Laughter And Superiority

You may have noted that the right-wing are constantly referring to the left-wing agenda spouted by comedians on 'panel shows' and the lack of right-wing comedians being given air time by the 'liberal' media. They frequently show a lack of enthusiasm for satirical depictions of their arguments, as anyone would, but to a greater degree than most well balanced and thoughtful individuals would bordering on the paranoid. This explains, in my opinion, exactly why they are so resistant to any critical analysis of their ideological position. How humour can subvert the conservative position which attempts to reinforce the dominant position of the social class that they represent. It also serves the purpose of providing an argument for why we on the left should once more find our funny bones.

*************************************************

The superiority theory is one of three competing theories that attempt to define the purpose of humour in society and was the dominant understanding of humour from antiquity until the end of the enlightenment era in the 18^th century. Throughout this period laughter was viewed with suspicion and the scholars throughout history sought ways to control, limit, or even eradicate laughter from society, or at the minimum high society. Most of these scholars believed that laughter had the power to subvert the existing hierarchy of power; they believed it was a form of rebellion. The Greek philosophical teachings of Plato and Aristotle will be examined first, which will show how in ancient Greece the philosophers believed that the humour of the masses inverted the hierarchical position of society by allowing for the ridiculing of the scholars, doctors and other elites by the masses. The theologian perspective on laughter will follow this and explain how a significant proportion of middle-age theologians believed that ridicule, laughter, and above all Carnival, had no place in Christianity. They believed if you were to correctly follow the teachings of God you were to discipline your body. To absolve yourself of sin they believed you must restrain from raucous laughter. Thomas Hobbes thoughts on humour and its understanding in the context of psychology will be presented next which will argue that all laughter, not only the laughter of the masses, is anti-social and inherently unpleasant, due to the purpose of laughter being the confirmation of the ridiculer being in a superior position in relation to another. Once the superiority theory has been presented, through the writings of key thinkers accredited with the largest influence upon its establishment as an influential theory on humour, the counter arguments will prove why they were wrong to distrust the social effects of humour and why humour serves a strong, useful, and positive purpose in society.

Superiority theorists claim that humour is used by people within society to mock and attack the object of the joke, comedy or humorous quip. They were concerned with the effects of uncontrolled and vulgar forms of laughter, and object to humour on the pretence that it was offensive to either religious traditions, theological arguments, or to the established social order and the social hierarchy that defined the upper echelons of society as being naturally superior. The position of laughter as an oppositional force to the ethical understanding of the world can be characterised to fit into the prevalent moral and ethical code of the particular culture it resided within, from the ancient Greek philosophers and their ethics of virtue, the religious middle ages and the ethics of royalty and god, through to the enlightenment and modern societies understanding of ethics, those of Kant and Bentham (Morreall, 2005). Most superiority theorists believed that wit and controlled laughter could serve a social function if used by the elite classes in their particular epoch to discipline those who were in a morally indefensible position. As such the superiority theorists were not opposed to all forms of humour, they merely wished to reduce the frivolous elements of humour and preserve the correct and serious mannerisms that were considered to be considerably evident in the more desirable characteristics of the elite and educated members of society.

The earliest form of what is called 'superiority theories' of humour emerged from ancient Greece and its philosophical teachings by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. These philosophisers were concerned by the social effects of laughter and its ability to subvert the social hierarchy as they considered the frivolity associated with much of the laughter in society to be unethical or below what individuals in society should aspire to be. In contending that there was too much laughter in the world they did not oppose all forms of laughter, they conceded, in contrary to today's accepted standard of humour that laughter, that ridiculing others could be beneficial to society as a punishment within reasonable and acceptable situations, for example if a friend displays an “ignorance-based vain conceit of beauty, wisdom or wealth” (Zillmann, 1983: 86). This does not extend to the concept of schadenfreude, as it is known today, as joy should not be derived from the misfortune of those who are not your friends or equals. The idea of an idealised state run by philosophers was discussed by Socrates; this Platonic idea would see the states superiors strictly control the lower orders of society, to ensure they treated their superiors with the respect they commanded. One of the ways this would be achieved was through the promotion of the seriousness of life amongst society, as such “laughter was one of the pleasures to be tightly controlled, particularly the sort of impertinent laughter that mocks authority” (Billig, 2005: 41). This seriousness of life extended beyond the subordinate sections of this ideal society to those who would deemed the higher orders of society who would be discouraged from engaging in unchecked frivolity, including representations of elites such as gods in literature, advocating an acceptable censorship in society that would remove such influences over future generations of educated superior elements of society. This should be relaxed in certain circumstances as laughter could provide a useful function in this idealised republic, in circumstances where laughter could mock undesirable depictions of masculinity, for example, the higher orders in this republic should “laugh in the serious interests of morality, truth and discipline” (Billig, 2005: 41). This may seem paradoxical but it was not the witty and disciplinary forms of humour that Plato believed were incompatible with an idealised republic; it was the baser forms of carnivalesque humour associated with the lower ranks of society, which mocked their superior’s culture and knowledge, such a philosophy, the doctors, and other scholars (Bremmer, 1997). This they believed was counter-productive to the rigidity of the established class divide of society, by engaging in this sort of laughter at their superiors expense they were subverting the important class hierarchy of society, the respectful discipline that was demanded of the lower echelons of society must be maintained at all times, at least in respect to their superiors. Their codes for laughter and ridicule ensured that people remained embedded within this hierarchy, echoed by the myths of the gods, that amongst other things “contributes to keeping society stable and 'normal'” (Gilhus, 1997: 33).

