the public sphere. Clearly, in-depth analysis of new technology and gadgets would be seen as trivial by both Modernists and Postmodernists alike, but only the Postmodernists would consider this trivial information worthy of entering the public sphere.

I think that one of the truly valuable innovations of the Internet is its extreme fragmentation, a perspective that would surely alienate the Modernists. Where more unified resources like a newspaper are relatively difficult to whittle down only to the information that the reader is interested in, the Internet has an entire world of focused, narrow niches of information just a few clicks away. What could be more Postmodern (and geeky) than that?

Week 3: Niches in the Public Sphere

One of my identities is that of a vegetarian, and I spend a fair amount of time looking for new recipes, which over the years has taken me through the gamut of information the online public sphere has to offer. The vegetarian niche of the public sphere ranges anywhere from the micro-niche to the more general. The micro-niche would be, for example, are sites like "How to Become a fruitarian" or even anti-vegetarian sites proclaiming the best way to save a cow is to eat a vegetarian. On the other side, we find much more generalized sites that focus only on the health or heart benefits of a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet, not to mention everything in between. In respect to the postmodern idea of the public sphere, I think it would be accepting of most (save the extremes maybe) of this niche as legitimately valid and engaging. With respect to the modern idea of the public sphere, however, I feel that the health driven, scientifically sound websites/blogs would be considered more acceptable for public consumption. I kind of tend to see the modernist side here as I recall the times I have just been on the hunt to get a recipe or find where to buy vegetarian marshmallows, but have, instead, spent an hour or so side tracked by following links to pages that don't accomplish any of my goals. These blogs/sites are enticing and morbidly entertaining; they are usually sites debating some aspect of the aforementioned extremes, which have nothing to do with me. I know, it was my choice to waste that hour, but these sites are distracting, nonetheless. Having said that, I do believe the ultimate responsibility lies more with me to be discerning: just because it is there doesn't mean I have to look.

Week 3: Do We Spend Too Much Time in Forums?

I think that modernists would not see the point of websites like facebook and myspace, even if there is a special group for students to discuss issues that affect them. Because for the most part these kinds of sites release personal information that is not really anyones business. People usually end up going off topic for an example in a student forum instead of talking about classes and books it will probably go off topic to a student talking about a drinking party or something else to that extent. Not saying that it would but these things happen more so than don’t. These public spheres detract from an idealized public sphere through the fact that they go off topic and can lead to people being glued to the computer instead of being out in the real world, which is in a sense a time killer that can cause people to get lazy in their writing and releases information to the public which is in a sense can be considered trash. Mckee argues that, "But for 'modern' writers, assuming that the masses are passive, it's possible to argue that the reason the public sphere is currently full of sensational, trashy material is because that is what producers provide" (86). McKee's point is that people are subjected to trash daily which in a sense dumbs down the audience and what people may talk about in forums and such. This is not to say that all forums are like this, but a lot of them tend to be based on personal issues instead of what the forum is supposed to be about. These websites do provide a place for people to release their thoughts, problems, and ideas that can help a person but it does not really contribute to the public sphere because in almost all groups it goes off topic and can wonder from the issue that actually brought these people together in the first place.

Week 3: Motherhood

One of my identities is being a mom, so I decided I would explore the "motherhood" Public Sphere. I never took the time to look at "mommy" blogs, but some women need this type of forum to vent. There's a "Stressed Out Mom's Club" on Facebook, and numerous blogs a mother could engage in. The site that I found the most interesting was http://www.themommiesnetwork.org/. Upon joining "The Mommies Network", you have the opportunity to engage in discussion forums, mingle with mommies and their children in your area, and take part in charitable events. I kind of figured mommy "support groups" were out there, but groups such as these are important in the PS because it enables women to have an outlet. We wouldn't question whether cloth diapers are better than disposable diapers, or if breast milk is more beneficial than formula if women didn't have these discussions weighing out the pros and cons. Some mothers use these outlets (blogging) to show other women that it's possible to be a working mom, or it's possible to be a stay-at-home mom and still have a life.


