Beatrix Kiddo from Kill Bill 2, as she tries to settle down and lead a normal life

Much like Bewitched, I find that the Addams Family provides a similar positive message. I personally interpret it as a message of multiculturalism. As much as this family’s habits and hobbies may seem odd, sometimes even unsettling, they still remain good-natured and friendly. In other words, judging a people by their looks and cultural differences is misleading, since inside they are just the same as everybody else. I remember this being something that I learned by watching the show as a child. As an interesting side note, the Addams Family is a little bit like Bewitched turned inside-out: Alternative on the surface, but very socially acceptable at its core.

The Addams Family may seem weird and quirky, but everyone there is so nice!

It’s great that the makers of Bewitched and the Addams Family were able to spread their message of tolerance in such a subtle and non-invasive way. I am also very happy to see that The Reader contains some positive examples and not just negative ones. The constant criticism and antagonization were among my main gripes with the book. It does seem to find signs atrocious crimes among even the most harmless shows, which significantly hurts its credibility. When I started reading the article about Bewitched, I was half expecting to see more of the same, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Here’s the intro theme from the original Addams Family show:

As a user of Facebook, I would agree that this is probably true to some extent, especially for younger users. Being 22 years old, I already feel a good amount of freedom offline and the main reason why I use Facebook is just for plain convenience. It’s much easier to invite people to parties and keep in touch with them when they’re all accessible from one place, as opposed to having to contact each one of them individually. It also has additional features, such as photo albums and profiles with personal information, including favourite movies, music and birthdates. All this information helps in initiating conversations and reinforcing relationships. I can certainly imagine, however, how younger users might be attracted by the limited adult supervision of the online world.

Personally, I never took the media seriously when it comes to scary stories about video games and the internet. As the article correctly points out, the same kind of stories were produced against comic books, rock and roll, movies and books. People are afraid of change and media thrive on fear. I’ve probably already mentioned this, but the very reason why I’m so put off by our book, the Reader, is that it’s so similar to mass media in its usage of scare tactics and the way it paints an absurdly hostile and malevolent world.

It's hard to say if we should laugh or cry.

The worst thing about it is that we are so susceptible to these fantasies. If parents only investigated this supposed ‘problem’ on their own a little bit, perhaps they would realize that just about anything their kids can do online is by far safer than crossing a street right outside their house. I suppose that it might also have something to do with the fact that in today’s society it is very common for parents to delegate raising their children to teachers, television and the computer. By giving away this power over others, they also lose the influence they once had. It’s understandable that they become frustrated when this arrangement doesn’t quite work out, but ultimately, who is to blame for it? It would seem sensible for them to take some of the control back. Instead, what we observe is them complaining to their delegates, on whom they imposed this responsibility in the first place.

If you don’t want your kids to play a violent video game, make sure that they don’t buy it, don’t try to ban its entire distribution. If you don’t want your kids to get scarred by their online interactions, explain to them the possible dangers of the online world, don’t just block it off entirely. It’s called good parenting for a reason.

Here’s a parody of a Facebook ad (do they even really have ads?):

The article “Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement” talks about the new possibilities and ways of having one’s voice heard that arise from internet tools such as wikis and blogs. We humans always had the need to express our views on society, morality, politics, and perspective on life. In the beginning, the best we could do was to find a crowd, stand next to other self-proclaimed prophets and start shouting away, hoping that someone will listen. Things had gotten a little better after the invention of the Gutenberg press, but ultimately, expressing oneself was never as easy as it is today, thanks to all the internet-based tools we have at our disposal. It is quite amazing that today we can have our voice heard around the globe without even getting up from our chairs, in the comfy surroundings of our bedrooms.

Brian unwittingly became a very successful prophet.

Tools such as wikis or blogs (hello!) make it possible for the average Joe to concentrate on the content of what they want to say, without having to worry too much about the technicalities related to online publishing, namely things like knowing html or maintaining a server. The removal of these barriers means that just about anyone can say what they think needs to be said and the floodgates of information are now open. The internet can become a global think-tank.

