Role of Religion Maggie Nelsen

Maggie Nelsen

4/4/12

The Role of Religion

                The readings this week reflected the major theme of modernity/western culture in coexistence—and sometimes clashing—with the religious lives of people today across the globe. I think this sentiment was most epitomized in the Jihad V. McWorld reading. I have to say I was a little perplexed and not wholly convinced of the commonalities the author drew between Jihad and western cultural take-over of the globe. He described them both as defying national borders and governments, and ultimately undermining democracy. I can’t completely agree with such a bold statement. I can see how both can be perceived as unstoppable machines, yielding to no principles or entities: the profit-driven invisible—and perhaps out-of-control—hand of global capitalism, and the seemingly random and terrifying attacks on innocents by terrorists. However the two phenomenon are totally unrelated, their own separate issues and I do not think they are comparable beyond a couple intriguing similarities. I think it is too soon to determine whether Jihadist terrorism is just a passing phase, like the Cold War, or if it is an ever present phenomenon, that the world will have to adapt to and learn to live with. As for global markets and the imminent cultural homogenization of the world, that is being driven by the world’s leading democracies themselves. I think most western democracies perceive the increasing cultural expansion as the result of global capitalism—which is a democratic ideology. Therefore, something that democracies support is not going to undermine them…However, the author does interestingly point out the irony in the fact the Jihadists employ modern technologies to propagate their messages and achieve their goals. Terrorists often use the same channels as ordinary citizens to stage their attacks, such as subway systems or internet blogs, etc. But I believe this is one of the only connections Jihad and McWorld share.  

Bin Laden and Other Thoroughly Modern Muslims was an important read because it highlighted the diversity and complexity of both the Arab world in general and Islamic radicals, plus it touched on a few key American misconceptions. Al Qeada is a prime example of a truly globalized organization. With affiliates wannabes, and cells across all continents, Al Qaeda has an impressively interconnected global network. For example, the Mumbai attacks was the result of coordination between bomb-makers, shooters, planners, transportation—each element of the attack involved resources or people from around the globe, including Europe, Africa among others. The global coordination of the Mumbai attacks is an exemplary demonstration that terrorism is perhaps one of the most globalized happenings in the planet. But more importantly is how the rest of the world interprets these attacks and the motivations of terrorists like Bin Laden. One will quickly find that the underlying goals and motivations behind Al Qaeda are not modern at all, but a push to revert the region or world back to a traditional Islamic caliphate—as it existed hundreds, thousands of years ago. Unfortunately, since 9/11and other subsequent attacks, many westerners have homogenized the entire Islamic community or the “Middle East” as a whole.  Most are unaware of the tremendous diversity of interpretation of Islamic faith—even within the Jihadist groups themselves. U.S. foreign policy has not only done a lot of damage to Arab perception of America, but has also framed a narrative Americans have followed, which is full of ignorance, and has subsequently developed a lot of misconceptions and lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic people.

The article about dowry-murders and domestic violence murders was quite interesting, and the authors made some insightful correlations. I definitely would like to reiterate the fact that because there is no cultural element or practice linked to American domestic violence/murder (whereas domestic murder is frequently related to dowry in India) it does not receive the same “death by culture” sentiment. American feminists are always making the intrinsic connection between Hindi culture and traditions like dowry to domestic violence and murder, when in fact it is not a Hindu concept or a tradition in the country at all—but is no different than partners who murder their partner in the U.S. Many western feminists might ask “why would a culture do this? Why would a man burn his wife, what is going on that leads to such an act?” yet they never make the connection to home: “Why in America do men beat their wives or partners? What leads to that phenomenon?” The two are the same phenomenon, but because a cultural element (dowry) is linked to the murder it is immediately made more “visible” for one and also categorized as an entirely separate issue. Therefore, how we “coin” issues actually holds major implications for how that issue is perceived and dealt with.  Western feminists still retain a sense of cultural superiority and believe they live in a more post-feminist country than that of Indian women. The key point the author makes is that national context is the absent component that leads to these false assumption, misconceptions and ignorance. The problem with cultural learning is that it does not carry with it the existing economic, political and social circumstances that impact the issue tremendously. Without that background information people are creating false ideas and accumulating skewed knowledge of a culture or cultural practice or issue. This awareness of the conditions and context was demonstrated through the question why there are not battered women’s shelters in India. The author, Ulma Narayan explains: “economic, social and institutional features that make certain policies and strategies feasible in some contexts but not in others… ‘contextually self-conscious’ about the features of their national landscapes that might shape their engagement with the issues of violence against women”(Narayan, 95). Clearly, there are many other factors at play which shape western perceptions of a another culture’s problem. You would think it would be common sense to not equate one cultural occurrence with another culture’s understanding and principles—given no two cultures share the same historical experience or socio-political conditions, yet that is just what western feminists are doing.

The situation in France with the veil is another example which demonstrates the abundant diversity of opinion within the Muslim community on issues such as what is means to adhere to a faith, what it means to have rights and what it means to live in a ‘host’ country. This article was really powerful for me because I learned the various reasons why young women wear the veil. One reason being, living in a xenophobic country makes one want to hold onto their religion and culture by identifying themselves as such through the veil. But more interestingly was the incredibly smart arguments the women interviewed made. Some pointed out on a more basic level, which is more important to worry about: 1) children wearing veils to school and thereby visibly signifying their religiousity in a secular space, or2) kids arriving at school with knives and guns, intending to wreak havoc on the place? This rhetorical question points out the obvious and gives the issue necessary perspective. Another important point is that this whole issue is creating a lot of confusion in young developing minds, and is likely to cause some detriment to figuring out their identity—this is really said. One theme I noticed in most of the interviewees who were against the veil in schools is that their testimonies were all laced with fear, whether blatantly so like the quote below or with underlying subtleness: “we’re here in a country that isn’t ours; you shut-up; your respect their customs and their habits”(Killian, 582). Clearly a colonialist complex still resonates with many people. I think given all the facts dispersed throughout this article it is clear France is pursuing not only the wrong policy to uphold their value of laicism but a incredibly hypocritical policy as well. The recent banning of the headscarf is only going to breed hatred and resentment towards the French, all I can say to the French is “you had it coming to you”. The sad thing is, in my mind, this huge issue can so easily be made a non-issue for both French Muslims and French government. France can still preserve its principle and value of the separation of church and state, while also allowing for religious freedom and choice. As for the opposing opinions within the Muslim community, if France changes its policy, Muslim women can practice whichever path they choose, whether it be wearing the headscarf or not. This article points out a clear generation discrepancy within the Muslim community as a major factor, and also the important point that many Muslims feel being faithful does not equate wearing the headscarf, it is so much more that entails being a pious Muslim. 

