Giroux, Henry A. "The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics

Journals 1 – 8: Reflections

Journal #1 - Harold, Christine. "Pranking rhetoric: “Culture jamming” as media activism." Critical Studies in Media Communication 21.3 (2004): 189-211.

This must be one of the most interesting things I have read about. The article by Harold (2004) on Culture Jamming is encouraging, through examples, an active role in the fight against growing capitalism. By pointing to capitalism as a culture, Harold (2004) is specifically targeting society and having adopted a consumer-based culture; instead of a morally driven and value-motivated one. The article is generalizing transference of consumer ethics and mannerisms from one person to another affecting an entire country, continent and even global spectrum. The article is also accusing us of lingering as consumers and not caring that there are many negative things happening behind the scenes that serve to render us this object we sought for so frantically.

By ‘jamming’ the culture, Harold (2004) is calling upon individuals to jam, stop it in its tracks, stop and demobilize it, with a unique and very simple technique: pranking. According to Harold (2004), the jamming “implies an interruption, a sabotage, hoax, prank, banditry or blockage of what are seen as the monolithic power structures governing cultural life” (192). This is interesting because it is different; no one really talks about telling the truth to the world via comedy or laughter, or even mimicking (although Mad TV has tried, and other shows as well). The difference with this type of activism is that it uses a technique that is more of an in-your-face attack, even cynical if it has to be, and it is available in print (often placed on billboards across city highways and more).

Harold (2004) exposed many corporations that were being socially irresponsible. The main example used in this article is that of Adbuster’s Blackspot campaign where the show company, Nike, was suddenly under scrutiny by activists for using sweatshops for the production of their famous sneakers. However, to do so Adbusters used rhetoric pranking to emphasize their point of extreme corporate social irresponsibility (190). To prank is “to add a stylish flourish as the one’s dress; to fold or pleat, as in the figurative sense of wrinkle” (196). Thus, Adbusters and their activists rely on pranking to relate a stronger message, and to so with a revolutionary intention against the regime that is capitalism. I find this fascinating since it can capture the attention of people in a bigger, more meaningful way, where they can relate to the message, proceed to think about it in a way to brings peace to their minds yet states the message clearly.

Harold (2004) admits that there is efficiency to the use of pranking in that they are softer than any verbal or violent attack. They seem to touch more people through analogies that are funny and maybe somewhat insulting to the accused party but still relatable. I think that whatever works is what we must continue to do, so long as people are awakened by the message, are touched by it, then all we can do is sit back and wait to see change happen. If the majority of the public were to stop consuming, then corporate leaders would have no choice but to retrieve and stop operations. Without a demand, there is no market; then, the goal should be to stop that mechanism from continuing to happen.

Journal #2 - Ruskin, Gary, and Juliet Schor. "Every nook and cranny: The dangerous spread of commercialized culture." Multinational Monitor 26.1-2 (2005): 1-5.

Then, my interest dove into a different article, which I wanted to discuss in this journal entry. It was written by Ruskin and Schor (2005) and called The Dangerous Spread of Commercialized Cultures. I think this article is related to Harold’s in that both portray capitalism and globalization as the driving force towards human conscious destruction. Ruskin and Schor (2005) define the “rises of commercialism [as] an artifact of the growth of corporate power”. The authors also show the importance of their topic by quoting a powerful authority figure, in this case it was George W. Bush, when he linked “love and gifts” in a Christmas speech and added that they were “signs and symbols of even greater love and gifts that came on that holy night” (Ruskin & Schor 2005).

According to this article, we have become a nation where gifts represent love and love is always shown through gifts. Unfortunately, this is not the essential nature of humans. Yes, we give to each other, but we are mostly driven by actions of love more so than gifts of objects signifying some kind of materialist, altruistic love. The idea is that we have become accustomed to this, though. We are now used to giving each other gifts more so than we are hugs and kisses. People are bitter now, all over the world, experiencing wars, famine and fear without giving each other the essentials for human sustainability: love, empathy, understanding, friendship and so on.

Ruskin and Schor (2005) connected commercialization with culture, as did Harold. Advertising was the ultimate tool used to intrude into any market, as per these authors. They allude to it as being present from our birth until we die. Their focus in mainly on children as they are the most vulnerable and the least “legally protected” (Ruskin & Schor, 2005). They call on disgust among “ourselves”, their call for action comprises of our family linking consumption with love, something that is not in touch with morality, goodwill and empathy. I must agree with them. Christmas has become all about gifting, it has nothing to do with giving love, hugs, kisses and so on.

