Response to Sontag #2

1. How can we clearly evaluate Sontag's view on media censorship?

2. How does this article reiterate her views on American public awareness of politics?

3. In this article Sontag packages knowledge in a way that allows us to focus on a certain aspect of American culture. How could this argument be refuted?


Response to Question 2:

Sontag returns (not sure if this article came before or after the last one we read) to bring Americans into the light of awareness. We can still see that she sees something wrong with the way we handle major situations like politics and war. Part of her argument is that she feels we don't know how to mourn situations that involve public distress. I'm inclined to agree, based on her last article. This perspective, in my opinion, is so thought-provoking.

When you really think about it, Sontag isn't really providing us with any new information. Her article isn't "news," at least in the terminological way. What she does is a simple "re-packaging" of facts and information from which she highlights certain details that correlate with each other in order to parallel an idea or pattern that these details evoke, which subsequently reflect and reveal her attitude. What I find especially interesting in this article, is how it complements the other that we read for class. Her previous argument was that the nation keeps certain pieces of information from the public with the alleged agenda of nationally "mourning" the terrorist attack of 9/11. This article, however, shows how the nation becomes selective  in what it chooses to disclose to the public. Kinda makes you think that news isn't really  news  anymore. News isn't simply the disclosure of events that occur worldwide anymore (assuming that it was before). The news now seems to propagate through a sort of filter by which a desired goal is formulated to elicit a particular response or feeling once it's viewed. I can't help but analogize this concept with foundational conventions.

To be more specific, when we choose to tell stories, anecdotes, or a series of events and incidents to friends, family, etc., the train of thought mandatorily passes through our brains' filter from which we can decide what exactly we want to say about what we're saying. Without going to deep into thought, we take into account certain factors: how will this story affect my friend/teacher/other? Does it make me look bad? Does it make someone else look bad? Will it make them think differently of me? Will I look smarter after? Whether we agree or not, these factors help to determine which pieces and details of our stories are revealed and which are concealed. Sound familiar? Sontag seems to think this is what the news does, in relation to war photography.

So on a larger scale, is this how everything is heard and learned? Is all information just the longest game of telephone ever recorded? What of what we know is 100% accurate when we learn it from a secondary source? This makes me wonder just what from our reality is what really happens. Or is reality just that precisely? I've heard many times before (work, court, law) that perception is reality. So unless we see everything for ourselves, will there always be a principle of doubt?

My opinion is yes. I think we show and tell what we want in order to attempt to control, modify, and adjust our surroundings. On a side note, I think Sontag makes a good point in using the idea of photographs to push her idea that we really don't know how to mourn on a collective level. When was the last time this country really formally mourned for a loss in a collaborative manner? I can think of the last most serious one and it wasn't 9/11. I wasn't alive at the time, but when John Lennon was murdered, the nation joined and wept. The streets of New York were completely saturated with a collective emotion of mourning. This, at least to me, seems like a conventional way of mourning when a nation is faced with tragedy. A worldwide funeral, if you will.

Altogether, I side with Sontag a lot. I'm a psych major and I look at and reflect on a lot of experiences through the lens of that discipline. I think Sontag does too... She has some good ideas.

Response To Sullivan Article

1. Which of Sullivan's arguments best supports his opinion of our country's assessment of hate crimes?

2. What audience would most likely support Sullivan's claims?

3. Analyze the foundational argument against hate crimes that Sullivan presents.


Response to Question 3:

I think Sullivan has attained a higher mode of thinking. In my opinion, putting the blame, or cause rather, on the basic nature of human beings from an anthropological/psychological viewpoint can be applied to virtually any case.

A great example is his observation that the mere acknowledgement of hate in existence solely provides opportunity for more hate to occur. In my research paper for last year, one of my arguments was that children, during their years of gender discovery, express tendencies of gender flexibility in order to develop the boundaries and constructs of their own genders. Making the concept known will never contribute to its eradication (of the concept of course). That goes for everything. Also with gender, the more that people try to resist gender constructs, like a women applying for job that was intended to capitalize on maybe more masculine aspects of labor, the more evident and blatant the gender division becomes.