Greg Demetriou Media Post

Greg Demetriou 

After this weeks readings the effects media has on a national identity seem like a symptom of a larger societal problem. I feel the term “authentic identity” is an impossible reality because of the modern tendencies of media. As I was reading the article I constantly thought of the show Saturday Night Live. Because this is a very popular television program, evident by the success of the actors individually and the longevity of the program, its representations of people are extremely relevant to this reading. A perfect example is its effects on politics. When the show does its segments “Weekend Update” the representation of political figures has to be examined. Many Americans have more allegiance to this comedy show than to the news so the images projected by Saturday Night Live are often the only representations of these individuals consumed. Because this is a comedy many of the portrayals exaggerate real issues through a sensationalized identity of individuals.  A specific segment on Saddam Hussein immediately comes to mind. In the skit Will Ferrell plays Hussein. His portrayal provides a lighthearted spin on a man that has to be considered an evil dictator.  His cordial conversation with then president Bill Clinton played by another actor presents the man in a manner that is both funny and charming. If that is the only image of Hussein consumed then this man is seen completely different than he actually is. This practice by a television show truly shapes the perception of a real individual in the minds of many Americans. I have taken a few liberties to make these assumptions, as they are not the result of real research. They are merely the manifestation of my inquiries towards the affects media has on identity constructions. As this is part of a larger National identity this practice can be seen in many other pieces of media.

            The most damaging aspect of media dictation of national identity is its limitation of options. People in all public spheres become the product of media as opposed to actual people. That is to say, who a person with fame is has become the product of their representation in media, which is often based on very little actuality. Who our citizens have become is more based on their portrayal in media. The problem with this diluted identity has to have a significant impact on international perceptions. The most dangerous example of this practice has to be its effects on American presidents. So few people actually know the American president so his identity becomes the product of media representation. This places an enormous responsibility on American media. Essentially, our News programs have become the authors of history, as these men materialize as a combination of their political policies and their representations in media. The defining problem of this practice is the news is more influenced on entertainment then fact.

            As there are two sides to every argument I will take the time to acknowledge the importance of media. Being able to view press conferences and public addresses does promote a society more connected to those in power. Because of media candidates become more visible to voters and a level of tangibility has to be acknowledged. Additionally, modern technology allows all Americans to hear news as soon as it happens which makes a more united country. However, the positives of this practice loose significance when considering the negatives. As America approaches another presidential election so much money and time is spend on campaigning. Candidates spend countless dollars on commercials and other forms of advertisements that is has taken on a quality of a popularity contest. The money spent on this practice could be better spent on many other things in America. Media’s influence on identities has to be a necessary evil of modern technology.

            As the globe is becoming more modern this practice has the potential to take place in all countries where televisions are available. The important thing to take away from this has to be the articulation of medias responsibility.  These outlets have to be held to a higher standard then the one currently in place. I am not attempting to sound holier than though when analyzing the media through this lens. Admittedly my narrative definitely can be seen as narcissistic, but I feel this standard is impossible to compromise. Until media becomes based more on fact then entertainment the citizens of the world will be victimized by the limitations of media. 

Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation

Allison Terlizzi

            The readings for this week focused on the role of the media in cultural globalization. Does the media reinforce societal norms, beliefs and values or reflect them in their depiction of social behavior? Class status and behavior in regards to the globalized world were most concentrated on as seen in the movie, Lagaan and “The Maasai and the Lion King”. The media plays a large role in shaping our behavior, and in a globalized world it can lead to drastic changes in other countries.

            In the article by Florian Stadler, “Lagaan and its Audience Responses”, fusion projects like Lagaan have increasingly adopted a broad appeal (Stadler, 517). South Asian influences have been penetrating mainstream culture more and more. Bollywood has already dominated Asia, so it is no shock that this film got wide recognition. Laagan depicts is an everyday peasant’s heroism and the battle between the underdog with limited resources to compete against the tyrannical ruler who has unlimited wealth and resources to win. It gained global appeal because of its inspirational message. It is no surprise that a film with a historical setting can be recognized on global level. While many of us in class thought it was corny, probably because we are used to these themes presented much differently than in a game of cricket, we weren’t aware of its global effect. While none of us knew how to play cricket, we could all relate to the underdog and love triangle themes, showing this film does have potential to be global. Does the West determine what films are worthy of being globalized? Did Bollywood “sell out” by making films like Lagaan that have Western appeal?

            The global appeal of the Kenyan Maasai has inspired a large tourism industry to arise. In “The Maasai and the Lion King”, Edward M. Bruner sets out to expose how the Maasai are exhibited- or put on display for tourists- through their meanings, ironies and ambiguities in tourist performances (Bruner, 882). He says there is a big difference between domestic and foreign tourism and there has been a wide-ranging impact of globalization on tourism and he shows this in Kenya by looking into three tourism sites with Maasai men (Bruner, 882). The warriors on Mayer’s Ranch were hired to build a Maasai manyatta for young warriors who would perform their dances and enact aspects of their culture for tourists, but then tourists would go to lawn for tea and crumpets (Bruner, 883). There exists a contrast between wild and civilized. What the Mayers wanted to depict was “tourist realism”, immersing their tourists in a real experience, even providing them with authentic souveniers (885). Mayers is an example of imperialist nostalgia, or as Bruner describes, the contemporary western peoples yearn for the traditional cultures that have been destroyed, reliving through the actual performance and reenactment (886). What this makes me think of is a performance of domination that makes the actors feel and play their roles. The tourists play the wealthy and the Maasai play the natives put forth for the pleasure of the rich. What example in modern day America do we see similar roles being played?

