Encoding/Decoding- Stuart Hall

the following is a write up on Encoding/Decoding by Rini Thomas

--------------

In this paper I have tried to attempt my understanding of Stuart Hall’s work. The essay mainly focuses on the process of communication that has been commonly understood by the mass in terms of an encoder, the message and the decoder. Here it is a set pattern where the sender is the authoritative source for the receiver in terms of the sent message. But there is a necessity to rethink and restructure the whole stereotypical notion. The already existing structure is linear in motion and so there needs to be a change in the structure. The way in which Hall looks into is a more valid structure so to speak in a distinctive way. This is a much more sustained approach where the process is structured – production, circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction. Here the structure has taken an alteration from the already existing one, where, the sent message is taken or understood or interpreted in different ways by different audience. This structure has been adopted or incorporated by Hall from Marx’s Grundrisse and Capital, which shows how this structure sustains a form of passage.

The focus is on meanings and messages in the form of certain vehicles which are encoded and how it is transferred to the various audience. This can be paralleled with “Reader Response Criticism” where the reader becomes the centre focal point. Language forms a completely vital source here as language is cultural based and the meanings are comprehended through language by the mass in various ways. For example a poem like “Telephone Conversation” by Wole Soyinka written by an Afro-American can be understood by an Indian audience through their understanding of the existing oppression by the hegemony in terms of Dalits. “The ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’, he argues are relatively autonomous and the communicative process is of determinate moments” (p 167). He says raw history cannot be transmitted by a television newscast. For example, a movie in the caliber of Troy is not the literary text itself. It is an offshoot with some changes and the audience views it differently.

Further, Hall in detail elaborates how the television communication process is a labour process through Capital. There are various institutional structures that go into the production of a programme. Hall states that, “Production here constructs the message” (p 167). Figure 1 clearly states how the process takes place. Before the encoding takes place there are certain plans in terms of framing the technical infrastructure, relations of production and framework of knowledge which is encoded (meaning structures 1) then transferred to a programme as a meaningful discourse which is then decoded (meaning structures 2) and then interpreted into various technical infrastructures, relations of production and frameworks of knowledge. He also focuses on the medium ‘television’, how it is a complex sign which is three dimensional, transferred to a two dimensional image and exhibited. The images exhibited in television are real and not natural. The visual and the aural both are conglomerated and they form an integral part of the production even in the depiction of a cow. Here we come across both connotation and denotation. Denotation is the literal meaning which is cow that denotes a domestic animal and from there connotation occurs; the identification of the cow’s colour or physical attributes, etc. But anything and everything is cultural bound. Culture brings in dominant meanings. The problem with the mass is that of ‘subjective capacity’ as opposed to the ‘objective’. We have different subjective ideals and not just one objective view.

An old-fashioned Indian would consider the change in dressing style (modern) to be spoiling the ‘Indianness’ whereas a youngster would argue saying that it is necessary. The subjectivity changes from person to person.

Hall frames three hypothetical positions from which decodings of a television discourse may be constructed, viz-a-viz, the dominant hegemonic position, the negotiated code and the oppositional code. The hegemonic code is always the dominant followed by the bourgeois, the negotiated code followed by the majority and the oppositional code which is just the minority which accepts it. The whole component takes us to the theory propounded by Ferdinand de Saussure, where the sign, signifier and the signified changes from person to person, from culture to culture and from school of thought to another. Thus this essay focuses on how the entire communicative notion can be reframed and agreed upon by the mass.

Notes

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding*”. Birmingham, 1973.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses- Louis Althusser

the following write up on Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses is by Nidhi V. Krishna

-------------

In his essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, Louis Althusser demonstrates that in order to exist, a social formation is required to essentially, continuously and perpetually reproduce the productive forces (labour-power), the conditions of production and the relations of production. The reproduction of productive forces is ensured by the wage system which pays a minimum amount to the workers so that they appear to work day after day, thereby limiting their vertical mobility. The reproduction of the conditions of production and the reproduction of the relations of production happens through the State Apparatuses which are insidious machinations controlled by the capitalist ruling ideology in the context of a class struggle to repress, exploit, extort and subjugate the ruled class.

The Marxist spatial metaphor of the edifice, describes a social formation, constituted by the foundational infrastructure i.e., the economic base on which stands the superstructure comprising of two floors: the Law-the State (politico-legal) and Ideology. Althusser extends this topographical paradigm by stating that the Infrastructural economic base is endowed with an “index of effectivity” which enables it to ultimately determine the functioning of the superstructure. He scrutinizes this structural metaphor by discussing the superstructure in detail. A close study of the superstructure is necessitated due to its relative autonomy over the base and its reciprocal action on the base.

Althusser regards the State as a repressive apparatus which is used by the ruling class as a tool to suppress and dominate the working class. According to Althusser, the basic function of the Repressive State Apparatus (Heads of State, government, police, courts, army etc.) is to intervene and act in favour of the ruling class by repressing the ruled class by violent and coercive means. The Repressive state apparatus (RSA) is controlled by the ruling class, because more often than not, the ruling class possesses State power.