Sullivan sees that deeming hate crimes an issue to go to war with will just remind everyone that hate is around. Don't we want to forget that it's around. Which bring me to my next point. Sullivan finds the problem of hate is rooted in the societal constructs that determine our upbringing. It's a psychological issue that needs a psychological solution. He basically realizes that hate is an inherent component of human existence within a society. The point is not to get rid of it, but to get rid of our acknowledgement of it. I mean look how we, as citizens (not politicians), treat the homeless. What is the most common initial reaction to an encounter with a homeless person. Usually short and dismissive, or maybe even no acknowledgement of them at all. If that's how we deal with coexisting with humans with a societal stigma, such as homelessness, why couldn't we treat another in the same way? We, as financially stable components of the population, hardly think of homeless people throughout our day, and we tend to ignore them when confronted. Haven't we essentially eradicated them from existence? I'm trying to say that we don't care about them, i'm simply arguing that our general reaction to homelessness could be analogized with how we can treat hate. We have accepted many things about humans that we can't control. Anger, perversion, religion, ignorance. We don't wage war against these traits and strive to eliminate them from humanity. Can't hate fall under that category?

The way Sullivan breaks down our arbiters' account of hate in reference to the society as a whole shows that it can. Hate is merely a byproduct ( or whatever you want to call it) of living with other humans in relatively close proximity ( by relative i mean "same planet"). The only way we get rid of it is to accept it. I agree with Sullivan in this case.

Response to Sontag Article

Question 1: Do Sontag's perspective on 9/11 stand out among the many opinions and perspectives directed at the US government's reaction to the incident?

Question 2: When Sontag is recounting the details of her physical return to the site of the attack is she refuting her argument?

Question: Sontag mentions the notion that the US government's agenda is one of "psychotherapy." Were this to be accurate, is the government justified in acting this way?

Response to question 3:

This part of the article was extremely interesting to me. The idea that the US government 's agenda in responding to the public reaction was one of psychotherapy is essentially her thesis. She feels that the way our country is assessing this situation in the eye of the public is meant to therapeutically calm the nation. This seems to be one of those arguments that isn't realized at first but then afterward realized as abhorrently accurate. Is this usually how our nation responds to tragedy? Is it the government's goal to make us feel better? Should they be making us feel better about things that happen?

My stance on the issue is that, to some degree, the government should be indirectly providing consolation for disasters like 9/11. However, and in lining up with Sontag's argument, this consolation shouldn't be a vague dismissal like "our nation is strong." This makes me feel as though the nation is telling me "don't worry about it, we'll take care of it." For the most part, this might make us feel comfortable. We trust our nation's power. We trust our defense. If they tell me everything's going to be ok, I have an obligatory inclination to believe them. Not to mention, the nation is in a vulnerable state of mourning. In this state of mind, that may be precisely what the people want to hear from our government. "Give us some time to grieve over the catastrophe while you take care of the problem."Sontag is one of the few who was not initially and emotionally afflicted the way the rest of the people were by the incident. This predisposed advantage gave her the opportunity to rationally react to the public figures' comments on the attack, therefore, allowing her to see this as "manipulative" and "deceptive." The question this raises is: had she been in New York at the time of the attack, would she have felt this way?

Sontag says so herself. When she returned to the site of the attack her "initial focus on the rhetoric surrounding the event" were seen by her as less "relevant." I feel there is a possibility that, had she been in New York on 9/11, she would have been receptive to the way the government assessed the situation. Not being in New York at the time gave her the advantage. That still leaves the important question though. Is the government justified in doing it that way?

I don't think so. I mean yes, it's hard to go up to someone who just received personally dreadful news regarding losses and say things that pertain to anything other than consolation. A grieving person is dramatically less receptive to anything else but consolation. But what do police detectives say to parents who report missing children or to parents who's kids have been murdered by an unknown suspect? They tell them "We are going to do everything we can to find the person who did this," not "we're strong. It'll be ok." So, aligning with Sontag's argument, the nation, indeed, should be regarding incidents with the foundational truth behind these terrorist attacks. They want to attack our system, not just retaliate against our invasive technique with foreign policy. Our style of life and liberty is offensive and infringing on the middle east. Therefore, our way of life is under attack. Shouldn't we be made more aware of this as an unfortunate truth? And, subsequently, shouldn't we be told how we will combat this abhorrence? 