            In the next location, the Bomas of Kenya are a government museum of the performing arts, present the cultural heritage of a nation by professional dance troupe who are government employees (Bruner, 886). The purpose was to preserve Kenyan cultural heritage in education. Bomas detaches culture from tribe as displays as a way for all to see and share, as an example of national wish fulfillment (Bruner, 890). Out of Africa Sundowner was the final group who specialized in game viewing from safari vehicles. There was no separation between Maasai and tourists but only one performing space (Bruner, 892). The thing I found most fascinating about these locations was in the responses from the tourists, who encounter American cultural content that represents an American image of African culture, leading them to feel comfortable and safe. Because they feel safe, they can express their privilege status, such as in the Mayers case. I am left wondering, which location provides the most authentic and realistic experience? Are any of them authentic at all?

            In “Brazil’s Girl Power”, by Cynthia Gorney, she writes about the decline in birth rate in Brazil across all class statuses due to changing attitudes of women in recent decades. Women are now having sterilization surgeries because they think children are impossible and expensive. The government has also probably played a role in deterring them from having kids as well, with surgeries and birth control and the media has also played a role through the “aspirational image” of Brazilian families on television. What women believe today is that material acquisition is more important- the fewer kids they have the more stuff they have. The media has also affected eating behaviors in Fiji as shown in Anne E. Becker’s article, “Eating Behaviors and Attitudes Following Prolonged Exposure to Television Among Fiji Adolescent Girls”. She does a study in a country where there was no pressure to be slim (as only one reported case of anorexia has been recorded), and after the introduction of television, 83% of girls responded that they felt television had influenced them to change their body shape/weight. In this way television allows them to think they are engaging in a Western lifestyle by giving them the image of what a Western body “looks like”. We all known most Western women do not look like most women on TV, so this is ultimately giving Fijian women a false reality.

            The media can have drastic implications on culture as seen in the previous examples. The last article discusses a reinforcement of American culture in “Watching Dallas” by Tomlinson. He discusses a show that has become the symbol of American cultural imperialism. It is one example in the media that is a reinforcement of the audience’s own cultural values, depicted in the issues of interpersonal and sexual morality. Most importantly the program’s celebration of wealth defines what it is to be American and pursuer capitalism. We all are programmed to want more money. We are brought up as capitalists and as consumers who need “stuff” to make us happy. Not only can the media shape the Western image, but it can shape the image of other countries based on a falsified Western image.  

Monica Butler - Media and Representaion

Media and Representation 

Monica Butler 

These weeks article each took a look at how media, namely American media, has effected cultures throughout the world and how we look at globalization. As Tomlinson first points out, American television of the 1980s, is often viewed as representing and promoting western imperialism. The television show Dallas is studied in depth to conclude its effects on other cultures, and how it could be interpreted as a threat of American commercialism against “authentic national identities.” How manipulative are shows like Dallas to the world’s media consumers? Bringing this into a modern context, I’d ask the question if this pattern continues with American Reality shows? With just about every successful American reality show of the last fifteen years, we have seen spinoffs across the world, Australia, England, Greece, Israel, Italy. Is this patten of so-called “imperialistic agenda” being repackaged in new programming? From Tomlinson’s studies and his research of other’s I took away that the implications of the shows like Dallas (which would now be categorized in the large and growing number of television “guilty pleasures”) are over-exaggerated. That they are solely guilty pleasures. I do believe that the messages depicted do have some effect on the viewer, however, from my own experience of watching today’s Dallas-like shows, I believe that the viewer is intelligent enough to decipher what is dramatized, what is improbable, and what would be morally disgusting if it happened outside of TVland. Like Tomlinson pointed out, interpretation will vary, but no culture will take the media at face value. As media consuming adults we are intelligent enough to read only the “pleasure of the text.”

When referencing media consuming adults and their ability to shield themselves from the manipulation of the media text, it is important to distinguish that media consuming child and teens are much more susceptible to the mass media. Children and teens could be the exception in the audience of Dallas’ negative agenda. The article about the Fijian adolescent girls supports the argument that children are more vulnerable to marketing than adult consumers, and especially insecure females. When dealing with the exposure of young children I beg to ask the common question, who is responsible? This harmful media is being shot into the culture of Fiji, is the parents responsibility to protect their children and reject the media? Should the media executives in America restrict their exportation to naive consumers? Is it the American’s responsibility that their media is having a significantly negative effect on a rapidly changing culture? Fijian cultures, before the introduction of American media had nearly no instances of eating disorders in their small culture. It is a culture that promotes robust  appetites and large body types. However, the authors concluded from their research that after 3 years of the American television in the society, healthy female body images among young girls plummeted and there was a significant rise in eating behavior related activities. There was a link seen between a woman’s weight and her success in her career and her home, and overall the small study showed that the media had a negative effect on the self-image of young naive girls. Unlike the adults watching Dallas, as a young girl it is much more difficult to determine the falsehoods and the exaggerations of the Hollywood production. 