Althusser takes the Marxist theory of the State forward by distinguishing the repressive State Apparatus from the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA). The ISAs consist of an array of institutions and multiple realities that propagate a wide range of ideologies such as Religious ISA, Educational ISA, Family ISA, Legal ISA, Political ISA, Communications ISA, Cultural ISA etc. He accentuates the differences between the RSA and the ISAs as follows:

1. The RSA functions as a unified entity (an organized whole) as opposed to the ISA which is diverse and plural. However, what unites the disparate ISAs is the fact that they are ultimately controlled by the ruling ideology.

2. The RSA function predominantly by means of repression and violence and secondarily by ideology whereas the ISA functions predominantly by ideology and secondarily by repression and violence. The ISA functions in a concealed and a symbolic manner.

He declares that the School has supplanted the Church as being the crucial ISA which augments the reproduction of the relations of production (i.e., the capitalist relations of exploitation) by training the students to become productive forces (labour-power) working for and under the Capitalist agents of exploitation. The Educational ISAs, which assume a dominant role in a Capitalist economy, conceal and mask the ruling class ideology behind its liberating qualities so that their hidden agendas become inconspicuous to the parents of the students.

Althusser compares “ideology” to Freud’s “unconscious”. In the same sense that Freud had stated that the unconscious was eternal, he hypothesizes that ideology too is eternal due to its omnipresence. Therefore, ideology in general has no history.

Althusser posits that it is not possible for a class to hold State power unless and until it exercises its hegemony (domination) over and in the ISA at the same time. The importance of ISAs is understood in the wake of class struggles because ISAs are not only a crucial stake in class struggle but they are also the site of class struggle. The resistances of the exploited classes are able to find means and opportunities to express themselves in the ISAs to overpower the dominant class. An oppressed class can end its oppression by over powering the dominant/ruling class by utilizing the contradictions within the ISAs or by conquering combating positions in the ISAs during struggle.

The crux of Althusser’s argument is the structure and functioning of “ideology”. Althusser explains the structure and functioning of ideology by presenting two theses. Firstly, he posits that ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence. This distortion of reality is caused by material alienation and by the active imagination of oppressive individuals who base their domination and exploitation on the falsified representations of the world in order to enslave the relatively passive minds of the oppressed. Secondly, he posits that ideology always has a material existence in the form of concrete entities or apparatuses (ISAs). Hence, an individual’s belief in various ideologies (imaginary realities) is derived from the ideas of the individual who is a subject endowed with a consciousness that is defined by the ISAs. This (false) consciousness inspires and instigates the subject to behave in certain ways, adopt certain attitudes and participate in certain regular practices which conform to the ideology within which he recognizes himself as a subject. The ideas of the subject are inscribed in the ritual practices based on the “correct” principles of that ideology. Hence, despite the imaginary distortion by ideology, a subject derives his beliefs from the ideas which become his material actions and practices governed by material rituals which are all defined by material ideological apparatus and derived from the same.

Althusser’s central thesis states that ideology transforms individuals as subjects by a process of interpellation or hailing. The Family ISA is at work even before a child is born because it predetermines the identity of the child before its birth. Hence, an individual is always-already a subject. An individual is subjected to various levels of ideological subjection and each level of subjection or each ISA that subjects the individual influences the individual’s day to day activities and thereby determines his real conditions of existence. Further, Althusser demonstrates that the recognition of oneself as a ‘free’ subject within an ideology is only a misrecognition because the notion of a ‘free’ subject in ideology is only an illusion. In reality, the subject is subjugated, limited, restricted and controlled by ideology to such an extent that he has limited freedom and diminutive individual agency. Due to this misrecognition the subject acts and practices rituals steeped in the dominant ideology that are detrimental to his/her own welfare.

Understanding Culture- Mrinalini Sebastian

the following write up on Understanding Culture is by Foram Jakhria

-----------------------

Mrinalini Sebastian in her essay Understanding Culture focuses on various ways in which “Culture” has been defined and understood. She also agrees to Raymond Williams’ idea of ‘Culture’ as a synonym of ‘Civilization’. But through this essay, She tries to highlight ‘Culture’ and its meaning within the context of India – which is needed to be redefined.

Raymond Williams’ notion of Culture cannot be applied to Indian audience because his ideas are meant for his countrymen. In this essay, Sebastian cites Raymond Williams, but places her own view of Culture with relation to India specifically. She attempts to point out that Indian Culture or our understanding of ancient Indian Culture came from the descriptions, views, perspectives, photographs, etc of India collected by the colonizers or the western travelers.

Indian Culture which is known for its Religion, Temples, Classical Music, Dance, Mysticism, etc was recognized by the colonial powers. Colonizers considered Indian Culture as the one that is in opposition to their Western Culture and therefore, thought there is a need to revive Indian Culture to a large extent. For them, Indian Culture was the Culture of the ‘Other’. And what Sebastian points out by tracing this historical past that today India’s Culture has great amount of Colonial influence and impact.

Not only colonial past alone, but also Globalization and Liberalization have changed the image of our Indian Culture. Sebastian points out that our legal structures, policies, systems of Governance and Education, etc are heavily shaped by mimicking our colonial masters. Then, What is really “Indian” in it? Is what she addresses the readers to question. She throws light upon the missing ‘Indianness’ in our current Indian Culture.