Our generation is learning to be more and more detached from each other, we are learning that to be independent is to be a great citizen; not relying on one another is a way of being independent, financially independent, this simply means we are more detached from one another because of a monetary goal. But, we just don't see it. We are thinking that by surrounding ourselves with all that is material, we will be happy and still, deep in our hearts, we know that it is not the truth. We need others, companionship, friends and laughter outside the realm of the Internet or work. We need families and children, but the way it is going, it seems that future generations will only look for self-sustainability, become selfish and satisfied with things and not people.

Journal #3 - Rose, Jonathan. "Government advertising and the creation of national myths: the Canadian case." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8.2 (2003): 153-165.

Government advertising and the creation of national myths by Rose (2003) were significant in my personal reflection of this topic because it brought it close to home. Canada is also being impacted by capitalism and the commercialization of our souls. According to Rose (2003), an associate professor, Canada is adjacent to the US in the campaign to foster a commercial national unity (153). In this effort, then, Canada has become an accomplice in the capitalist game and agenda. Canada, according to Rose (2003), uses the Canadian constitution in advertisements for products and country (i.e., Olympic games and immigration advertisement).

I’m definitely not shocked to hear this or read it. I have been living in Canada for a while now and I can see that our national identity is very important and represents us as Canadians everywhere in the world. Canadians are known for being nationalists, ready to serve the country without harming others and using its great living conditions as propaganda mechanisms to instill more immigration, attract the best players from around the world, and use them to make it, financially, in Canada. Use them may be a strong statement, we do after all have income tax returns and so on. But, it is the truth that Canada only allows immigration from those who are most ready and capable of working, otherwise, it does not grant residency. I have a lot to think about now.

Associate Professor Rose (2003) points to the attention that American literature receives as a great detriment to our own Canadian culture, as it is little exposed. Advertising in Canada is unique in that it uses Canadian citizenship, values and national symbol to advertise and, thus, funds all commercialization campaigns that represent the government. This type of “political advertising” is not only biased but also divided. It has become embedded in our culture, however. It sets a confusing path of national identity and consumerism. For instance, when it comes to immigration, Canada advertises the land as one of the best, most reliable and habitable places in the world, but only those with working potential are accepted.

Therefore, by using national identity as the focus, it calls the attention of those with more means to work, more abilities to make money and definitely, those with a lack of need in order for the government not to be burden with it. Canada seems to use advertisements to gain leverage in immigration processes. It markets multiculturalism through a united front of athletes, for instance (Rose 2003:163). It also uses federalist agendas to make it more complex to immigrate to Canada while communicating a completely different story through its advertisements.

Journal #4 - Giroux, Henry A. "The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics." College Literature 32.1 (2005): 1-19.

Another great article that caught my attention was by Giroux (2004) who called upon the process of militarization as the destruction of human kind very much like the threat of terror is to our civilization. This article discussed the fact that there is at least $479 billion US spent every year in the US to maintain a military presence and most of the funding comes from the public itself, including $40 billion from the sales of military-like video games. The author calls upon a collective agreement that tears apart the notion of militarization from our culture in order to live better lives in the future and not cause our own savage destruction as a species.

Giroux (2004) notes that the process of militarization is currently “diffused across a wide variety of cultural locations” leaving citizens conditioned to believe in it as fundamental to any democratic nation (and non-democratic as well, as they must defend themselves). This fear is instilled within the nation to make it weaker and malleable, ready for manipulative tactics to either sustain the market or gain a political advantageous position in the global world through their support.

Bibliography

Giroux, Henry A. "The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics." College Literature 32.1 (2005): 1-19.

Harold, Christine. "Pranking rhetoric: “Culture jamming” as media activism." Critical Studies in Media Communication 21.3 (2004): 189-211.

Rose, Jonathan. "Government advertising and the creation of national myths: the Canadian case." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8.2 (2003): 153-165.

Ruskin, Gary, and Juliet Schor. "Every nook and cranny: The dangerous spread of commercialized culture." Multinational Monitor 26.1-2 (2005): 1-5.