As a post-modernist, I think this PS is necessary. This goes back to the question: what's too private that is public? I don't think anything is too private, as I've stated in Week 2's blog. There are too many mommies out there to not address the issues mothers have. I can see how a Modernist would suggest that issues of motherhood should be left in the home-we shouldn't talk about breast feeding, or wiping your child's bottom after they went to the potty. The idealized PS certainly wouldn't talk about these things. But that's why it's idealized and not realistic. Mommy blogging sites, and other forums for mothers, respond to interests of mothers through play-dates, mom-only fun (movies or lunch with other mom's), and other events so mothers can build friendships in their community.


In class we discussed the "blood-baths" that takes place between blogger mom's. I didn't find any of those types of blogs, bummer. I found women, such as Amy S. (http://snarkymommy.com/?gclid=CKjL_O34yJ8CFRwUawodbjSE0g), blogging about the every day struggles of motherhood. I enjoyed reading her blogs, the only people she bashed on (which I thought would be other mom's based off of the class discussion), were her kids. She's sarcastic, which is a breath of fresh air I'm sure. What's motherhood if you can't get a good laugh out of it once in a while?

Week 2: Modern or Postmodern? That is the question...

Modern or Postmodern? That is the question. Well, it's a question that I'm not sure I can answer quite clearly. According to the modernist Habermas, the ideal public sphere "...would involve only private individuals expressing their own authentic ideas, with no compromises and no attempt to second-guess what other people would like to hear (Calhoun, 1992:b 21). It would only contain art and literature--no mass culture" (Mckee 54-55). This idea of the public sphere is very narrow minded and extremely dull. The postmodernist view of including the important issues of every group and culture is also one that is disorganized and chaotic. When I think of the postmodern view in it's pure state, I imagine a room full of people representing a variety of cultures all yelling "What about us!?!".
Like most people are about various ideologies, I'm somewhat in the middle. However, I will admit that I lean a little more towards the modern approach than the postmodern. I believe in a fairly ideal public sphere where the issues that affect us all as members of society are addressed. Arguably, issues that are important to one particular group of people are issues that affect us all as members of society are addressed. For example, if the working-class wants more social programs, it is surely going to come out of the pockets of the wealthy, and if the wealthy are demanding tax cuts it will certainly be to the detriment of social programs. I can also say that I prefer a public sphere that fairly fragmented, with mainstream media deal with more universal issues and other specialized venues that address more trivial issues. Mixing the trivial with the political can often result in a public sphere that is chaotic, as we have seen with the coverage of the death of Micheal Jackson, the sex scandals of Tiger Woods and the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Postmodernist would suggest that these seemingly trivial stories bring various private issues into light to be discussed by society. While I agree with that notion, I believe that there is a time and a place for such stories, and there should be a place reserved for this type of discussion outside of mainstream media. If we can marry the modern approach with the postmodern, I believe we can achieve a truly ideal public sphere.

Week 2: Pigeon-Holes

The differences between the modern and postmodern perspectives are rather stark. Like political positions, I would be surprised to find if any person were completely in one camp or the other. I certainly feel this way about my own inclinations. The extremes exemplified in McKee's writing are both off-putting to me. The modernist whinging about the "degradation of an ideal" is a very old-man-shouting-at-the-neighborhood-kids sort of willful obliviousness. Has there ever been anything so perfect? Is the ideal anything but a pipe-dream? No and no. There never has been and there will never be an "ideal" anything.

So does this make me a postmodernist? No. McKee's examples of this perspective leave me just as cold as the modernists. While my political leanings definitely place me left of the center (further left than I care to admit, sometimes), McKee's examples of postmodern thinking sound too much like the political correctness and moral relativism that many on the left dubiously espouse. This way of thinking is just as silly as the head-in-the-sand closed-mindedness of the modernists.

