I swear things are so busy right now, I keep thinking my heads going to explode or something…

I can’t believe that its already friday and that this is my first post of the week. (things have been so crazy that I just checked my other posts to confirm that this was indeed the 1st one.) But that’s what you get at university I guess. I’m just glad that the project for this class at least is done.

So I have to admit, I don’t really remember much about class on tuesday. In fact, I don’t really remember much about tuesday at all. Well other than the teacher playing the song Jesus is alright with me. And I seem to remember two bunnies being involved  in a Youtube video. Oh, and the teacher was wearing a shirt that said real men love bunnies.

But I don’t really remember much about the material. I think we were going on about capitalism, its inherent inequalities, and I imagine we talked about the production and ownership of meaning again, and so on  and so forth. I think some guy in class tried to argue for capitalism, because he felt it was starting to be painted in too harsh a light.

Really, it seems to me that we have been saying the same thing over and over again for a few classes now. Capitalism, in order to survive, must use hegemonic methods to continuously reinforce its ideology. It does so mostly in this consumer society through the mass media, which in the last century was tightly controlled. The war for the future of capitalism, or of any ideological system in society is done through the imposition of meaning. Now in comes the internet, a strange new force that continues to avoid tight control, and creates a possibility for a wide and more equal debate then we have ever had. Or at least for more voices to be heard.

But I have to wonder, since we are so tightly controlled everywhere else in life, is this freedom we speak of on the internet real, or are we already too closely shaped by the rest of our environment, to the point that we are really merely reflecting back the ideologies we have been taught in our online behavior?

Anyways, we spoke of post-modernism a bit today and he used it to speak about a fragmenting society. But from what I’ve understood of Post-modernist theory the fragmentation has always been there, its just more apparent now a days. Collective meaning only works up to a certain point, because each individual’s past experiences will influence how they perceive or understand any given symbol.

What they are against are meta-narratives, who falsely try to boil down reality to a single ideology that is supposedly “right”. But every ideology has a pit fall, by the simple virtue that meaning is really only what we make it, as it exists within people not objects or the world around us at there will always be multiple meanings possible. and two competing and seemingly opposite ideologies can both be right, depending on the parameters.

All this to say that I feel the teacher was bastardizing, oversimplifying and being a little dismissive of post-modernism today. Its about the subjectivity of reality, which we are just more and more aware of as time moves forwards. Nothing is changing or increasing save our awareness of it.

Well, I have way too much work so,

Adieu.

Advertisements