Of course this also means that any loony can make a blog and write about his or her tinfoil hats, but even the most reputable sources can be wrong sometimes, and the sheer numbers of online information mean that finding second, third or tenth opinions is easy and highly advisable. The internet is a place where the democracy of truth prevails, Wikipedia being the perfect example of this phenomenon. However, it’s also important to remember, and this may somewhat contradict what I said before, that the quality of the form that the message takes on is also of utmost importance. Consider the “Zeitgeist” video. The entire two-hour documentary is made by one man, Peter Joseph, who most likely sat at home, working on it every night after work. Its near professional quality makes it very accessible and viewer-friendly, which no doubt had impact on its immense popularity. The way it uses flashy visual effects and ambient meditation music serves as an excellent distraction from the fact that the video largely consists of conspiracy theories and misrepresented facts. Admittedly, the video is extremely convincing: I had fallen for it myself, until I researched it. Surely, if the content of “Zeitgeist” had been limited to a small website, it wouldn’t have have anywhere near the impact that it did. I can certainly that it’s unlikely that I would spend two hours of my time absorbing the information from such a website. You can watch “Zeitgeist” here.

As much as "Zeitgeist" sparked a lot of controversy, it also amassed a remarkable following.

It used to be that only major organizations had the funds to create products of “Zeitgeist” quality. Ironically, even then we trusted them more than the information found on personal websites.

When I was taking a quantum physics class in college, the teacher showed us a movie called “What the Bleep do We Know!?”. It was very flashy and it included a dramatic story with plenty of CGI effects. Teacher intended to use it as an explanation of the laws that govern the quantum world. The whole endeveaur became somewhat embarassing when we found out that the movie was founded by a religious sect that uses quantum mechanics the same way Scientology uses aliens to explain their doctrine.  Nearly all of the scientists interviewed in the movie were members of this sect and a number of ‘facts’ and ‘experiments’ described in the film were proven fallacious by the impartial scientific community.

Now that everyone can make movies like “Zeitgeist” or “What the Bleep do We Know!?”, perhaps people will throw caution into the wind more often while watching them. At the same time, the fact that making these films is so easy now will hopefully mean that we will have a chance to hear some strikingly valid points and unbiased statistics, that we otherwise wouldn’t have a chance to encounter.

By the way, here’s a trailer for “What the Bleep do We Know!?”, in case you’re interested:

Epiphany is a short story about a factory worker who escapes from technology to live in a forest. The story deals with the dichotomy of nature and technology, as well as the dilemmas that this dichotomy creates.

Check it out here!

It could have been worse!

Television sets, DVD players and computers are shared between teachers and thus their usefulness is severely decreased. If the teacher wants the students to use the internet or make a PowerPoint presentation, he or she has to take them to the computer lab, which may or may not already be occupied. I find that this is quite sad, since the internet and computers are the ultimate teacher aids. After all, it doesn’t get much better than having access to any amount of information on any topic at one’s fingertips! I wonder how long will it take for laptops and their future versions to enter high school level classrooms.

The $100 laptop seems like a step in the right direction

Regardless of when that will happen, though, the most important thing is to keep an open mind and to keep oneself up to date with latest technologies in order to utilize them to the benefit of the students. Even today, in universities, where laptops are already somewhat commonplace, many teachers try to fight them, fearing the possible distractions that they bring with them. Perhaps those teachers should give this book a shot.

I really feel like I wasn’t oppositional, confrontational or annoying enough this time around, so here’s a little music video to balance things out. It’s by Laibach, a somewhat mysterious group of artists and political activists. No one can say if the political stance they represent is far right or left, but it’s certainly radical. This ambiguity seems to imply that they are actually mocking or satirizing both the radical left and radical right sides. They also do things like changing popular and completely benign songs into military marches. A lot of it is pretty hard on the ear, but the artistic experience is undeniable.  This particular video is about the menace of technological progress.