In Sebastian’s view, ‘Culture’ needs to be redefined and re-understood by placing it in our own context. For this, we have to come-up with our own theories and frameworks about Culture by taking into consideration our colonial legacies and also, exploring new ways of understanding Culture by our own experiences of everyday life. The central idea of writing this essay is Understanding our own Culture by our own perspectives rather than relying on others to understand our Culture from their view points about India.

Net and Multiple Realities- Jodi Dan

the following write up on Net and Multiple Realities is by Vipin George

------------

There is no doubt that the Internet is a wondrous creation. The entire world is rapidly becoming obsessed with it. Everywhere you look, you are bound to see something related to the Internet. Jodi dean, in one of her most recent essays “The Net and Multiple Realities” deals with her understanding of net and the way net is perceived in the modern society. The essay is divided in two parts. The first part of the essay is centred around three issues. Firstly, what is the significance of considering net as a public sphere? There are arguments for and against this proposal. Some consider it as a public sphere as it gives opportunities for interaction, and register their thoughts and opinions in political discussions. It is almost like the way democracy functions. Democracy as a political system is based on discussion, inclusion and participation. Due to the advancement of net, there is the emergence of ‘world Public Sphere’, which means the information is no more the privilege of the elite but everyone has access to information and can register their thoughts. “The internet is a great facility to enhance democracy and individual participation in politics, only if the thoughts and voices of different people are posed properly, with organization and clarity, through a website that is recognized by the state and government, a website that has legitimacy” However, the challenge in considering net as a true public sphere is due to the fact that even today net is limited to the urban population even though it is making inroads in to the rural area. Again, people who engage on net debate and discussion are the techno-savvy elite and not the masses or the majority of the population. In my opinion, there is a long way to go before net can be considered as a true public sphere representing the masses.

Secondly, Jodi Dean tries to redefine net as communicative capitalism. The most significant aspect of net is that it is a medium of communication. Today it has become a system like capitalism with its own rules, regulations and structure. These regulatory interventions are invoked and pursued to make the net safe for commercial exchange, to protect the intranets of financial markets, establish the trust necessary for consumer confidence in online transactions, and to make appear as a public sphere what is clearly the material basis of the global economy. “Communicative capitalism designates that form of late capitalism in which values heralded as central to democracy take material form in networked communications technologies.” However, we think that net is encouraging participation but actually it is a financially mediated exchange centred on advertising, public relations and the means of mass communication. Thus, it only strengthens capitalism and the elite, and gives a false sense of participation, power and hope to the mass. Of course, this view of looking at net may be a Marxist way of perceiving the net and its role in our society. The net allegedly opens the world to everyone, regardless of race, creed, and sex which makes it democratic but still not everyone can afford to go online.

Thirdly, in order to have a critical perspective on the net and its relation to public sphere there is a need to consider public sphere as a construct, and subject it to critique. The ideology of techno-culture is centred on publicity. Publicity makes communicative capitalism seem natural and unavoidable. It gives us the matrix that tells us what to think, what to see, and what to desire. The new media is presented as the new democratic public, where we have all the privileges of democracy without the mess created by millions of people interacting together. But a closer look at the technoculure reveals that what it offers is not democracy but a communicative capitalism. As Saskia Sassen's research on the impact of economic globalization on sovereignty and territoriality makes clear, the speed, simultaneity, and interconnectivity of electronic telecommunications networks produce massive distortions and concentrations of wealth. An integral element of this communicative capitalism is the publicity. It makes today’s communicative capitalism seem perfectly natural.

In the second part of the essay Jodi defines net in terms of two concepts such as zero institution and neo-democracy. Zero institution as a concept was introduced by Claude Levi-Strauss. It means a shared understanding (assumption) that is never represented. “Like Hitler, assumes that marriage is solely for procreation . Kall assumes humans are simply “cells” in the body politic, nothing more.” (Thompson) It is an institution that has no positive function at all. Dean considers net as a zero institution because it allows myriad conflicting constituencies to understand themselves as part of the same global structure even though they disagree over that the architecture of this structure. For example, “where tradition and kinship have been superseded by modernity "the nation" takes on the role of a zero-institution."Liberals" and "conservatives" may have opposing, or even mutually exclusive, understandings about social organization but both groups agree they belong to a larger community that binds them together regardless of conflict and difference.” This conflict links net to be considered as neo-democracy. Neo-democracies are configured through contestation and conflict. It is like the public sphere that has been the site of political legitimating through discussion and debate over matters of common concern. In the same way the neo-democratic networks are contestatory networks, networks of engagements around issues of vital concern to their constituents.

Internet is here to stay and it has its wide ramifications for our social, political, economic and cultural life. It is of great help to student’s community as information and knowledge recourse have become easily available and affordable.

References

Dean, Jodi. “The Net and Multiple Realities” The Cultural Studies Reader. Eds. Simon During, London: Routledge, 2007. Print.