With another reading specifically focusing on women and media, it brings up the question if women are more susceptible to media messages? Where is the data pertaining to young boys in Fiji and their imitation of the images they saw? Or in the data taken on Brazil, the article mainly focuses on why Brazil is changing because women are changing. Are women becoming more powerful because of the western images of female empowerment and feminism? It seems to me, with so many women in high positions in Brazil, that females actually have more power in Brazil than they do in America. Why was the change so rapid in Brazil, when women in America have been fighting publicly since the turn of the 20^th century? Brazilian women are not having as many kids, seeking education, seeking careers, seeking more materialistic and comfortable lives. However, the data presented does not use American media as the influencer, but two small influences. One, the Telenovela, the new family that the Telenovela depicts is small, wealthy, and beautiful. Two, the determination and the networking of women in Brazil. The women of Brazil know that they want modernization, power, and freedom to chose what kind of family they want and they will do what it takes to make that happen. However, with so many of our other articles discussing the effects of Western media, I would like to know if American media had an effect on Brazil? Were there outside influences that caused the women of Brazil to seek birth control, education, and power?

On a whole other continent, Bruner discusses three different types of tourism in Kenya. When each type is addressed and described, I concluded that the three have a main theme in common. Each is a business with consumers, these consumers, with the exception of Bomas, are coming from Western nations with preconceived notions of what Africa is and what the Maasai is. When they go to these tourist adventures, they are sold by the story that they will be told. Whether it is reality or not, they are on vacation and they want what they paid for. I think Bruner hits on this briefly, that these people are coming to gaze and to look at the Maasai and be entertained. It becomes authentic because they told it is. Similarly, the people who travel to see the Bomas, they know that the dancers don’t represent modern Kenya, but they want to be entertained, they want to connect with traditions of their country. They then believe it is authentic, because they are told so. This idea of authenticity connects directly to the discussion of the effects media has on young girls and adults who watch American media. If these people are told that this is the true authentic image of America, would they believe it? Like the tourists in Africa, they probably would. Therefore, with media, with tourism, there has to be a separation to define reality and entertainment. 

I have addressed how American media has affected the world’s cultures from the last century through many different outlets. However, with the growth of globalization, it is only natural for more and more cultures to claim their influence among the nations of the world. Lagaan and the article discussing the film contrast the four articles previously addressed. The success of the film not only speaks to the production but also to the emergence and growing acceptance of a new media. Western media is being threatened by Asian media. With popularity in numbers and a growing film industry it is only a matter of time before Asia continues to influence the media of the West. While Bollywood has struggled to break out into the global market in a major way, Lagaan is an example of a Bollywood film having worldwide box office and critical success. Stadler points out the that film marks a new trend in Hindi cinema. While it breaks the rules of Bollywood films it follows the template of the African tourism previously discussed. In order to garner world audiences, the film drew its success from being a period film. It gave the viewers what they wanted to see, what they thought India was. Domestic success came from the intense, dramatic, and interwoven story line. The domestic viewers resonated with the current political themes taking place through the story line of cricket and the division of the society. They linked many of the themes to turmoil among different ethnicities in their modern country and the feverous rivalry they have in cricket with Pakistan (rooted as well in politics like the British rivalry). And on the world success side of it the viewers connected with the theatrics, the dress, the stereotypes of British colonists and “tribe-like” Hindis. 

Speaking again to the consumeristic nature of media and tourism. People will only consume what they have already preconceived that they would like to see or buy. This even relates to the viewers of Dallas, the people who watched the television show did so because it was some exaggerated image of what they thought America to be like. For many people who grew up watching the show but never have been to America, may still believe that Texas is like a self-indulgent episode of Dallas. Is this the mission of the media? Do the people who make the media want us to believe its reality? 

Leah Feutz- Media and Representation Post

Leah Feutz- Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation Post

            The Tomlinson article discussed Dallas as a “symbol of American cultural imperialism”, and was very interesting in articulating the difference between the more objective view of the text as a product of a “mass culture industry” and a subjective understanding of how it is actually experienced by viewers (45). Tomlinson writes how specific studies of Dallas viewers (by Ang in a Dutch women’s magazine and by Katz and Liebes) challenge the idea that these shows have an immediate affect on viewers. Instead, these studies illuminate that audiences can be more self-aware and critical consumers of these cultural texts. Ang found that viewers had a “high level of disapproval for the cultural values of Dallas”, and that sometimes they tried to justify watching the show as more of an ironic consumption, or else they didn’t feel the need to justify and instead accepted that they could enjoy the show just for its connection to the “melodramatic imagination” (46). I notice this type of tendency even within the United States, where people often have shows they watch as “guilty pleasures” and sometimes try to prove that they know the show is stupid or fake, but that they can still enjoy in a more frivolous way. We don’t have to accept the values in shows like the Real Housewives or whatever as our own, and instead we often watch these types of programs with the same “irony” that Ang discusses. Overall, Ang sees the audience of shows like Dallas as more critical than traditional discourse has allowed; people don’t just accept cultural imperialism.

In their study, Katz and Liebes describe watching shows like Dallas as not just “an isolated individual practice, but one in which social interaction…is a vital part of the interpretive and evaluative process” (48). More importantly than this, people don’t just watch shows and accept their cultural values. Instead, they view these shows through their own cultural lens, and subsequent judgment is based in their own sense of morality and results in “an actual reinforcement of the audience’s own cultural values” (49). In other words, people “‘[negotiate]’ with the text” instead of just a one-way translation of values from screen to viewer (49). I liked that these studies bring to light that response to these types of cultural imperialism are “more active and critical”, as opposed to assuming that people are ignorant or passive recipients (50).

I think it is interesting, however, to compare this view of audiences to that found in the Becker article, which found that disordered eating was much more prevalent with increased exposure to (western) television. In this way, TV is one of the “specific cultural mechanisms that [mediates] disordered eating” (1). Maybe there is a difference in what we are susceptible to and what has an impact on us as viewers, and that something as personal as the body can be greatly influenced by what we see on our screens. I think it is also extremely difficult to have any acceptance of one’s own body type when images of women are predominated by a certain type of shape, in a much more pervasive way than just representing one type of culture or way of life in TV shows. The value of a certain type of body is abundantly clear, whereas there is more of a nuance to the different types of cultures and values that we have exposure to on television. I think that together, the Tomlinson and the Becker articles tell us that we should not underestimate the agency of the audience nor the power of the medium of television. I wonder, however, if it is so clear that shows and movies can have a huge affect on eating disorders, why there is not more of a movement to present a more diverse body type on the screen. Or, at least, give consumers a way to be more critical of what they are seeing, and try to counteract the power that these images can have on young girls (and on boys as well). The Gorney article “Machisma” takes another view of the audience, and does place a little more emphasis on the power of the viewer in interpreting messages from the media. I think this reinforces the idea that perhaps, people are more susceptible to certain messaging in certain contexts, and that many different factors can affect what has staying power and what we look at with a critical eye.