To conclude, I don't think the government was wrong in being "therapeutic" in response to 9/11. According to the article, even Sontag found it hard to think of her initial reaction as important among the devastation of the "foul-smelling graveyard." The issue is how the government disclosed why they feel it happened (as far they want us know). We should be informed of the actual weight of this issue as a threat to our "modernity" and "capitalism." I'm glad Sontag wasn't in New York at the time. It was the only that way that she was able to reveal a less biased perspective on a matter that calls for inevitable reconsideration.

Critique on Kris's essay

This paper has some great points with what I feel are pretty strong arguments as well as having some arguments that may need some work. Starting with the introduction paragraph, the first thing that caught my eye was the first sentence. It sounds as though you are using a circular argument. As far as what I interpreted from it, it sounds like, “The things people don’t notice are what they don’t notice.” I’m sure there is method behind this but it started me off a bit confused. On the other hand I feel like the intro paragraph does a good job of establishing the controversy with some good currency. Some of the claims in the sentences may be a bit on the strong side, so I wanted to suggest a really good tactic to clean them up. It’s called “hedging.” Basically you would want to sort of “step back a bit from your claim to imply the possibility of your argument rather than the matter-of-factness. For example: rather than starting off by saying “People aren’t noticing our lack of personality due to technology”, you might say “Technology may be affecting parts of our personality that we aren’t realizing.” This way you are proposing a suggestive idea that you will later stand by with conviction in your later paragraphs after establishing good evidence. Also, it doesn’t seem too clear exactly where your thesis is or what exactly your central argument is. If I had to guess, it would be “Technology is posing a threat to our social interactions and, thus, creates issues for expression of our personalities...” Maybe you can somehow incorporate that into your intro paragraph toward the end. With these suggestions I feel like you would have a solid first paragraph.

I think you did a great job with the argument where you discuss how technology is depriving emotions. Although the claim may be a bit strong, you back up the argument with a lot of good hypothetical situations where people could be lied to through texting or facebook. I think this the most convincing part of your paper.

Another suggestion I have for this paper is how you talk about personality. Usually when I think of that word or read it I associate it with the all-encompassing aspects of a person’s psyche and behavior. I see that when you use the word in your paper you are referring to just the parts that have to do with either the freedom to choose something or navigating around the world. I suggest maybe establishing an arbitrary definition to the reader before you argue that it’s being affected. You could maybe say, “…among the intricacies and complexities of our personalities, certain parts of them are particularly vulnerable to various technological advancements, such as…..” I feel that if you establish what exactly you mean by “personality,” your reader may be more inclined to follow your argument.

Lastly, you bring a good refutation paragraph with the counter argument, however, I feel that it may be too general or broad. I suggest maybe using a concrete example of an instance where a consequence does not outweigh the benefits. Maybe something like, “people argue that misuse of social networking websites are giving the websites a bad rap and not the websites themselves. Those that are negatively affected pertain to a small crowd so the benefits may seem to outweigh the consequences. But what about when someone commits suicide over facebook because her friend (actually her friend’s mom) pushes her to kill herself? That seems like a consequence that outweighs any benefit.” That would tie into the pathos of rhetoric argument and very closely applies to your claim about people lying over facebook or, rather, things not being what they seem.

Overall, this essay has a huge amount of great ideas with good anecdotal evidence. Some arguments may be a littler weaker than others, but I feel like my suggestions might strengthen them up a bit. 

Feel free to tear mine apart too please! Thanks

Response to Hitchens

Question 1: Hitchens uses a few strategies to argue his viewpoint, however, the one that stands out the most is his own personal experience. Is someones argument automatically invalid if they haven't experienced it? What does this say about parallel arguments that involve a viewpoint on experiences that must be experienced in order to have a strong opinion?

Question 2: Based on what Hitchens explains about "terrorist school" and training for torture, what do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would say about waterboarding?

Question 3: The argument on indicting the US on grounds of torture brings to mind the idea of subjective opinions. Do you think that torture may have an intrinsic moral essence? Might there be a "absolute" right or wrong regarding torture without making the intention relevant?

Response to Question 3:

I feel that this question very interestingly hold philosophical value. A philosophy will teach you about philosophers like Dostoyevsky. There is just something about killing an infant that implies some kind of intrinsic immorality. There is virtually no argument absolving someone for killing an infant. Any angle you attack it from has a foundational fallacy. 