Chapter 3 is about word tricks and ways in which the ‘establishment’ uses language to inspire specific connotations. This tickles me, because the first thing that led me to distrust our valiant brick was the language that the authors used. I was raised in Poland, so I do have some experience telling the objective information apart from ‘devil’s poetry’. It’s ironic that the book is so inadvertently transparent that it actually gives us the tools to uncover its own bias and agenda.

In fact, how about we try a little challenge? I say that for every word trick listed in chapter 3, I will be able to find an example of that very word trick used by the authors somewhere else in the book. Let’s give it a shot!

Purring (Using synonyms that make the speaker’s team look better):

How about ‘critical pedagogy’? Why did the authors try to blend in with that otherwise noble bunch, instead of just calling their approach by a name like ‘alternative interpretation’, ‘oppositely biased’ or simply ‘radical leftist propaganda’? I think that it’s because people who support the kind of critical pedagogy that actually lets the students think for themselves, have already gained a certain amount of respect in the field.

Snarling (Using synonyms or metaphors that inspire negative connotations):

This one was the easiest by far. Our brick is so full of snarling, you’d think the authors are into some kind of furry fetish. As a matter of fact, I found a case of snarling in the very paragraph that explains it. How else can you describe calling the government ‘assassins of the welfare state’? – Page 30, 3^rd paragraph.

Putdowns (Less aggressive purring/snarling):

It’s hard to find anything less aggressive than snarling in this book, but a case of less aggressive purring can be found in the introduction to Chomsky’s article, where the author claims to be interested in ‘the quest for global justice’ – Page 79, 2^nd paragraph. Looking at the tone used in the rest of the book though, it seems like the authors and their friends are more interested in ‘having things their way, consequences be damned’. They appear seek no common ground with the opposing party and settle for no compromises.

Playing down violence (Using words that make acts of violence appear less extreme):

“It is obvious that a thorough democratization of the media can only occur in connection with a drastic alteration in the structure of power and political revolution.” – Page 41, 2^nd paragraph. Holy crap! What are you proposing, Edward S. Herman?

Obscuring appeasement of client state terror (Say what? Is that the scientific term? By definition it means “making sure that the terror goes unnoticed,” which assumes by default that terror actually takes place. Very objective…):

This one is tricky, because it was designed specifically in order to be used against the government. It also presents itself by the absence of information, so I can’t pinpoint it specifically in the book, but it is interesting how the authors seem to avoid any serious discussion about how media are controlled in communist countries like China.

Facilitating innuendo (Making long-shot connections between someone who is clearly disliked and someone who the speaker wants to be disliked):

In order to find an example of this one, I just scanned the pages of the book for the name Adolf Hitler. It’s such a cliché to compare opponents to him, it managed to become trivialized, resulting in terms like ‘grammar nazi’ (do you really expect to be gassed for using the wrong tense?). Anyway, let’s get back to the point. Surely enough, after less than 30 seconds I found comparisons with Hitler (maybe I was lucky). On the 2^nd paragraph of page 26, the British Conservative party is compared with Adolf Hitler. I cannot imagine a bigger smack in the face for history. Winston Churchill (a member of the Conservative party) must be spinning in his grave.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the Conservative party. Yet, I also think that very few people or groups of people can compare to Hitler. Genghis Khan? Probably. Churchill? Not really.

Personification and use of collective words (generalizing a group which in reality is diverse):

This happens any time the words like ‘government’, ‘establishment’ or ‘state’ are used. Congress is part of the government and it includes both political parties. Thus, it is more diverse than the authors would like us to believe.

Falsely imputing benevolent motives (Justifying improper actions with good intentions):

“Democratic media would encourage people to know and understand their neighbours and to participate in social and political life.” – page 39, 2^nd paragraph. in contrast with “Commercial media aim to entertain and divert.” – Page 39, 2^nd paragraph. Maybe I’m weird, but to me it sounds like ‘democratic media’ would tell people what to do. If the author’s idea of democratic media is anything like this book, I imagine it would be stock full of propaganda. Not unlike the Polish government-owned media during the times of Communism.

