Response to Paglia Article

Questions:

1. Paglia makes well-deserved connections between Lady Gaga and her effect on modern-day social interaction. How might this relate to Postmodern elements?

2. Why might this article be exceptionally persuasive as opposed to previous articles read?

3. I resort to this perspective a lot when responding to arguments, but it can't be overlooked: Paglia hardly utilizes a rebuttal technique to strengthen the argument. What has Paglia failed to mention about what Lady Gaga has done to benefit generations rather then destroy ethical constructs?

Respose to Question 2:

In relation to discussions in class, I can pinpoint a good reason why this article might make even diehard fans of Gaga such as myself agree with the content(not to say that I do). The author definitely took the audience into consideration. Try to find one person in our society today who wants to believe the era of sex is over. When the article poses this argument that Gaga has normalized sexuality so much that its been booted out of taboo standard, many would be quite concerned.

Sexuality as taboo is one of the foundational reasons, other than the biological drive, that makes sex so popular. Paglia sort of makes a good point when explaining how Gaga de-sexualizes her persona, thus virtually eliminating any affiliation she may have with sex. Her blatant rhetoric of sexual conduct in her lyrics alone destroy libido. I don't mean to bolster the article's standpoint, but I need to make clear this point before I explain my next. Gaga entered the celebrity atmosphere as a potential sex icon. Her first music video "Just Dance" portrays her in a very "Kesha-esque" fashion with short dresses and strong sexual overtones. Was this an attempt to put her foot in the door of fame before revolutionizing it with her current contradictory persona?

I believe that this argument is very powerful because of how relevant it is to everyone's day to day life. The author characterizes fame and celebrities as voices of the contemporary generation. Put sex on top of that and you have persuasion. Put "death of sex" on top of that and you have followers.

It doesn't matter that the author uses no rebuttal technique. The content alone is controversial enough to raise eyebrows. Especially when using postmodernist perspectives to disclose an abhorrent truth. It's no question that Paglia is not a Postmodernist. She obviously hates what Gaga may or may not have done to the nation's consciousness. Either way, blurred gender boundaries, asexuality, dissolving borderlines between fact and fiction, and comments about social internet media all fit into postmodernism.

Drawing away from Paglia's technique, I feel a bit differently. I don't doubt that what she is revealing may be true, but it's her perspective I may disagree with. Just like I said with Carr: Is what's happening to society necessarily a bad thing? Okay, so maybe sex loses its popularity as a publicity technique, but are we going to stop having sex? Low self-esteem people feeling empowered by Gaga's image aren't the only part of our population that has sex. That won't change.

On the subject of the arguments against the impending postmodern future as a whole, I have to agree. Gaga does have her fans eating out of her hand. If she shouldn't be credited because of her musicianship, her avant-garde artistics style, or her personality, she should at least get props for being business savvy. She knows exactly how to accommodate the energy of her audience. She knows exactly how to manipulate her audience in to feeling deficient and she knows how to give them what they think they need. Gaga's a smart women. I don't know for sure if her image represents her true values and ideals, but looking at her net worth and albums sales, the ends justify the means.


*side note: still love Gaga :)