Short Paper- Intro to Research Paper

Focusing on Pop Culture in the public sphere for the past couple of months, specifically on celebrities, my search paper is going to focus on celebrity marriages.  This year the world has been enthralled with two major celebrity weddings- Prince William and Kate Middleton’s as well as Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries’s wedding.  The media had a very major role in each of these weddings and it is apparent that our culture in general is extremely fascinated with celebrities in general but we also tend to make a huge deal about their weddings and marriages.  I want my focusing question to blend the topics of our fascination with celebrities with our fascination on marriage- what does making such a big deal about celebrity weddings say about our society and celebrities but maybe more importantly what does it say about our society’s views on marriage as a whole?

I think that our fascination with celebrities boils down to our curiosity about a certain lifestyle that seems to be out of reach for the everyday person.  Knowing that there are these people out there who live these lives in fame can seem very exotic and out of reach, so naturally we want to know more.

Celebrities aside, I think that our culture generally views marriages important and as an ideal, for multiple possible reasons.  There is definitely the “happily-ever-after” component that people are interested in that goes along with finding one’s “soul mate.”  People seem to put a lot of energy into both of these ideas, hence their infatuation with marriage.  In combination, I think that celebrity weddings are particularly hyped up because people are so interested in celebrities and their lives that seeing how their marriage works out is just another factor that attracts fans.  There is also a lot of negative talk whenever celebrities get married about whether they are really in love, doing it for the money, will they get divorced, etc., that also sparks an interest in people because they want to see how things will play out.

As for research, I would like to find more information on the psychology behind weddings and marriage in our culture.  I think it is and important to understand our society’s general feelings and ideas towards marriage and then be able to apply that to celebrity’s.  I would also like to be directed towards information on celebrities and their relationships with the media.  Between the two, I think it is going to be interesting to learn more about our big infatuation with celebrities and why we make such a big deal about their weddings.

Speed Dating x10

Finding your soul mate may have just gotten a lot easier, even easier than your typical dating sites such as eHarmony, Match.com, etc.  The New York Times article “Cellphone Apps Give ‘Speed Dating’ a New Meaning” explains a new type of dating service that is available right from the palm of your hand.  Cellphone apps have now begun to connect people with smartphone location technology, a simple user profile, and a few exchanged messages between two interested people.

“They say the services allow them to skip the more elaborate mating rituals of standard online dating, which seems to move glacially in an era of text messaging and social networking.”  This, to me, is the most striking part of the article.  Because we are in an age where we are able to communicate instantly person-to-person people are finding online dating sites too slow for their liking.  There seems to be this huge rush among singles who are overly ready to mingle and I think that this article accurately represents this great rush and how technology is only putting it into a fast forward drive.

Kim's 72 Day Marriage

Kim Kardashian’s 72-day marriage has been all over the pop culture realm of the public sphere ever since rumors of her divorce to Kris Humphries got around.  As I sort through the multitude of articles and videos online one particular article and video interview with Kim’s mom, Kris Jenner, on the Today Show caught my attention.

The supposed-to-be “wedding of the year,” worth ten million dollars, came abruptly to a halt because it was apparently “not the fairytale she had hoped for.”  I was unable to find statements from Kim herself, however in this interview with Jenner, she explains how Kim feels “really sorry.”  Besides the short length of the actual marriage, this apology shocked me.  If you think about it, why is Kim apologizing- for making a huge deal out of her wedding and then getting divorced so soon?  She definitely has a lot of fans but regardless I don’t see the reason that she is apologizing for getting divorced.  According to the Forest Institute of Professional Phycology, the divorce rate in America for second marriages is 60% so it should not be that much of a surprise that someone so heavily involved in the media is one of this 60% seeing as a lot of celebrity marriages don’t ever seem to work out.

Jenner also commented that Kim didn’t want to let anyone down, and in response to this she commented multiple times that Kim is going to donate a generous amount of money to charity.  This to me seems to be a reoccurring theme with celebrities.  They seem to think that by writing a huge check to a good cause will free them from media drama.

