My Problems with Post-Modernism

       Last Friday we had a speaker from IGSS, Mr. Markham give us an interesting talk that really summed up a lot of the ideas in White Noise, and related them to a specific philosophy, post-modernism. I was interested particularly by the topic we discussed in the second period of the class, the interaction between objects and personal relationships. The speaker presented the idea of a progression of what is "real" in American culture, from person to person relationships, to objects, to an obscure endpoint based off of irony. However, I believe his argument was flawed, and based off of assumptions about the interactions of humans and objects that aren't true.
       Mr. Markham greatly overstated the impact of objects on person to person relationships. It is undeniably true that the number of products in human society is greater now than at any time in the past. It is also true that those objects play a greater role in interactions on a day to day basis. But I'm skeptical of the speaker's assertion that the growing importance of objects somehow means that people are less "real." I believe that objects can be understood not as a replacement of more traditional relationships, but as tools or facilitators of those relationships.
       One example of this is clothing. There's no disagreement that there are more types of clothing today than in the past, or that your choice of clothing communicates messages about you. However, clothing choices can better be understood as context for relationships instead of a replacement for them. You choose your clothes based on who you believe you are; what you believe your place is in life, and not the other way around. The vast number of choices enables self expression. What you where certainly plays a part in how you interact with others, but serves to supplement instead of obscure, by creating another way to communicate who you are.
       A more concrete example, and one brought up during class, discussion was the cellphone. A phone seems like the perfect example of objects gradually replacing traditional social structures. I would argue, though, that the cellphone actually helps relationships. Most times when you text, you're between classes, at home, or in other situations when you wouldn't be able to talk with friends anyway. By making communication easier, cellphones improve friendships, and allow people to maintain relationships that otherwise would have faded. The counter-argument is that there situations in which people use their instead of talking to a friend they're with, but I believe the net effect of phones is positive.
       Humans don't exist in a vacuum. We are surrounded by both other people and objects. I believe Americans today are still fundamentally focused on relationships with others, and objects facilitate those relationships, instead of damaging them.

Image Credit

Solitary Confinement

       This weekend I noticed a story in the New York Times about a subject we have discussed in class, the U.S. prison system. The article is about the use and history of the practice of solitary confinement, in which troublesome or dangerous prisoners are imprisoned in cells isolated from almost any human contact. The practice poses many ethical questions, as it is damaging to the mental health of prisoners, and as the article discusses, both expensive and overused.
       The piece is a pretty moving description of problems at the edge of the criminal justice system; at the margins of the margins of our society. It's definitely not a part of America we think about often, and it was startling to read about how bad things can get that far from the core of society. It's also encouraging to hear about efforts being made to improve the situation. Many of the problems we have discussed in class are fixable, and it's important to remember there are people working to improve our country.
       In addition to the discussion about solitary confinement, the article touches on the causes of the prison boom, and the increased harshness of the prison system that accompanied it. We haven't discussed causes in class, but the root of the prison boom is the crime wave of the 1980's and early 1990s (A really good story about that part of U.S. history is Freakonomics). The story behind the rise of the prison system is an interesting cause-effect relationship, and a good example of how much public opinion and perception can shape American culture.
       On a personal level, I made a connection between the conditions described and the portrayal of  in many prison movies. In "The Shawshank Redemption" especially, the main character is thrown into a solitary cell for months as punishment for questioning his guilt. His condition in the cell was terrible, alone in the dark with occasional food deliveries as his only contact with the outside. It was one of the most emotional portions of the movie, and the memory of it was why I paid so much attention to the story in the first place.

Prisons Rethink Isolation, Saving Money, Lives and Sanity

The Lorax and Mazda

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

       Throughout our discussion of White Noise, ads have been mentioned several times as an example of cultural "white noise." I was watching the Colbert Report, and I saw the segment above about how the movie "The Lorax" has dozens of advertising tie-ins (skip to about 1:10 in for the important section). I had seen the Mazda commercial he mentions before, and I remember thinking how strange it was that a Dr. Seuss movie about the environment was advocating for a car.
       I think this is a really interesting example of a lot of the phenomenons we have been discussing in class.  It's a great demonstration of the way large companies prioritize advertisement, and the income it brings in. Colbert does a great job pointing out the hypocrisy of using a story with a strong anti-corporate and environmentalist theme to help promote corporations and consumer products. It's an interesting parallel to the culture of white noise. The movie itself is surrounded by the countless ads. It gets to the point where, to the company at least, the actual movie and its message is less important than the advertising opportunities.
       To be fair, the Mazda being advertised, despite being an SUV and not a hybrid, gets 35 miles per gallon, making it the most efficient SUV in the U.S. so the Lorax's advocacy for it is based on something. That doesn't change how strange it is to see a car receiving the "Truffula Tree Seal of Approval."

Tokenism Slide

"The Walking Dead," 8 o'clock Sundays on AMC

"The Walking Dead" is a show on AMC, a basic cable channel, about a group of survivors after a zombie apocalypse. There are two minority characters, Glenn and T Dog. T Dog is the only black character in the show, and has a very minor role, but when his character does get screen-time, his personality is fairly complex, as is shown by his complicated interaction above. I would argue that T Dog somewhat is an example of tokenism. He is a minor character, and all the leads are white, and he faces minority issues, but his interactions with those issues are fairly complex. 

An Update on the NDAA

       In January I wrote a brick-like post about the National Defense Authorization Act. If you're a fan of politics or unnecessarily complicated government policies, you can read the entire post here. In short, one section of the law clarifies and expands powers the government possesses under the laws of war, and applies them to the "war on terrorism," giving the power to use the military to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects. The law does not technically expand government authority as both foreigners and U.S. citizens can already be detained indefinitely (though they may challenge their detention in the courts). The issue is instead that the NDAA codifies into law a practice that was questionable in the first place.
       My parents listen to NPR a lot, and a few days ago I heard an interesting story, here, about how the Obama administration is applying the controversial law. It turns out the president was against the provision on detention in the first place, issuing a statement at the time saying basically that he didn't agree with this law and wouldn't use the powers it gave him," and as the article details, Obama has created a wide range of exemptions that virtually nullify the law.
       It's an interesting story, and one that increases my confidence in the president's principles about civil liberties. It's also interesting, however, to see easy it was for the president has to ignore the wishes of congress. Although the executive branch, in principle, is supposed to carry out the legislation and priorities of the legislative branch, in reality the president has a great deal of power to craft policies of his own, like Obama's decision to gut the NDAA detention provision. I'm not sure the power of the chief executive is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, as it's easy to see situations in which a president could theoretically do something similar to what Obama did, except with less admirable intentions. One example that comes to mind is when Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War without congressional approval. In this case, however, the president seems to be moving in the right direction.

Image Credit: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/216858-obama-citizenship-question-goes-to-u.s.-supreme-court