“Communicative Capitalism: Jodi Dean” Internet and it’s Effects. 28 Oct. 2008. Web. 5 Feb. 2011. http://mustafa-internetanditseffects.blogspot.com/2008/10/communicative-capitalism-jodi-dean.html

“Zero Institution” Ghost of a Flea. 31 August, 2005. Web. 6 Feb. 2011. http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/006359.html

“Zero Institution” Web. 5 Frb.2011. http://www.valdosta.edu/~tthompson/ppts/3330/fall09/kallocain3_09.pdf

A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste - Pierre Bourdieu

the following is a write up on A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste by Josy Mary Edwin

-----------------

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) was a French sociologist, anthropologist and philosopher. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Bourdieu’s work is influenced by much of traditional anthropology and sociology which he undertook to synthesize into his own theory. His key terms were habitus(which is adopted through upbringing and education), capital and field. He extended the idea of capital to categories such as social, capital, cultural capital and symbolic capital. For Bourdieu each individual occupies a position in a multidimensional social space. He or she is not defined only by social class membership, but by every single kind of capital he or she can articulate through social relations.

Bourdieu claims that how one chooses to present one’s social space to the world, one’s aesthetic disposition depicts one’s status and distances oneself from lower groups. Specifically he says that these dispositions are internalized at an early age and guide the young towards their appropriate social positions, towards the behaviors that are suitable for them, and a dislike towards other behaviors. Bourdieu theorizes that class fractions which are determined by a combination of the varying degrees of social, economic and cultural capital, teach aesthetic preferences to their young.

The development of aesthetic dispositions are very largely determined by social origin rather than accumulated capital and experience over time. The acquisition of cultural capital depends heavily on the family background. People inherit their cultural attitudes and accepted definitions that their elders offer them. According to Bourdieu, tastes in food, culture and presentation are indicators of class because trends in their consumption seemingly correlate with an individual’s fit in society. He believes that class distinction and preferences are most obvious in the ordinary choices of everyday life, such as furniture, clothing or cooking. In fact the strongest and most important mark of infant learning would probably be in the tastes of food. Meals served on special occasions are an interesting indicator of the mode of self presentation adopted in showing off a life-style. The idea is that their likes and dislikes should mirror those of their associated class fractions.

The degree to which social origin affects these preferences surpasses both educational and economic capital. At equivalent levels of educational capital, social origin remains an influential factor in determining these dispositions. How one describes one’s social environment is closely related to social origin because the instinctive narrative springs from early stages of development. Also, across the divisions of labor economic constraints tend to relax without any fundamental change in the pattern of spending. This observation according to Bourdieu reinforces the idea that social origin, more than economic capital, produces aesthetic preferences because regardless of economic capability, consumption patterns remain stable..

Postmodernism or the Cultural logic of late Capitalism- Frederic Jameson

the following is a write up on Postmodernism or the Cultural logic of late Capitalism by Rungkan Leelasopawut

-------------------

In this essay, Jameson lays out the differences in culture between the modern and postmodern periods. He also devotes a lot of time to the effects of these changes on the individual. Jameson is concerned with the cultural expressions and aesthetics associated with the different systems of production. He is not interested in a mechanism of change. This is a primarily descriptive article. Jameson draws on the fields of architecture, art and other culturally expressive forms to illustrate his arguments. The heaviest emphasis is placed on architecture. It is essential to grasp postmodernism as discussed here not as a style, but as a dominant cultural form indicative of late capitalism.

Postmodernism is differentiated from other cultural forms by its emphasis on fragmentation. Fragmentation of the subject replaces the alienation of the subject which characterized modernism. Postmodernism is concerned with all surface, no substance. There is a loss of the center. Postmodernist works are often characterized by a lack of depth, a flatness. Individuals are no longer anomic, because there is nothing from which one can sever ties. The liberation from the anxiety which characterized anomie may also mean a liberation from every other kind of feeling as well. This is not to say that the cultural products of the postmodern era are utterly devoid of feeling, but rather that such feelings are now free-floating and impersonal. Also distinctive of the late capitalist age is its focus on commodification and the recycling of old images and commodities. A prime example of this is Warhol's work, as well as Warhol himself. Jameson refers to this cultural recycling as historicism - the random cannibalization of all styles of the past. It is an increasing primacy of the 'neo' and a world transformed into sheer images of itself. the actual organic tie of history to past events is being lost.

All of these cultural forms are indicative of postmodernism, late capitalism, or what Jameson calls 'present-day multinational capitalism.' (Yessirree, Jameson is a Marxist.) Jameson claims that there has been a radical shift in our surrounding material world and the ways in which it works. He refers to an architectural example, a postmodern building Symbolic of the multinational world space which we function in daily. We, the human subjects who occupy this new space have not kept pace with the evolution which produced it. There has been a mutation in the object, unaccompanied as yet by an equivalent mutation in the subject; we do not yet possesses the perceptual equipment to match this new hyperspace. Therein lies the source of our fragmentation as individuals.