The Stadtler article on Lagaan highlights how its “cross-cultural appeal” gained it an Oscar nomination as well as many “glowing reviews and…unprecedented box-office success overseas” (518). Overall, films like Lagaan are an important part of how diaspora scholars understand the potential for these types of cultural expressions to “reach a global audience” and for perceptions to be shifting and changing in response to widened exposure. It is interesting to me that the cricket game in the movie “functions on a variety of levels”, both in the structure of the story and also in giving audiences across cultures who participate in this sport something within the film to identify with. The author notes how films like this, with a basic plotline similar to a David and Goliath type story, translate across many different cultures and makes for a broad base of appeal. As Kena points out, these types of stories have universal appeal, and also have implications for which films will be successful both at home and abroad.

 Finally, the Bruner article moves on to talk about tourism, and how it involves a homogenization of local realities as well as targeting certain types of tourists and crafting their experience in wherever they are visiting. I think that the very idea of taking a “vacation” means that people want to experience a more simplistic view of a certain location, and that they don’t want to necessarily “explore similarities and differences…embrace complexity…[and] open up to new possibilities” (903). I am not really sure how the “questioning gaze” that Burner describes is possible to engender in people, because that seems contradictory to what people want to be doing while they are on vacation. I have the sense that most people want to feel that they pay for a full experience, inclusive of returning home with an understanding of where they have been and a feeling of being more cultured and worldly. People don’t generally want to undermine this type of confidence with sentiments that they only saw one part of a culture, or that their experience in another country wasn’t necessarily genuine or true to actual cultural realities. There is something to be said for the lucrative business of tourism and of resorts, cruises, etc, and so as long as there is money in simplifying or “dumbing down” cultures in some ways, it will probably continue. I am glad, however, that this article illuminates that this is an important topic to discuss and to come to understand, and even if I have my doubts about the possibility of tourism in Africa and across the world changing to reflect these values, it doesn’t make them unworthy of pursuing.

Thomas Schrader - Media & Representation - March 26, 2012

           This week’s readings seemed mainly about the crossover between Western/American culture and the more traditional roots of other cultures that are non-western. In Stadtler’s (2005) article on the film Lagaan, I found it interesting that the movie does not follow the rules of typical Biollywood film, mostly because of the more realistic dance/music scenes, which occur in more realistic settings. The author notes that to appeal to a Western audience, you have to give them what they want and expect, and it seems that the successful crossover of the film was due to that. Watching the film in class, I noticed that it seemed quite unique in comparison to Bollywood films I have seen. It seemed more like a movie that that I would see in an American theater today in terms of the storyline. It also portrayed the story of a successful underdog, which truly transgresses into any culture really. My question is that while sticking to a broader appeal really helped the film, does this also take away from the inherent authenticity of Bollywood films? I wonder how much must be sacrificed for South-Asian films to really break through in Hollywood. Also, from my point of view, the film did seem pretty anti-British, and as a result anti-Western and imperialist. Reflecting back, I can see that this was just something to give context to the story to make it more believable in a way. That fact that the British woman helped the home team players also contributes to the idea that the film is not so much anti-Western as it supposed to feed into people’s concern for the underdogs rising up. Nonetheless, I wonder when we will ever see such a film meet such success without the perfect timing that Lagaan came out.

            I think that this article ties well with what Bruner (2001) discusses in his article on tourism in Kenya and the Maasai. Bruner explain three sites of tourism for visitors to engage with “authentic” Maasai culture in some way. First, the Mayers Ranch provided foreign tourists with a fixed, untouched, and separated view of the Maasai tribe. Bomas serves as a nationalist oriented museum appealing to modern urban Kenyans who are seeking a well-rounded view of multiple traditional performances. Finally, the Sundowner brings foreign tourists right into the action through crossing over their experience and the activities of the Maasari, as if the tourists are momentarily part of the group while they still don’t truly leave the safety of their privilege. The author takes issue with each of these sites with good reason. Mayers, now closed, sought to provided a fixed realistic of Maasai culture while completely forgetting about the modern Maasai. For me, it almost sounded like a zoo where animals would be put on display as if they are no different and primitive. Bomas, though it sought to celebrate the many cultures that make up Kenyan society, it did so without showing much concern for being true to the cultural dances or even using members of the actual groups who originated the dances. They do not show true Maasai rituals.

            One of the most interesting ideas I took away from the article is that of the American image of African cultures. What tourists see is, in many ways, what they expect, and all the performers and owners of the industry are giving the people what they want, twisting what may have been actually authentic into something that makes profits and makes people happy. It’s not all bad as the performers and the Maasai profit significantly as well, as long as they follow the rules and scripts. So if it means playing primitive to make money, then it works.

            I found the “questioning gaze” and the agency of the tourists most interesting in this section, especially how tourists could be critical of what they were seeing while still falling back into a sense of apathy. Even if tourists are aware that something is being done just for the tourists, whether true to the modern Massai people or not, they still accept it. I see this sense of apathy as harmful, especially as we are seeing more and more crossover of cultures that are not Western with our culture. It seems that the contribution of the West in these cases is a desire for money with little worry of what must be done to do so. I can’t speak for the Maasai as to whether they feel good about their performances or do it solely for the money and profit though. Furthermore, at then end of the day all three sites offer performances, which in itself reveal that what tourists are seeing cannot be taken as completely legitimate and authentic. How then can those who want to truly be informed globalized citizens go on to truly learn about other cultures themselves?