Removing agency (omitting the doer of a disapproved of action when the doer is on the speaker’s side):

There are brief mentions of soviet downfalls scattered about the book. Yet, people like Karl Marx are never mentioned in those instances. Is it because the mentions are too brief, or is it because of the author’s agenda? Personally, I think it’s possible that it’s due to the brevity of the mentions, but this demonstrates how easy it is to falsely accuse someone of this ‘trickery’.

It’s no news that politicians use word trickery to present themselves in a better light. It’s part of what makes it such a dirty job. Teachers are a different story, though. Their goal isn’t to win elections. It’s to inform and educate the students about the world.

Perhaps this book wasn’t written by a teacher, but by a politician?

To finish off, I present you with a little bit of hard science about our current ‘oppressed’ world:

Politically, I am somewhere on the center-left side and I agree with most of the points that Chomsky makes. Yet, reading his article, New World Order, made me furious. Why? Because it belongs in a newspaper column, not in a university textbook. New World Order is a historic summary of United States’ war efforts, mainly focusing on the Gulf war. Most of the people I know agree that this attack was uncalled for, just like the more recent invasion initiated by Bush Jr. Chomsky is correct. The problem is, though, that he doesn’t convey his message in an objective and distanced way. He conveyed it barking at his enemies and foaming at the mouth. He certainly should have been able to produce a more objective piece of work, he is a respected scientist after all. This leads me to one conclusion: He didn’t write this article to inform those who were unaware. He did it to rally his sympathizers. This is a steamy piece of propaganda. The introduction to the article, written by Joe Kincheloe, only compounds this effect. Kincheloe doesn’t warn the readers that Chomsky is a communist. Instead, he presents him as a genius. There’s nothing wrong with being communist, but if such an important detail is omitted, then perhaps there is more at work here than simply informing students about facts. To be honest, I’ve been getting this feeling throughout all the chapters of this book. Big words like ‘oppression’, ‘minority’ and ‘tyranny’ are no different from words like ‘terrorist’, ‘freedom’ or ‘patriotism’.

I touched on this topic with Nicole Fiore in class today, and she said that Chomsky’s article meant to point out that very few of the facts he mentioned were ever publically discussed in the American media. This is a good point. It doesn’t justify Chomsky’s rage, but I’m willing to accept it. Still, this doesn’t change the fact, that the entire “media literacy A Reader” appears to be a brick of facts that were skewed with an agenda in mind. I don’t think that this book encourages any kind of critical thinking at all. Instead, I believe it’s a brainwashing tool to convert students toward the author’s way of thinking. Calling this critical pedagogy gives me the creeps. After all, the point of critical pedagogy is not to tell the students about everything that’s wrong with our society. Forcing a political agenda onto the students under the pretext of education is not only morally wrong, but it is also a horrendous crime against schooling everywhere. If the students are to build the society of the future, they should be the ones who decide what’s wrong with it and what isn’t, not the teachers. This is why classes that use critical pedagogy should always give both sides of the story and allow the students to make up their own minds.

By the way, In terms of critical pedagogy, bashing the Bush presidency is a somewhat moot point. After all, critical pedagogy is supposed to prepare us for the future, yet the Bush presidency is now a thing of the past (thank God!).

Since we’re on the topic of oppression and media…

(<3 Onion)

Note to teacher: This blog server uses a different timezone, and it’s 3 hours ahead. It’s actually still before midnight here!

]]> http://adhoc42.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/why-these-readings-will-give-me-a-heart-attack/feed/ 0 adhoc42 chomsky_cartoon1 noam_chomsky_11 http://adhoc42.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/hello-world/ http://adhoc42.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/hello-world/#comments Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:53:02 +0000 adhoc42 ]]> Hello hello hello!

Check out this video!