This latest mutation in space, postmodern hyperspace, (the Bonaventura hotel is the example) has finally succeeded in transcending the capacities of the individual human body to locate itself, to organize its immediate surroundings perceptually, and cognitively to map its position in a mappable external world. This is the symbol and analougue of our inability at present to map the great global multinational and decentered communicational network in which we find ourselves caught as individual subjects. We are now a world where spatial differentiation is more important than temporal differentiation, which was dominant in past eras. Late capitalism aspires to a total space, a vastness of scale heretofore unknown.

To conclude, Jameson maintains that postmodernisms not only a currently fashionable style but the cultural dominant. Jameson points out that what modernists were once considered to be great aesthetic and highly creative and represent the urbanization is now changed. Post modernism is something that has great significant impact in every aspects of our daily live. Whether we want it or not, we will be forced to imbibe it by any means. Post modernism is nothing but the influence of media or so- called mass culture. Post modernism in short can be called as the capitalism or mass culture. Therefore post modernism has the culture of popularity.

Walking in the City- Michel de Certeau

the following is a write up on Walking in the City by Vandana S.

-------------------

Michel de Certeau was a French scholar whose work combined history, psychoanalysis, philosophy, and the social sciences. He was greatly influenced by Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan. Certeau’s essay Walking in the City is from his well-known book The Practice of Everyday Life. It was originally published in French in the year 1980. Steven Rendall translated it into English in 1984. The book is considered as very influential in cultural studies as it talks about the value of everyday life.

The essay is carefully poised between poetry and semiotics. It begins with looking down on the city of New York from the top of the World Trade Centre, and enjoying the pleasures of seeing the city laid out below. He says ‘to be lifted to the summit of the World Trade Centre is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp’. Through this one gets a voyeuristic pleasure by being able to watch the city from a distance. But to understand the everyday life, one must finally fall back into the dark space where crowds move back and forth.

A city can exist only if there are people in it. The ordinary practitioners of the city are the pedestrians who make use of the spaces to walk and they bring life to the city. The pedestrians on the streets write the urban ‘text’ without being able to read it.

Walking in the city turns out to have its own logic – or as de Crerteau puts it, its own rhetoric. The walker individuates and makes ambiguous the ‘legible’ order given to cities by planners, a little like waking lie is displaced and ambiguated by dreaming- to take one of de Certeau’s several analogies. Walking in the City has been very influential in cultural studies just because of the waay that it uses both imagination and technical semiotic analysis to show how everyday life has particular value when it takes place in the gaps of larger power-structures.

Myth Today- Roland Barthes

the following is a write up on Myth Today by Farah Aleem Ghori

-----------------

Roland Barthes born in 1915 was a French literary critic and semiotician. Barthes has contributed to the field of mythology, semeiology and structuralism.

Mythologies is the title of a book by Roland Barthes which was published in 1957. It examines the creation of modern myths. Barthes also looks into the process of myth creation. He revises Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth. Mythologies is split into two: Mythologies and Myth Today, the first section consisting of a collection of essays on selected modern myths and the second further and general analysis of the concept.

Roland Barthes says that only rhetorical forms of bourgeois myth can be sketched and not the dialectic or categorical forms. Rhetoric over here means a set of fixed regulated figures according to which the mythical signifier arranges themselves. In the contemporary bourgeois society, it is through their rhetoric that the passage from the real to the ideological is defined as that from an anti-physis to pseudo-physis. This defines the dream of the bourgeois world. Roland Barthes also lists out its principal figures.

The inoculation

This is a form of captivating language. It consists of acknowledging a small or accidental detail (or evil, as Barthes calls it) to mask bigger details or problems. A good example concerns the army: “Yes, the army is a stiff and blind and narrow minded– but it is also our greatest defence, the savoir of our country and a tool for spreading bigger good”. This kind of language is usually used concerning institutions, to create a good-bad balance for them to exist in, where one side always outweighs the other, serving the purpose of the institution. Barthes here speaks about the changing nature of the bourgeois. It has changed its position from being rigid to flexible. This has given way to a balanced economy.

The privation of history

Barthes argues that myth-making removes from an object all of its history. He gives the example of the ideal servant, who prepares everything. However, disappears when the master arrives. The master thus enjoys this beautiful product without wondering from where it comes from. Myth-making removes from an object all of its history and place in reality, and through the irresponsibility of language, removes any freedom concerning the object. This is because anything outside of reality is hard to change. By making something eternal its freedom to be anything else disappears and it is caught in the false reality of language.

Identification

The petit-bourgeois is unable to imagine the Other. He either transforms the Other or denies it. One example can be media’s portrayal of women. The difference between men and women is minimized to the extent that they follow the same lifestyles. They have equal and same status as of men in the society. This confirms that the “otherness” is reduced to “sameness”. However women are not the main characters of the discussion and this implies the marginality, in other words, the bourgeoisie’s partial incapability to imagine the Other.

Tautology

According to Barthes “Tautology is this verbal device which consists of defining like by like (‘Drama is Drama’)”. When one is at a loss for explanation, there is accidental failure of language. Here, one kills rationality because it resists one, one kills language because it betrays one. Barthes also quotes a great example of this: “Because thats how it is, just because.” Another one I add is “It is what it is“. Such statements defy logic because they make anything permissible: the statement justify themselves. This work like in math, when one gets x=x, which is meaningless but absurdly true. Once again: this represent the boundaries of where language ends and cannot keep up with the reality is trying to describe. Thus, it creates an excuse to get around and further than reality, something of its own. Tautology thus creates a dead and motionless world as refusal of language is its death.