            What the articles on Dallas, Fijian adolescent girls, and Machisma expose is that Western media, specifically television, may be having a major influence on traditional cultures and beliefs. The thinking behind the  “questioning gaze” seemed to pop up again in the Dallas article. In the new places that the show is being watched, the author questions the “ideology of mass culture” that critics have stated the show spreads. What was found through further studies is that most viewers bring part of their own culture into their television viewing and processing so that they interpret media through a unique lens. In effect, the problem of imperialism is thought to be overstated, perhaps relying on the assumption, I think, that other non-Western cultures are too primitive or simple to be tied to their cultures and would easily change their views to fit a more modern Western text. This study seemed to debunk that idea to a certain degree and concluded viewers could still “enjoy” the show while not be purely indoctrinated in its message.

            The Fiji article seemed to conflict with this idea but with little evidence as to why. According to the study on eating behaviors of Fijian adolescent girls changed significantly over time with exposure to Western television between 1995, when television watching was basically a nonexistent behavior, to 1998. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, the authors determined that there was an increase in dieting and self-induced dieting. I found this article somewhat convincing of yet again the harmful effects of Western influences into a culture that seemed to be doing alright without outside influence. The author was not clear about what shows the girls were watching though. What I also reminded myself was that even though the girls in their adolescence are probably very impressionably, they still have agency and an entire culture that is saying being a little heavier is okay. There may be a correlation with the TV viewing, but I don’t think it can be entirely causational. That would be pretty surprising to me.

            The Machisma article supported my doubts by giving voices to the people being studied, unlike the article on Fiji. I think the author, Gorney, gives more credit to the strong Brazilian women in the choice to have fewer children while still exposing the influence of Western consumerism as well but to a lesser degree. Many changes, including industrialization, birth control, public health, and the introduction of television and electricity, have all contributed to smaller families, but women themselves should be given the real credit for taking their family size into their own hands. It seems that many factors are at play to put it simply.

            What I can conclude from these articles is that in our globalized world, crossing over between cultures is complicated and is in constant negotiation.

Anakena Paddon

Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation

            I found this collection of texts particularly relevant because most of us will have been touched in some form or another by all the issues discussed: tourism, the presence of mass media in our lives and its effects (sometimes detrimental, see eating disorders; sometimes revolutionary, see Brazil) and the tension between our power and vulnerability regarding our exposure to these images.

            Tomlinson presents two case studies on the hit TV series Dallas. Although I’d never seen so much as an extract of the show before looking it up after reading this extract, from what I gather it focuses on the glamorous (read: materialistic) lives of wealthy Dallas inhabitants, weaving tangled webs of drama and exaggerated life situations for all to relish. The case studies, both very different from one another in the formality of their conduct, sought to shed light on the international success of the show. Most people cannot relate to the plotline in the least, given the extravagance of the lifestyles presented; European intellectuals have attacked the show as “cultural poverty” and as a symbol of “the American mass culture industry” which is often felt as an oppressor, or a threat. But people watch the show, and audience ratings are incredibly high, so somewhere along the line, even if it is a guilty pleasure, people enjoy watching the show. One of the case studies suggests that people have found a way to bridge the gap between their reality and the TV’s, using the fictional reality as an escape from their own all-too-real life.

            I think there are a great many TV shows that continue to do just this today, although perhaps targeting more teenage populations – shows such as the popular Gossip Girl, or 90210 that present over-dramatic, over-expensive “glamorous” lifestyles that do not correspond to the reality of the 99%. So why do people agree to watch these shows? Why are American TV shows so popular if they are so distant from people’s realities? How have they been packaged to be consumed by viewers all over the globe?

            I would have liked to further learn about this self-distancing from foreign (not nationally foreign, but realistically foreign) material affected people’s opinions and acceptance of the show Dallas. It contrasts effectively with the research done in Fiji on the impact of mass media images on eating disorders in female teenagers. The team of researchers chose to base their work in Fiji because it presented a “naïve” population, which in this situation indicated that their level of exposure to television prior to this study was little or non-existent in many cases.

The object was the see how the intake of these images affected their self-image and whether it caused them to strive for bodily change. Fiji was an interesting base because traditionally, there is a fundamental difference in the ideal physical aesthetic of a Fijian and what is portrayed on (heavily American dominated) television. Indeed, the Fijian population “encourages robust appetites” and “individual efforts to reshape the body by dieting or exercise thus traditionally has been discouraged”. The results of the study found that after prolonged exposure to television, a higher percentage of young women were subject to wanting to change their physique and were more prone to developing eating disorders, where they had previously been a non-issue on the island.

Interestingly, if we look at eating disorders in American culture, I would argue that it is still relatively taboo – young people who are subject to them are not quick to self-report an eating disorder. Thus, I am curious as to whether there was any reluctance to report their changes in eating behaviors (particularly with the familial disapproval and lack of understanding) as an eating disorder or if they willingly proclaimed to be vomiting to lose weight and change their body image.

I finished reading this report with an overall feeling of unease because I couldn’t stop thinking about the ethics of this research: if the researchers hypothesized that exposure to television would bring about eating disorders, why would they knowingly and willingly subject a “naïve” population to that? Is it just understood that television would eventually make its way to Fiji anyway, so why not just catch the research while it’s fresh? Were families angry about this research? Is there a part of responsibility attributed to the research in the increase of eating disorders?

Next, I’d like to move on to Gorney’s article on Brazilian women. I found the title to be somewhat misleading and expected/hoped for more of an emphasis on the impact of the media and telenovelas to shape women’s opinions or the change in demographics but the story was interesting nonetheless. Gorney explores how and why the Brazilian fertility rate has dropped to the point of being below the replacement level, and how it has spread nation-wide, regardless of class – for many women, a fábrica está fechada. She argues that despite there being many reasons why this is the case, most of the credit for this social change must be given to the women themselves, “tough, resilient women who set out a few decades back, without encouragement from the government and over the pronouncements of their bishops, to start shutting down the factories any way they could”. This has led to many women undergoing sterilization surgery, which serves as an irreversible contraceptive.