So what, then, do I say for myself? Mostly, I want to look at what's happening in the public sphere currently and really examine it honestly. This means leaving defined perspectives completely out of the question entirely. I certainly understand the usefulness and importance of understanding perspectives like modernism and postmodernism for their historical significance and as a sort of lens through which to see the way we, as a society, examine our own culture. For me, however, I'll sit on the fence. I'll take the enlightenment values of the modernists and a splash of the acceptance inherent in the postmodern perspective, but the most important thing I think we can all do is keep our minds open.

Week 2: Somewhere in the Middle?

I have asked myself if I am a modern or postmodern thinker with respect to the public sphere, and I am beginning to realize that my persuasion changes with the subject and even possibly with subtle variations within a subject. For example, my reaction to the statement “women are excluded from Habermas’s ideal public sphere” (54) is that there was never a time in history in which I think that would be reasonable or acceptable. I am unwilling to take into consideration the historical context or relativity of that remark, thereby, asserting that I myself have an “ideal” public sphere in which women are included. That is actually pretty modern of me, right? This is the juncture at which the line begins to blur for me. In regard to the Tiger Woods story that we talked about in class, however, I am sure that my view is modern. Conversely, I feel that Habermas’s idea that literature is one of the precious few things that should be included in the ideal public sphere (55) is oxymoronic since most of the literature that we enjoy is a product of the sharing of ideas, cultures, and the human condition that takes place within the public sphere. To clarify, I too think literature should be included. I don't, however, think that you can exclude everything that Habermas wants to exclude and still have the same quality and quantity of literature. I feel that in this respect my view is postmodern.

Accordingly, it could be useful to look at modernism and postmodernism as a continuum with each idea representing the extremes. On this continuum, I would see myself somewhere in the middle, but moving more to one side or the other depending on the subject. I believe, like most things in life, the public sphere requires balance. Wouldn’t an entirely post-modern view lead to a type of over fragmentation that wouldn’t be conducive to an all-inclusive public sphere? Equally, I think we have to take care to see that a completely modernist view, while it may include everyone in the hope, the standard, or the aspiration of modernism, could leave many out of the actual discourse.

Week 2: Postmodernist View

I see myself as a postmodernist. I believe some issues that modernists would call "private" should be made known to the public so that others who are having the same problem can feel better and know that they are not alone. McKee writes, "By making public issues about marital rape, wife beating and unreasonable domestic expectations, women could share their experiences, argue that this was a problem in society generally rather than just in each individual house, and thus organize to change things" (47). These are very serious issues that people should not deal with alone. When people endure these issues alone it can lead to depression. Now days there are many websites that people can go to and discuss problems that they may have. This is a very serious problem that if it is not discussed can lead to much more serious problems like suicide. Everyone should realize life is worth living and items that someone from a modernist perspective may see as private do need to be discussed with by someone who has had the same problem and can explain how to conquer it. I can see how a modernist would not believe it is their business to know what goes on in someone's private life but serious issues need to be addressed to help others.

Week 2: Trivialization-What is too private to be public?

"Women and their concerns belong in the private domestic sphere...not the public"(39). Tell that to a battered woman, or a single parent struggling to provide food and shelter to their children. As a postmodernist, nothing is too private that is public. If it weren't for the public knowledge of domestic violence victims, and rape victims (even if you're married), there wouldn't be laws to protect these victims. Politicians are busy making laws and protecting individual rights because of private issues.

Habermas would argue that government funded programs, like welfare, grants to pay for school, medi-cal, etc, "makes people lazy"(52). I sadly used to think the same thing when I was in high school. Then one day I grew up, and I realized there is so much more to a person than the exterior. I was watching Oprah about a year ago and there was a woman talking about how her husband made her feel like she was ugly without makeup and he would beat her up so much that her 4 kids started to sleep in bed with her because they were scared for her. One day, after coming home from vacation with the kids, they found her husband dead in the garage. He stopped paying the bills prior to his death so her house was headed toward foreclosure, her cars were about to get repossessed and her credit cards were in collections. He even quit his job 3 months prior, and cancelled his life insurance. She was left with 4 kids and $70 in the bank because he was giving her what she wanted-a life without him. For this woman, government programs are needed so her family can survive, she isn't lazy, just unfortunate. Her story could be the story of so many other women.