Neither-Norism

This is quite similar in method to Barthes’ inoculation. A balance is created by weighing too sides against each other. Here however, the myth-maker strives to create equality between both sides. Neither is better or worse than the other. They are weighed in relation to each other. Any objective qualities the two sides may have are lost.

The quantification of quality

When language cannot handle the complexities of reality, it strives to economize the world: qualities become quantities, and once again, language goes beyond reality to judge it. This is a figure concealed in all the preceding ones. Myth understands reality more cheaply by reducing any quality to quantity.

The statement of fact

Barthes argues myths tend towards proverbs, as a function of generalization and institutionalization. Barthes says that speech in particular can be of two types: active or reflexive. He uses the example of a farmer stating “the weather is fine” as active speech. This is because language here keeps a link to the real weather outside and its usefulness. Active language is almost technical language. Active language later turns in to reflexive language, which is removed from reality now. It allows for no freedom, and like a tautology, does not represent anything other than itself. Reflexive language is simpler and a form of generalization.

These rhetoric figures are without any special order. There can also be additions and subtractions to it. They can also be replaced with new figures.

Thus myths are born by trying to capture and possess the world. Myth-making tries to fix reality in one place and one form, to get out its essence by making it analogous to language. Myth-making tries to fix reality in one place and one form, to get out its essence by making it parallel to language. The failure of language merits myth-making. Simply because language cannot account for all of reality, generalizations must be made to deal with that.

In Barthes’s closing remarks in the ‘Necessity and limits of mythology’ section of ‘Myth Today’, he characteristically, positions himself (‘the mythologist himself’) as an excluded and alienated figure. The author begins this concluding section of his essay with a commentary on the nature and experience of mythologists, those who examine and understand myths (referring, it seems, and at least to some degree, to himself). He suggests first that "mythology is certain to participate in the making of the world," adding that "mythology harmonizes with the world, not as it is, but as it wants to create itself." He then goes on to write that that mythologists, by the very nature of what they do (examine and understand myths, their meaning and purpose) exist outside of both the meaning and purpose of myths, as well as outside the experience of the general, unenlightened humanity myths are clearly intended to affect.

Bibliography

"Barthes, Roland(1915–1980)." BookRags. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

Krasovska, Laura. "Roland Barthes: Analysis of the Concept of Identification in Nowadays Media." N.p., 5.12.2006. Web. 6 Feb 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4961779/Roland-Barthes-Analysis-of-the-Concept-of-Identification-in-Nowadays-Media

Kudryashov, Roman. "Roland Barthes – Myth Today."What are these ideas and why are they here?. 11- 9- 2010 . Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

"Mythologies Study Guide." BookRags. BookRags, n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction- Walter Benjamin

following is a write up by Kusumika Mitra

-----------------

‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ by Walter Benjamin is a seminal essay that talks about how the advancement in technology, the emergence of new techniques has affected our perception of art. Structurally the essay has been divided into fifteen different sections with a preface and an epilogue. Each section deals with a separate aspect and contains arguments that the author successfully connects to the main argument of the essay.

Walter Benjamin begins by talking about the shift in the process of reproduction of image and the relationship of this shift with the society. He traces the reproduction of art from the hand (when a student tries to copy his master’s painting), to mechanical (lithography) and digital (photography) and says that with each of these shifts, the human effort decreases and the work becomes easier. Imitation has always been known to mankind. However with the coming in of mechanical reproduction (be it printing, lithography, photography), not only was there a development in the techniques but also the process of reproduction became faster. The author tries to explore the effects that the reproduction of art and the film as a medium have had on traditional art.

Walter Benjamin believes that time and space are two elements that can never be reproduced while reproducing any work of art. When a piece of art is created, it is done at a particular time and within a certain space. It is this that makes the work original and authentic. This particular time and space cannot be recreated. Thus the reproduced work cannot claim authenticity because authenticity lies in tradition. With the practice of reproducing works of art and recreating them, inevitably comes the question of authority. Benjamin believes that in the case of manual reproduction, the work reproduced is seen as forgery and thus the initial work of art maintains its originality and authority. However this is not the case with mechanical reproduction. The process of mechanical reproduction is independent of the original. For example, a painting put up in the museum can be captured by a camera and then later be reproduced in any studio in the form of a photograph. The original portrait need not be present in the studio while reproducing it. However during the process of manual reproduction, the painter needs to sit in front of the original and make a copy of it. Also due to mechanical reproduction the work of art is used in many situations where the presence of the original is not possible. For example a cathedral is captured through photography and put in an art studio. Thus though the original cannot be present inside the studio, a copy of it substitutes it. However Benjamin believes that though the mechanically reproduced work of art takes the place of the original under certain situations, there is something that gets lost in the process- the authenticity of the work of art. According to Benjamin, the authenticity of the work lies mainly in the history that the work has experienced. Thus it is the history of a work that determines its authenticity. Therefore this authenticity is lost in reproduction. Benjamin uses the term ‘aura’ to describe the element that gets lost in reproduction. Due to reproduction of a work of art the uniqueness is lost. With the medium of mechanical reproduction coming in, the number of copies of the ‘unique’ work of art increases. Thus its uniqueness decreases. In the absence of the mechanical reproduction, the aura is a natural one. Benjamin gives the example of a mountain and says that the shadow that is created by the mountain is a natural one and when we perceive it we know for sure that we cannot own it. However with the emergence of various techniques like photography and films, the same scene is captured and reproduced. Accessing it no longer become experiencing it but just visually seeing an image.