But how did this massive and notable social change come about? How did women’s priorities change to: #1 Education; #2 Profession; and finally #3 Relationship & Kids? There were several factors in this evolution: expedited industrialization, easy access to various contraceptives (despite shady legality), lower child mortality paired with national pension programs (which altered the commonly accepted view of a nuclear family and the need for dependency between generations), and the media portrayal of the “ideal” Brazilian, which does NOT involve “a soccer-team-size roster of siblings anymore”.

This was where I wanted more on the role of the media in changing women’s perceptions of themselves and of their roles within a family. Machismo is a very real phenomenon in Brazil, so what was the role of the media in altering the perception of society to the point that women are now expected to strive for education, and a profession, with the understanding that they will eventually be juggling these responsibilities with those of a child?

The power of media, and more particularly cinema, is a theme explored by Florian Stadtler in his article on Lagaan and the responses it received from audiences both in India and more internationally. Although the Bollywood hyper-production creates over 800 films a year, it wasn’t until 2001 that a real turning point occurred for Indian and South Asian cinema, and culture in general. There were several reasons for this, the first of which being that there had been a shift away from the less mainstream art-house cinema to more populist films. Along the same time were museum exhibits, books and various documentaries highlighting cultural icons and styles (Stadtler reminds us that purely statistically, it would make sense that South Asian cultures were growing in popularity, because they make up close to 80% of the world’s population).

In this context, “globalization is no longer a euphemism for Western cultural domination” and many new “fusion” projects were seen in development. The timing was just right for these, as Ang Lee made subtitles cool again, and Moulin Rouge brought back the musicals to popularity (also introducing many people to Bollywood influences). This shift in audience tastes set the groundwork for a positive response to Lagaan but still doesn’t explain its widespread success, since it broke all the rules.

Internationally, it should have been doomed a film with subtitles. In Bollywood, it never should have worked, because it is a period piece with a focus on poverty – that’s not what people want to see! But the universal themes it explored tied people in: the timeless right vs. wrong, the ever-popular story of the underdog defeating the oppressor and more importantly and up to date, the presentation of an ideal nation where all ethnic groups and social classes can cooperate to succeed together.

I was most bothered/curious about his use of the term “threatening” when referring to the diaspora of South Asian culture. On more than one occasion in the article, Stadtler states something along the same lines as “must we not re-examine this in the light of increasing South Asian influences penetrating mainstream culture and argue that globalization allows these influences to travel backwards and forwards, threatening the perceived pre-eminence of Western popular culture?” Without wanting to sound naïve myself, why did he not choose the term “enriching” instead of “threatening”? Why must a blend of cultures automatically be a threat? Aren’t we at a point now where we are aware that there is no “pure”, “un-fused” culture? And instead of fighting it, can’t we make it to the point where we celebrate this fusion and enrichment?

The final text is Bruner’s presentation of tourism in Africa, focusing particularly on the Maasai and their representation in foreign minds (particularly following the success of the Lion King). Bruner presents three different types of tourism, which he has labeled as postcolonial, postindependence, and postmodern.

To begin, here is a breakdown of the highlights of each site:

	Mayers Ranch	Bomas of Kenya	“Out of Africa Sundowner” party
What?	Privately produced performance	Public production	Tented safari camp near reserve
Who organized it?	Local entrepreneurs	National government	Tour agency
Targeted Audience	Foreign tourists	Modern urban Kenyans	Wealthy “post-tourists”
Summary of Events	Staged Maasai dancing in warrior compound	Dances of Kenyan ethnic groups	Maasai male dancing, mixing with tourists Formal cocktail party
Theme	Timeless & ahistorical presentation 19th century colonial narrative	Theme: Kenyan nationalism, “to show that all the ethnic groups of Kenya are equally valued” *Ethnic theme park for domestic tourists*	Present a Hollywood-ized version of Africa, with all the comforts and luxuries from home
Type (according to Bruner)	POSTCOLONIAL	POSTINDEPENDENCE	POSTMODERN

I am currently in the midst of writing a thesis on tourism in New Caledonia, which is presented with similar conflicts of identity surrounding a colonial past and how to move forward. The idea of an “ethnic theme park for domestic tourists” is one that many former Empire states struggle with today – how does one highlight the validity of a local culture without being condescending, or denying it any mobility and evolution in time? So often, either a colonial narrative pervades or tourists seek to escape the reality of that country in high-end luxury resorts that offer a staged performance of reality, ignoring any politics or economic problems and once more trapping local populations in an ahistorical context.

The evolution of tourism will only become possible when tourists seek to be educated when they travel. The current equating of tourism with escape makes it a vicious circle as travel agencies burgeon in poorer countries and present them as idealized havens of foreign qualities for tourists who are all too happy to play the part of the ignorant post-colonial empowered.  

Maggie Nelsen

3/26/12

Media and Representation

                This week’s readings focus on looking at media representations of globalization in context of westernization. Many perceive the two as one and the same, but one of readings also offers the view that such a paradigm may be changing. The Lagaan article took the position that the film defied normal Bollywood themes and plotlines. The film received praise as a revolutionary first for Bollywood because of its authentic portrayal of Indian culture, and exposing harsh British colonialism while still producing a film embraced by western audiences: “allow[ed] for a more balanced view to emerge while still portraying the brutal and oppressive nature of colonial rule in India”(Stadtler, 2005, 521). Lagaan accomplished all these things quite tactfully, resulting in a box-office hit in both its native Asian subcontinent and the Western world.  This phenomenon was particularly noteworthy because usually it is western cinema and entertainment which is circulated around the globe, and this time a major hit translated from East to West. It is important to note that such an occurrence would very likely not have been possible without a product that pleased Western audiences, “If you want to market Hindi cinema to the West, you have to give the West what it wants to see”(522). But Lagaan is a good start.