As we discussed Heidi Montag in my group, we all came to a consensus that trivial issues are needed. Teen-agers these days think being beautiful is having a size 0 body and DD boobs. Showing them examples of people in the media could help them feel confident in their own skin. Nobody is born looking like a Barbie, money buys that. When I was in high school, I used to read magazines and every magazine had diet tips. I didn't read them to figure out the latest diet trend, but we were 17 and I had friends that did. The following link will show you the latest detox diet http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NAH/is_3_33/ai_104836632/?tag=col1;subcol to shed those L-B's in 7 days!

Week 2: Cultures within the Public Sphere

From a Postmodern standpoint, I can see why cultures within the PS are necessary. What I don't understand, as I pointed out in class, is why some of these cultures seem to be defined by stereotypes. Dr. Rowan made a good point, "we have to make some generalizations in defining these cultures". One generalization that really bothered me was McKee using the term "queer culture" when referring to the gay community. According to McKee, "Queer Nation...takes the insult 'queer' and turns it into a proud celebration of diversity"(30). As I stated in class, I have many gay friends that would actually be very offended by the term "queer". McKee justifies using this term by stating that,"from a postmodern perspective it is in fact a positive thing"(30). Having postmodern views, I do think that this term will one day be used openly when describing the gay community, but I don't hink that day is today.

Another thing that really caught my eye about cultures within the PS was McKee's generalization of the white culture. The white culture is "composed of literate and restrained forms of public communication"(25), immediately made me think of George W. Bush. If you click on the following link http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl_bush_quote_generator.htmtor.htm there are several Bush quotes that would make this generalization seem like a stereotype. I'm not saying Bush is illiterate, but he was known for making up words in public speeches.

I think many of my opinions about issues would make me a postmodernist. Cultures within the PS are necessary because each culture has different issues that need to be addressed. Making generalizations about these cultures, whether or not they are stereotypes, is necessary in defining a culture.

Society and the Media: Who's in Charge?

There was much discussion in class about how the media influences our culture. There was also some discussion about how we as a society affect influence the media. So which is it? It is a combination of both. Here is an example that I have encountered about how the media influences our culture. In TV and movies, childbirth is often depicted as frantic, chaotic, scary, and painful. This has helped to foster an attitude of fear surrounding the act of childbirth. Instead of being optimistic about bringing their children in the world, women are thinking that it is likely that their waters will break in the middle of the grocery store and immense, blinding pain will follow. When the media sensationalizes something over and over again, the general public will begin to believe that the dramatized version of a real life event. It takes experience for women to find that childbirth is much different from what is depicted in the media and are often optimistic about the childbirth experience with subsequent children.
An example of how the society can influence the media is the plethora of stories about celebrities that show up on our local and national news stations. Everything from sex scandals to plastic surgery is on nightly news as if it is an urgent matter. This is because the consumer wants to see stories of that nature. It is the voyeuristic part of our nature that craves a peek into the personal lives of other human beings, such as celebrities. It's a part of the reason that reality shows are so popular. However, we must question whether or not news channels are an appropriate venue for stories of this nature. I believe that trivial stories like the ones I just spoke of have their place on entertainment channels and television shows that cater to entertainment news. Other would argue that these trivial stories pull people into the mainstream news channels that wouldn't normally watch and those people are exposed to issues that they wouldn't normally come in contact with. I feel that is a valid argument, but how many trivial stories are we going to allow to cloud our mainstream media? Do those who actually care about important issues have to sit through hours of nonsense before they get real news that truly affects the lives of citizens?

Week 1: Public Sphere

Although there are a lot of students that complained about the media in class, and the type of stories that are in the media, it is important to understand that we are the ones that fuel that garbage. It does become annoying when I'm flipping through the channels and the only thing on TV is Tiger Woods' sex scandal or someone like Heidi Montag getting ten plastic surgeries in a day. So instead of staying tuned to something very uninteresting, I watch things that actually matter. As we discussed in class, the media responds to ratings. During these terrible times, when people are losing their jobs, houses, etc., people are looking for distractions. People stay tuned to trivia and entertainment because for that half hour they don't have to think about the screwed up situation they might be in, they can watch a celebrity in a screwed up situation. If society wants to watch these things, this is what will be circulated in the media.