So in relation to Hitchens, an indictment against the US becomes a question of which side's morality is superior. In that general context, it's quite obvious that the answer is neither. Of course, morality is pretty much a concept generated by mind. Other than the question of the mind, every carbon-based molecule (which is everything) is atomically a series of forces that are interpreted by us as mathematical equations and, subsequently, everything that occurs is- from a scientific viewpoint- a random sequence of molecules coming into contact with other molecules. However, the subject matter in this particular argument regarding torture is a little different. Like killing babies, is there something intrinsically wrong with a helpless human being. Forget the intention. I know that the contention for torture is that it used to extract information for whatever benefit. But forget the intention (as Gabe said in class "intentions pave the pathway to hell"). How can waterboarding a human being be a good thing? Even if it is saving a nation from destruction, what about the prisoner? The prisoner is on the other side of that. His nation, system of beliefs, values, family, friends, honor, integrity, is irrevocably destroyed. 

I think Hitchens should have expanded on this. I understand that his point to get across was that waterboarding is torture. On that note I can agree, but i feel that my question is inevitably blatant when discussing his argument. No doubt, his rhetoric in this article is pretty solid. Personal anecdotes evoking pathos as well as describing waterboarding's effects on the U.S.'s diplomatic publicity to conjure logos work hand in hand here. But intellectualizing an argument, I feel, will do much to enhance the weight of an argument. If you can appeal to the reader's introspective psyche, you can go far in demonstrating a convincing argument. Look at Descartes' Meditations. A bit of rationalizing can do a lot. 

First Essay

Chris Gomez

Professor Brown

English 1B

20 February 2013

The Internet as a Lens

In our modern day and age, the Internet is notable for contributing dramatically to many components of our society. In a split second, anyone can log on and view a massacre in a third world country that someone recorded the night before and tell the rest of the world what they thought about it. Communication is probably one of the largest advancements the Internet has provided. Anyone can participate in any heated debate or intelligent discussion they wish to be a part of at any time of the day. As generations move on, our nation is hearing more voices and perspectives than ever before and more people now have access to large audiences where their views and opinions can be heard and discussed. This huge shift into diversity has even attracted political figures to provide for the discussion of political issues of all kinds hoping that extending more topics to more people will produce a more democratic form of society. The problem with this is that the Internet has evolved exponentially and many prospects of its effects have not exactly been anticipated. Opening more politics to the public has created a vast diversity of debates that have actually led to more difficult attempts to conflict resolution. This problem has further brought to attention what role the Internet really plays in this political debacle. Many might argue that the Internet has done wonders for democracy by attempting to include more of the population into the nation’s progression. On the contrary, the Internet might not be the cause of the issue at hand. By closely looking at the Internet’s effects on diversity, the problems that online forums pose, and the seemingly inconsistent constructs of our democracy, we can fully understand where to place the blame for the faults of our system.

The Internet has allowed for democracy to capitalize on one of its major cornerstones: diversity. Before online forums were even a distant prospect of technological advancement, the public distribution of information through earlier types of media had significant regulations. In the 1930’s, a law was passed stating that in order to publicly portray information through the media, a license must to be obtained (Hanson). The license simply validated that the intent to release information to the public was based on the public interest with respect to various and diverse viewpoints. The issue here lies in the understanding of how much of the public interest is being accounted for. Certainly, contemporary minorities may not have had access to these media of information because of a variety of reasons, namely, economic problems, and therefore may not have participated in resolving public issues. Not all citizens of the nation were able to absorb the flow of communication that the media was propagating; even more noteworthy is that fact that much of public broadcast was executed by large corporations and monopolized industries that tended to decrease the diversity of information. With the influx of the Internet’s assortment of capabilities, communication is definitely a prime advancement. Physical distance is essentially eliminated as a setback and a vast majority of people can come into contact with each other at any time of any day. Furthermore, free Internet access has even reached neighborhood service centers where even the financially- disadvantaged may play a role in public discussion and debate (Sirianni). These advancements have allowed the unified consciousness to accept more and more diversity into consideration. What isn’t seen as clearly, however, is what this constantly diversifying consciousness is showing us about our political ideology. 