Aristotle differed slightly from both Plato in his understanding of laughter, they however both argued that the need for a curtailing of undesirable laughter was important to the continued improvement of Greek society and that it was desirable to mock certain elements of society that required that reaction. For Aristotle this was the essence of comedy, which aimed to induce mockery and laughter at those who are inferior when compared to yourself, precisely because by depicting the comedic character as ugly or deformed, meaning that they are ethically or socially inferior according to standards in ancient Greece, the audience is encouraged to feel superior to the character and laughter is permissible. This would only occur on the stipulation that the misfortune and “the laughable is an error or disgrace that does not involve pain or destruction” (Bekker in Heath, 1996: 62) and that these characters were “the lowly persons (such as peasants and slaves) who are only peripheral in tragedy; and comic characters, even those of high status, will tend to behave badly” (Heath, 1996: 62). This laughing at the ugly or deformed was considered to be buffoonery, a form of humour that was considered to be the preserve of the lower ranks of Greek society. Similarly to Plato, wit was the encouraged form of humorous exchange which Aristotle explained could be a useful tool in the art of persuasion in 'Rhetoric', continuing the class based assumptions that the educated higher class should only engage in the morally superior and acceptable forms of humour and avoid the less civilised buffoonery engaged in by the lower orders in Greek society. This was to be maintained, even at the expense of the effectiveness of the argument, as the preservation of the correct social mannerisms was imperative when engaging in conversation with an individual of similar social standing. The higher orders of society should never engage in buffoonery in order to “maintain standards of taste and class” (Billig, 2005: 44). Aristotle believed that there was too much humour exhibited by people within Athenian society, they must learn to moderate humour into correct and acceptable levels, and that people, for Aristotle, were morally obliged to do this. In doing so they should shun all buffoonery and engage in wit and irony befitting their social standing, this distinguishing of good and bad forms of humour was steeped in the social hierarchy that attributed the base forms of humour with the negative connotations associated with the lower social groups.

The distinguishing between good and bad humour did not end with the ancient Greeks, many Christian theologians throughout history have contemplated the subject of humour in what could be considered the “long tradition of grim theologians” (Billig, 2005: 48) with contempt towards its frivolous nature, in particular the long standing tradition of carnival. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, theologians too conceded that some laughter could serve a moral purpose or was permissible if restrained and joyous. The exact opposite of the raucous laughter enjoyed by the masses in carnival. The middle-age theologians believed that in serving God in a righteous manner humans were supposed to be disciplined in body and in soul, this extended to laughter as they thought that by laughing a person would be taking “the first step on the road to perdition” (Gilhus, 1997:62). Theologians believed that by continuing the unbridled pagan traditions associated with the raucous celebration of the body during Carnival, the masses were risking god's disdain due to the inherent vulgarity of this festival. Many within the Christian faith believed that by continuing this tradition and revelling in the festivities you were not serving the church and God in their intended manner, “Carnival and 'Easter laughter' were viewed by many as a pagan leftover, to be driven out of Christian lands” because they had the potential subvert the word of God as “a satirical society could use them for critical comments on Church and state” (Screech, 1997: 226). It was ridicule at the expense of the heathens that was to be acceptable, as God himself would delight in such activities. Theologians looked towards the ancient Greek philosophers to understand the place of humour in society, a leading understanding of laughter that they drew upon was one reading of Socrates that they understood as being good laughter was that “laughter in God and Man comes from the perception of ignorance in the butt of their laughter” (Screech, 1997: 62). For the theologians this reading endorsed the laughter of the pious whilst neglecting, and therefore rejecting, the carnivalesque laughter of the masses. They believed that both Plato and Socrates were inspired by God, that they were foreshadowing his arrival on Earth, the logos; as such they were prescribed a significant amount of authority over Christian discourses surrounding laughter (Screech, 1997). It is here that the links between the Christian theological perspective and the ancient Greek philosophers on laughter can be observed, both traditions believed in the importance of a seriousness to their social dealings, they were similar in believing there was far too much laughter in their respective societies, they both believed that the raucous laughter of the masses was morally and ethically undesirable to the accepted standards of high class behaviour in their particular epoch, additionally they believed that with the right person and moral guidance laughter could serve a purpose in society as a tool to ridicule those who do not conform to their norms.