Americans don't worry about politics during these times because people are more concerned about how they're going to put food on the table for their family. Are people then couch potatoes because they actually have priorities? No! Why concern yourself with something like the health care bill? There are people that get paid to do that. Although many of us care about it, myself included, whatever happens is out of our control. My mother's company went under a year ago, and although she tries to read about politics, and what's going on in society (other than celeb gossip), she is more concerned about finding a job. This is the case all over our country. We are all intelligent enough to understand what is important and what is not. I think McKee is just a jerk and focuses on stereotypes, rather than actuality.

Week 1--Media Outlets as Businesses: Working What Works

In class, another student brought up that news is a business, and I believe that we cannot discount the media as businesses. Ideologies have become very important recently but have not edged out earnings (translated by viewership) as the main motivation of media outlets. They operate on fear and sensationalism for a reason: we tune in for it. At the same time, I see that most people are sincerely disillusioned with the media. So, why aren't more people watching the PBS Newshour or BBC News America? The same question could be asked of internet news: how many people have their homepage set to the Associated Press vs. MSN or Yahoo? Why, when there are less sensationalized alternatives, do the majority of us (myself included--I'm not throwing stones.) stick to network, cable, and entertainment news? I can only assume that we cherry pick by taking what we do want from what the media has to offer. I may want to hear the news plus which movies are debuting this week while my husband wants to hear who won the big game. We sit through what we feel to be the minutia in between while waiting, but the net result is that CNN stays on for the entire hour. So since media is a business and niche stories and sensationalism get a variety of viewers in a very competitive marketplace, can the Habermas ideal public sphere really exist? What about non-profit news outlets? Maybe that would work. Well, we have those, mostly on radio, but how many of us actually tune in to NPR? We could mandate news outlets to be non-profit. If that were the only option for news, then would we tune in? Would we then ban traditional media outlets from reporting what is deemed to be news? Who would decide what qualifies as news? Hmmmmm...

Week 1: Does the Public Sphere Make Irresponsible Celebs Role Models?

One of the most important issues in today's public sphere is the public fascination with celebrities. There are shows like TMZ or E! News that are dedicated to showing people what celebrities are doing. What are they eating? Who are they dating? Important issues like State Budget Cuts and poverty can be forgotten when people watch these shows making them an escape from reality. But the question that comes to my mind is: Does the public sphere help make celebrities who are irresponsible and down right stupid role models for kids and teens?

I think celebrities for the most part are poor role models. But people are still interested in them more than politics. As McKee wrote, "Consumers are more interested in unimportant news about celebrities, diets, and sex tips than really important political issues (2)." Paris Hilton is a name that everyone is familiar with. But what exactly is she famous for? If she wasn't rich and didn't have her Barbie like looks or a sex tape would we know her name? I don't think so. She is known to go to night clubs, dress kind of slutty, and party. But little girls want to look like her. She was even arrested for a DUI and said it was 'nothing'. I don't think most parents would want their daughter to grow up like her.

Children and teens for the most part are really interested in celebrities and wanting to look like them for that is what society places as the standard of what women should look like. I once had a friend who wanted to be just like Paris Hilton and have fancy name brand clothes and purses. And to be thin just like her. She would have done anything to meet her. But I can not help but to think what for? I mean its not the same as meeting someone who is successful from their own efforts like Oprah Winfrey or Ronald Regan, who died a few years ago.

I have to admit I find celebrities interesting but I do not want to model myself to look like one or act like one. It seems they are rewarded for stupid behavior. Like when Paris Hilton got out of jail a few years ago she was able to continue her life as usual. Which if someone from a middle class background had gotten the same DUI it may be harder for them to continue life and find a job again. I find the public sphere makes a big deal of irresponsible celebrities due to their looks . Perhaps the public sphere should not focus on looks but on people making a difference by working hard to succeed.