The extremes that the Internet has taken diversity to have created some obstacles that affect the way we practice solving social issues. Firstly, the “googlization” of the online world gives anyone the opportunity to engage in any whim or conjecture they please. Presumably, much of this is put to good use. Research papers may be more timely written and research itself can be done quicker with more content being absorbed. The problem lays in what media theorist Neil Postman calls the “information glut.” It’s debatable how much of this information on the Internet is relevant, however we can assume that one person won’t see a majority of it in their lifetime. As far as an arbitrary definition for “useful”, in the context of politics, not all of the Internet contributes to discussions of social issues and debates and therefore isn’t “used” to progress mankind’s societal constructs. Professor Jarice Hanson, in her analyses on technology’s influence in society, has found that online discussions and debates tend to react to information “overloads” by seeking comfort over being overwhelmed (Hanson). Someone who is bombarded with a flood of opinions upon different topics over a collection of different blog sites will naturally seek out the familiar tones of their own opinions. Without the mitigation that the government previously had on public media, the online forums have given rise to the “citizen media” (Hanson). With more people present online more groups are produced. Different individuals will seek out comforting conversations specific to their own values and firmly stand by them as conversations progress. This inevitably creates a problem when it comes to social debates mainly because a common ground is hardly reached among such a large and diverse audience. Democracy ideals are being fulfilled with this modern ability to join forces with any type of group that exists but it has all but lengthened the pathway to a resolution. It’s easy to see this as a problem in social debates, but taking it a step further, an intrinsic flaw in our system of social equality is obscurely being revealed.

For many others, the Internet can be seen as alleviating many restrictions in practicing democracy. Online forums largely foster breeding grounds for debate; in many cases, collective action is undergone in response to discussion (Dreznerq, and Farrell). In the interests of personal health, people can discuss problems ranging from nutritional advice to symptom diagnoses. Forums may not only provide competencies for debate on various issues, but it can promote lifestyle changes where alternative opinions can be exposed and considered by anyone. Although these aspects are essential to have in a democracy, this “arena of interactions,” is contributing to “non-democratic regimes” where its usefulness to the political spectrum is not as credited (Dreznerq, and Farrell). So, in terms of “practicing,” the Internet is definitely succeeding. Practically every opinion that exists or has ever existed can be viewed, discussed, fortified, or challenged within the cyber realm. This is exactly what our democratic philosophies encourage. When politics get thrown into the equation, however, our government is hard-pressed to find a resolution among the plethora of viewpoints within public debate forums. Being able to voice your own opinion with confidence to a large audience has contributed to more and more diversity. This just shows that increased citizen involvement in politics doesn’t make anything easier. Professor of Law Peter M. Shane points out that “the global public sphere should not be expected to mirror the cultural unity” (Democracy Online: The Prospects For Political Renewal Through The Internet). Yes, it does tend to be fairer allowing all kinds of individuals to speak their mind, but this fairness nullifies any prospects of reaching a common ground. This takes the view away from the problems the Internet has caused and puts the focus on democracy itself.

 It’s basic fact that the Internet is cultivating more and more opinions, but this doesn’t uphold the pragmatism of democracy. Social equality can be met when, in a pure theoretical sense, the resolution of a social issue meets the needs of all citizens of a nation. In essence, everyone needs to be happy but order for that to happen, everyone needs to want the same thing. Our nation’s emphasis on individualism and standing out among others defeats this and cannot serve as a means to social equality. Diversity supersedes social equality and only further convolutes a unified consciousness. Such is the reason we have sovereign nations. There is not a basis upon which everyone can find a common ground. Human nature is responsible for this societal flaw in democracy, not the Internet. The Internet has merely served to facilitate and make known to us the fallacies in social philosophies. It can still be said, however, the Internet serves as a place for the unprecedented practice of democracy. It allows us to maintain the opportunity to exercise our rights but what needs to be understood is it isn’t democracy that is being changed. The changes are the different components of democracy we will be able to strengthen or weaken as we come to discover new means of societal interaction, and as long as humans remain humans, these new means will just teach us more about something we may never accomplish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biblography

 

 

 

Dreznerq, Daniel, and Henry Farrell. "Blogs, Politics and Power: A Special Issue of Public

            Choice." Pubic Choice. Vol. 134.No. 1/2 (2008): pp. 1-13. Print.                                             

 

Hanson, Jarice. 24/7 : How Cell Phones And The Internet Change The Way We Live, Work,

            And Play. n.p.: Praeger, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

 

Shane, Peter M. Democracy Online : The Prospects For Political Renewal Through The Internet.

n.p.: Routledge, 2004. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Sirianni, Carmen. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press , 2008. Print.

 

 

 

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 :)