From hearing and reading what Jenner said in this interview as well as looking at a few other sources I am interested to see what Kim herself will say to the public about her divorce and how people will react.

Internet Mom

Farhad Manjoo’s novel, True Enough, makes one truly step back a question the world we are living in today.  As he discusses controversial topics that make up the public sphere, like politics, news stories, and the media, Manjoo analyzes the “behind the scenes” to question the truth, or what people believe to be the truth.

The most interesting aspect I found in True Enough was the story on technology columnist Robin Raskin, aka “Technology Mom.”  As a mother of three she describes that it is her “mission to steer parents away from trouble… and when she saw that the iPod might pose a menace to children, she was determined to sound the alarm” (184.)  With the release of the new iPod that is able to display video Raskin warned that this would endorse children watching and being exposed to porn because of the many possibilities that lurk on the Internet.  Manjoo describes how Raskin’s “warning” to parents caught the media’s attention and she soon found herself on television.  What is most interesting to me in this section is how the media was able to manipulate Raskin’s story for their personal benefit.  Described as “a pert middle-aged woman with short brown hair and a deep, authoritative voice” (184) companies such as Panasonic, Mamco, and Techno Source, took advantage of her good saleswomen qualities and wasted no time doing so.  Manjoo explains that Raskin’s true purpose for going on television was not solely to warn parents of the dangers of the iPod but rather to be a saleswoman for the companies mentioned above: “She’d approached the news stations with the iPorn story only as a way to hook them into running her demonstrations of sponsored products” (185).

The most shocking part about this was not that the news stations which, she appeared on knew about her sales motives but the people watching in the audience at home had no idea that she was being paid to endorse certain products.  In 2006 Raskin spoke at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas where the audiences to whom she was speaking to did not know that she was acting as a saleswoman but instead, “was presented as if se were a reporter covering the convention” (187).  Though it is probably a very effective advertising tactic the fact that she was presented in one way when her actions were for a completely different cause seems somewhat wrong to me.  According to Manjoo it seems as though her initial intentions of warning parents about “iPorn” were good, they quickly distanced themselves from her actual actions.  Raskin fully admits to her actions it still does not change the fact that people listening to her speak were in the dark about her actual intentions.  She continues by explaining how “she didn’t fully consider how the job would affect her journalistic credibility” (188) which I find to be completely fair.  If she is presented and identifies as a journalist she should act as one, not as a saleswoman.

This particular story shows the power that tech companies have over the general public that we are not fully aware of.  It also shows their true intentions and how with money, they are pretty much able to get what they want when they want at the dispense of other people.

Winston the Rebel, Final Paper

Winston the Rebel

Character is defined as “The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.”  Often times, it is through various outside experiences that drive these qualities to the surface.  In the world that George Orwell has created in his novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, character in this sense does not exist.  In a society where “it is terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander” (64) the individual is not left with enough freedom to be an individual.  This is mainly due to the strict government of Oceania, called Big Brother, whose slogan; “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” is a good indication of its rigid, controlling, and undermining nature.  Unlike the majority of the population of Oceania, Winston Smith hates the Party and strives to challenge and weaken it in anyway possible.  In a society where everyone is turned one way we are introduced and captivated by Winston who is turned in the exact opposite direction, a rebel.  Rebellion is what makes Winston and as he continues to rebel against the Party and Big Brother his own character is questioned and tested.  It is not until the end of the novel when he is confronted with his biggest fear that he acts vastly different.  In Nineteen Eighty Four, Orwell explores what happens when a rebellious individual is forced against the wave of conformity.

Even though every time Winston tried to say anything in the Ministry of Love O’Brien would completely shut him down, Winston is still his own believer. For example he reflects, “Whatever he said, the swift answer crushed him like a bludgeon.  And yet he knew, he knew, that he was right.  The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind- surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false” (275).  As Winston is being tortured, and even though he ultimately knows he cannot win with words, he still truly believes that he is right.  As he is being forcefully and continuously told that he is wrong, Winston does not back down.

