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.