                The research conducted in Fiji about western media influences on young women’s body image was a really clever study. I think the idea and premise of their study was definitely intriguing: assessing to what extent western television does impact women’s perception of their bodies and beauty. Fiji was chosen because of its little to no consumption of western television programs. However, the methodology was loosely constructed to yield findings about the hypothesis. But, the results do seem to reveal a strong likelihood of a correlation between body image/slimming down and images and messages in western TV. In this sense, the American norm of being obsessively consciousness about one’s physique was imported to society where such a mindset didn’t previously exit. This certainly demonstrates the power of media and also how foreign concepts and practices can be easily absorbed into other cultures where such systems and customs never existed—the profound permeability of westernization. I say westernization and not globalization because it is only western constructs which are permeable across borders and infused in other cultures. The door only swings one way; when non-western things blow into the West they can be rejected, downplayed, or picked over so only certain aspects enter. Previous week’s readings on music have demonstrated this phenomenon. Therefore, this study in Fiji I think really exemplifies how readily non-western people absorb/accept western culture as the world authority. One finding the authors also mentioned was the high degree to which participants peer’s perceptions of them and the media viewed, influenced their opinions. This leads me to the Tomlinson article.

                One aspect I found interesting in the Tomlinson article is the study conducted where couples viewed TV programs together. The experimenters emphasized the necessity of two people in a close relationship watching together—because one’s perceptions of the program is heavily altered or influenced by the other person’s reaction and commentary: “ ‘conversation with significant others’ is a vital part of the interpretive and evaluative process”(Tomlinson, 48) . This was also the case among the girls in Fiji, they became more aware of their body image not just because of the TV program itself, but how it had taught them to perceive each other. Other points made in the article I found quite interesting too. The article spoke a little bit about how viewers ‘negotiate’ with a text, either to justify enjoying a program they know is “trashy” or problematic. I have not come across many articles which speak specifically to the ways in which viewers and audiences interact with a text—which is obviously of crucial importance to overall analysis of media representation. For instance, one scholar is quoted in the article by raising the important question to what extent are viewers actually perceiving texts in the ways in which sociologists and academics believe they are receiving them. Here, clearly the discipline of psychology must come into play in order to help determine just what kinds of messages audiences are absorbing in the media, because while academic critics textual analysis may be spot on, it can’t really be known if that analysis is the same message the viewer is absorbing.

                The dropping fertility rates in Brazil, as a result of increased choice by Brazilian women to get sterilized, comes  as a bit of a shock considering the fervent Roman Catholic tradition in the country. Catholics are known for their encouragement of large families and disavowal of birth control and sterilization. However, the exact opposite is happening in Brazil these days. This article states younger Brazilian female generations as progressive about family planning. The women are quoted as saying that having children is expensive and in a modern world one or two kids is all they need and want. And it is not just well-off women who are prescribing to this belief and making these choices, women of all classes in Brazil are adhering to this concept. In a way this phenomenon seems to contradict the social and economic—and most definitely religious— climate of Brazil; leaving one to wonder if this is a product of a globalized ideal or just 21^st modernity custom in general—as the Brazilian women suggest.

                Kenyan tourism, specifically the Maasai men and culture, provides interesting medium for which to examine and analyze western perceptions of foreign cultures and natives perceptions, beliefs, and how they want to view their own culture. The latter sentiment is exemplified in the Bomas recreational ground, a place that very much reminds me of an outdoor music and arts pavilion in my hometown (Wolftrap: http://www.wolftrap.org/). The Bomas is quite different from the other two tourist places in Kenya as it caters to native Kenyans themselves—not foreign tourists. Bomas appears to do the best job at representing the local culture—in all its diversity—in the most equitable and ‘authentic’ representation possible. However, one must not forget that this is an institution founded and funded by the government, and therefore is technically riddled with its own form of political propaganda or at least government agenda of how it wants to portray the country’s historical culture. Overall, this site is seems to be the best representation of Kenyan culture and history. The Mayers Ranch I think can be said is the most disturbing of the three; owned and operated by a couple from the actual colonial era, this tourist spot screams of imperialist nostalgia and is subsequently problematic—hence its shutdown by the Kenyan government. In the States, colonial Williamsburg (in Williamsburg, VA) is an entire town designed and built like 18^th century Virginia, complete with employees walking around in period-attire. To put the concept at Mayer’s in a metaphorical context:  the American equivalent would be to reenact 19^th/20^th century share-croppers or slaves on a historical cotton plantation in South Carolina, for people walk around and ‘experience’ “old, southern glory”—because Confederate nostalgia in the States undoubtedly exists today. But would we ever see the kind of tourist spectacle akin to Mayers here in the States? One of the most important points from the Mayers compound I want to focus on is what happened to the livelihood of the Maasai men after the place was shut down, because the alternative options were not much better—or different. Most went on to perform at other maasai productions, tourist attractions, western hotels and some even went into the sex industry, taking advantage of the apparent market for strong, ‘exotic’, maasai men which European women sought out. Not enough time to even comment on that…The Out of Africa Sundowner sounded to me like a hybridization of sorts. Maasai performers interacted on a more casual basis, and more of a level of equality with the tourists. And likewise, the Sundowner was for the tourist who wanted to be culturally informed (to a certain extent at least). This is the surface level perception, but the reality is the tourists were still ignorant of and sheltered to real history of the culture. This place is trying to foster an equitable atmosphere and accurate representation of Maasai culture, but in actuality it is a “American image of African culture”(Bruner, 2001, 893).  The core conclusion of this article proposes that very quickly the lines have been blurred between an accurate depiction of Kenyan history and culture and the American “idea” or perception of Kenyan or African culture, so eventually natives will start recording down in history the western version of their culture—instead of what it truly is. This concept I think, as the author says, can definitely be translated into other problematic representations of nation, people and culture across the globe.