“We have beaten you, Winston.  We have broken you up… You have been kicked and flogged and insulted, you have screamed with pain, you have rolled on the floor in your own blood and vomit.”  As O’Brien continues to try to undermine Winston, Winston is able to defend himself with one answer: “I have not betrayed Julia” (283).  The one promise that Winston and Julia made to each other, but also to themselves, before Winston was taken and tortured in the Ministry of Love, was that they would not betray each other.  As O’Brien describes, the Party has physically and mentally tortured Winston however he has upheld his promise.  This shows Winston’s true rebellious nature as well as his strength as he is in the most vulnerable position yet he is able to hold onto his own beliefs against the Party’s physical control over him.

Winston’s rebellious nature as whole is completely altered towards the very end of the novel when O’Brien threatens Winston with his biggest fear of rats.  As Winston is helplessly strapped down O’Brien grimly explains, “Have you ever seen a rat leap through the air?  They will leap onto your face and bore straight into it.  Sometimes they attack the eyes first.  Sometimes they burrow through the cheeks and devour the tongue” (296).  Despite his avid resistance leading up to this point, Winston eventually gives into manipulation.  Although he was able to endure a lot more than most probably would have been able to, Winston crumbled under his worst fear.  Just before O’Brien released the rodents Winston cried out “Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia!  I don’t care what you do to her.  Tear her face off, strip her to the bones.  Not me! Julia” (297).  In order to save himself Winston knew he would have to conform and therefore not only betray his promise to Julia but also betray his own beliefs.

There are definite boundaries to each individual and maybe it is at the breaking point where it is most useful to analyze one’s character.  Winston was able to put up a tough fight against conforming until he was threatened by his worst fear.  He was selfless up until this point when he easily could have crumbled under the pressure and torture.  As mentioned earlier, the fact that he was able to withstand such pain and suffering for the amount of time he did portrays great strength, self-determination, and pride.  However, fear and manipulation lead to his breaking point, which ultimately reveals failure and distance from the rebel he is.

Orwell highlights both the power of the individual and the power of society, but shows that the strength of the government and social structure unfortunately dominates one’s personal force, despite their perseverance.  In the end, Winston ultimately looses the battle to the Party and the rebel inside of him.  Nineteen Eighty Four explores a side of twentieth century government that we often forget about today.

True Enough So Far

Only a couple of pages into this next section and I am already stopping to write a blog post.  I am intrigued with Brock and Balloun's research "into the psychological underpinnings of advertising," (27) selective exposure, and cognitive dissonance.  According to their research, it is interesting to think about that no matter what information is put out into the public sphere only certain people will pay attention to it if it goes along with their core beliefs.  As Farhad Manjoo explains,"we cunningly select the messages we consume" (30) based on our own personal comfort.  It is definitely an interesting concept to grasp and I am looking forward to learning more about how all of this plays out in the public sphere because it obviously has a major impact.

To Block or Not to Block?

Looking online at the New York Times website I came across this article that discussed different school systems that chose to either block or not block certain websites, particularly social networking sites.  Many teachers and education advocates argue that the Internet is a major distraction from learning and explain by blocking certain websites they are protecting students from online bullying at school.  The article also talks about a librarian who organized the graffiti debate with the purpose of informing students that censorship takes away a person's voice and privileges.  After this debate, the school that he works at decided to unblock websites like Facebook and Twitter "recognizing that they could provide learning opportunities."  At New Trier High School, blocking websites also stopped because it got in the way of students' research.  The librarian explains that students were blocked from sites about military weapons and then could not conduct research at school.  There are definitely pros and cons to blocking websites in the school atmosphere but it is interesting to read about different people's perspective on this.  Some seem so pro blocking while some seem to have witnessed the negative sides that come with blocking websites within the school computer system.  In this day in age anything on the internet can be pulled up by anyone one way or another.  Just because it's not at school doesn't mean students won't be able to view it when they go home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/education/29banned.html?_r=1&hp