Art has always been known to be connected to tradition. It is context sensitive. Thus when a piece of art is created it is seen as a beautiful or an object of veneration by a group of people but the same creation is seen as ominous by another set of people. It is ritual based. But with the coming of mechanical reproduction, art no longer remains ritual based. In the age of secularization art becomes ‘art for art’s sake’. It is not as much based on rituals as much as on politics.

Benjamin also feels that with the introduction of techniques of reproduction of art, the emphasis has shifted from the cult value to the exhibition value. Earlier art was seen as something mystical and something that needed to be practiced in secrecy. This gave art its cult value. But with the coming of photography and films, art came to be for the masses. It got caught up in the economy and was seen as a source of profit. The value of art depended on the display of the work of art in public. This thus became the exhibition value. With the shift from cult to exhibition value, the quality of art also underwent a change.

Talking about the medium of film and the film actor, Benjamin believes that the actor and the audience are not in contact with each other. The actor is optically tested and the best of his shots, as judged by the director are compiled together and this is what the audience gets to see. Thus we are removed from the original actor and what we see is nothing but the manipulations of the camera. Again going back to talking about artistic aura, the author believes that though the actor does have an aura, this is a forged or a made up aura. The moment the person faces the camera, he is exiled from his own original self; he gets into the role of the character that he enacts. It is here where he maintains an aura (this aura is the aura of the character and not of the actor himself). Benjamin believes that this aura is forged because the moment the shot is over the actor gets out of the character and comes back to being himself. The aura too then vanishes. Benjamin also stresses on the fact that actors are individuals who have a false personality. This he says is because the actor becomes popular in the eyes of the audience because of the aura that he creates. This aura as Benjamin earlier points out is not the actor’s own but the character’s that he enacts. Thus he becomes famous because of the many illusions that he creates.

Talking about the painter and the cameraman, Benjamin believes that the painter maintains the aura of the work by keeping a distance from the work of art. On the other hand the cameraman destroys this aura by minimizing the distance from the desired object. Though Benjamin criticizes films for destroying the aura and tampering with authenticity and originality, he also appreciated films for increasing the audience’s visual perception. This gives rise to a deeper engagement and a closer study and thus understanding of the medium.

After talking about the nature of art in the age of new technological advancement, he concludes his essay by talking about the anti- art movement or Dadaism. He emphasizes on how this movement too destroyed the aura of art and aimed at shocking the audience with unfamiliar and dissimilar images. Thus it can be noted that Benjamin’s conception of art is classical and thus it will not be wrong to conclude that Benjamin saw art to be deteriorating in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Works Cited

http://rhetor.blogs.com/visual/2006/02/walter_benjamin.html

Base and Superstructure- Raymond Williams

The following is a write up on Base and Superstructure by Sudeepta Mukerji

----------------

Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory is a critical essay by renowned Welsh academician, novelist, critic and an influential figure in the New Left, Raymond Henry Williams. His writings on politics, culture, the mass media and literature are some of the major contributions to the Marxist critique of culture and the arts.

Williams in his essay, ‘Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory’, establishes the proposition that “social beings determine consciousness” as contradictory to the conventional model of analyzing Marxist theory by establishing the relation between the base and superstructure where base denotes the forces and relations of production and superstructure represents societal behaviour and culture as a whole. He dwells back to the linguistic roots of the word ‘determination’ and follows its inversion pattern in its English translation. ‘Determines’ which is translated from the German word bestimmen which determines the relationship between base and superstructure. He also brings in the idea that in European language there is a possibility of synonyms which might alter the meaning of a word. He brings about two possible meanings to the word ‘determines’, which can either be an external cause which controls a subsequent activity or can be seen as setting limits to an action.

Williams examines the predominant terms in Marxist theory mainly the model of ‘base’ and ‘superstructure’ as is also indicated through the title. One of the established definition of superstructure is, “…the reflection, the imitation or the reproduction of the base in the superstructure in more or less direct way”. Williams says that this proposition can be contested due to the non-economical basis of some actions, such as philosophy and other such fields. The notion of reflection and reproduction was later modified into the notion of ‘mediation’ in which something more than reflection and reproduction actively occurred. In the twentieth century there was the notion of ‘homogenous structures’ which was viewed as a basic homology or correspondence in all structures which can be discovered thorough the process of research. He harps on the inter-dependence and inter-relation between activities which blur the distinction between economic base and superstructures but instead make them related and connected or intertwined with each other. Williams also harps on the proposition of economic base being more crucial and vital for understanding the realities of cultural process. He says that base is never static or uniform since there are deep contradictions in the relationships of production thereby effecting the social relations. The base can thus be seen as a continuous process and not as a ‘state of being’ or as being static and constant. Williams talks about re-valuing notions in order to make them realistic and rational when placed in contemporary socio-economic relations. He argues that Marxist ideology is based on a certain economic structure which might be ambiguous when placed in the modern cultural scenario which is fast changing. He presents a much dynamic, interrelated and complex structure of the developing social conditions which in certain ways contradicts Marxist concepts of economic relations. Williams says that most often the complexities of modern society cannot be examined based on the ideologies of Marxist concepts.

Another key Marxist concept which has influenced many other Marxist thinkers and is also associated to Georg Lukacs in particular is the concept of ‘totality’. It opposed the layered structure of base determining the superstructure which believed that ‘social being determines consciousnesses’. One flaw in the concept of totality is that it can easily empty itself of the cultural phenomena attached to any concept. Thus the question put forth through the essay is “whether the notion of totality includes the notion of intention.” Williams contests the idea of categorizing work of art as superstructure. But he contradicts himself and states that certain kind of practices and customs have been so naturalised that they have to be considered as a part of superstructure in order to understand reality. He argues that ‘totality’ should be combined with Gramsci’s concept of hegemony so that asymmetrical and exploitative aspects of the society are considered. Williams finds the traditional notion of superstructure incomplete and ambiguous and shows his fear on the proposed concept of hegemony being viewed in a similar static and stereotypical manner. He also talks about the modern concept of re-inventing, re-modify and re-work on the existing notions and concepts to make them compatible with the contemporary scenarios. He views the idea of hegemony not just as dominant or manipulative but as a complex power structure which is continuously modified and developed. Such concepts change from place to place and time to time.

Williams also introduces the distinction between residual and emergent form of cultures. He defines residual culture as a practice which has evolved or rooted out from a previously existing dominant culture. Some of the religious practices which are influenced from the mainstream practices could serve as examples. Williams associates emergent culture with the newly evolving cultural practices, which demand to be incorporated within the mainstream practice. Thus they are neither an individual cultural concept nor completely accepted in the mainstream culture. Such cultural practices are in a limbo like state. Williams says the emergent culture will be valued and recognized if the dominant culture has a stake or interest on it. Otherwise an evolving culture might not receive due acknowledgement or recognition. For instance, artistic pursuits are encouraged till the time profit is made and it doesn’t contradict the dominant beliefs. Williams also raises the issue of the connection between literature and society and concludes that literature evolves from the society and thus can’t be evaluated separately. It is an integral part of the society. He says that any form of writing is highly influenced by the dominant cultural practices in the society. It embodies features and believes of the dominant society. He also says that some of the art expressions might include aspects of the emergent culture which might appeal to the masses. The dominant culture thus tries to “… transform, or seek to transform, them.” In the process that dominant culture itself develops. Williams says that in modern cultural society, dominant culture should develop and change in accordance to the changing times and attitude of the masses in order to be realistic and remain dominant. Literature thus coexists as a part of the dominant culture and becomes a prime mode of its articulation.

Most critics seem to give little emphasis on the process of production. But Marxist model through its base and superstructure metaphor tries to stress and acknowledge the process of production. Williams puts forth the contradiction of cultural theory as the work of art being perceived as an object and the alternative view of art as a practice. Art can be seen as an object, i.e. buildings, sculptures etc which exist as objects, on the other hand the phenomenal work of Shakespeare, the melody of music and other art forms such as dance, drama etc are perceived as a practice. Williams says that we shouldn’t look for the components of a product but for the conditions of practice. He says an active, encompassing and self renewing mode of analyses is what is needed to understand the cultural context and value of any studied material.

Work Cited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1503/base-superstructure.html

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/limbo

http://www.ualberta.ca/~jwilliam/wst320/raywm.html

Suggestions and mid semester exam paper feedback-2nd PSEmg

My classmates did have some suggestions regarding the mid semester paper and teaching methods.

Exam paper:

• The paper was too long. Every question was for 10 marks which needed elaborate answers and many could not finish the paper on time.
• Overemphasis on structuralism. More questions only from that topic.
• Limited choice since we dint do deconstruction and the Terry Eagleton question was compulsory.
• Questions were too text-bookish.

In class:

A few of my classmates wanted to have group presentations. We suggested dividing the class into groups and having interested people interact with the groups about topics dealt with in class.

Apart from this the class dint have any problem with the teaching method and claimed they pretty much understood everything taught in class.

Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library

Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library

Course Plans - BA English, BA Media and Communication, MA English, MS Communication, MPhil English and MPhil Media Studies/Communication Programmes

Following are the course plans that developed to teach courses in various BA English, BA Media and Communication, MA English, MS Communication, MPhil English and MPhil Media Studies/Communication Programmes. I am putting them for the benefit and use of those whom might find them useful.

(I will put them up as and when time permits)

News: A Leaner Howard U. - Inside Higher Ed

News: A Leaner Howard U. - Inside Higher Ed