Thomas Hobbes provides a psychological explanation of humour in that he departs from the earlier superiority theorists who yielded acceptability to certain forms of humour, the account of that Hobbes devised viewed all laughter as having negative consequences for society. This does not exclude all similarities between their understandings of humour as both Hobbes and Aristotle identified the same object of the laughter, the butt of the laughter being those who are weak or deformed, but for Hobbes it was the weak who laughed at the weaker (Zillmann, 1983). In this understanding of laughter, it is the consequence of selfish desires which constructs all motivation in life; all we do for others is a reflection of this. This is where humour enters into his discussion on the human and of human selfishness, as the instinct to laugh at those much less fortunate than the perceived self in comparison, he writes that humour to those who “are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favour, by observing the imperfections of other men” (Hobbes cited in Wickberg, 1998: 48). What Hobbes is explaining is that in comparing ourselves to another person who we perceive as inferior or more unfortunate we experience pleasure, the psychological effect of this encourages laughter, we do so to feel superior to that individual and laugh at their position relative to our own. In this Hobbes argued the inherent objectionable quality of humour is exposed, because ridicule and mockery are key components of humour it like other virtuous actions were selfishly motivated, for him “laughter for 'nothing else' but sudden glory, just as goodness was nothing else but self interest” (Billig, 2005: 52) regardless of whether the humour is typified by the high class witticisms vaunted by other superiority theorists. In comparing yourself to an 'inferior' person you were not fulfilling your human potential, for Hobbes it was more fruitful to relinquish the selfish act of laughter to compare yourself to an intellectual or moral superior in an attempt to better yourself and escape the small minded mentality of those who engaged in humour. Hobbes' view was that laughter was anti-social in nature, he perceived it as a form of rebellion that had the potential to subvert society’s order (Billig, 2005).

Whilst the superiority theorist correctly identified the source of much laughter as being derogatory to another individual, or their respective social class, and identified its corrective potential, they ignored some of the most important elements of laughter and humour. The absence of recognition for innocent forms of humour such as word play or incongruity, arising from bizarre situations not involving another person, points to an inability for the superiority theory to explain correctly the purpose of laughter to an individual and society. More importantly, the superiority theory assumes that all social change and comment as the result of laughter or humour is implicitly negative, this is problematic as rational, modern societies openly encourage reflective critique of their social structures, thus improving failing systems and validating the existence of those which pass the test. A joke can look at a particular social structure and reveal its true nature, what was thought as being acceptable and rational can be revealed to be the exact opposite, thus asking for reflection upon the existence of the structure or practise. It is here that the power of laughter is revealed and why the early Greek and Christian superiority theorists incorrectly feared the power of laughter as an agent for social change, as “humour can change the situation in which we find ourselves, and can even have a critical function with respect to society” (Critchley, 2002: 10). They feared it destroying the social order of their epochs, rather than embracing its corrective, rational potential. The early superiority theorists believed that ridicule in witty retorts could work as a disciplinary mechanism to correct undesirable characteristics in people, but they focused upon the right of high status individuals to exercise this power over ‘lesser’ individuals to ensure the continuation of the existing social order. The phenomenon of parody, which has existed since Greece, had the potential to change the social order for the better through language. The power of parody in language “is like its natal genre of epideictic speech: the public formalization of language beside itself puts social conventions on display for collective reflection” (Hariman, 2008: 251). If this is the case then all forms of parody, including some elements of buffoonery, would serve a useful and corrective function for their society, irrespective of whether it originated in high or low status groups. In essence, early superiority theorists were neglecting laughter’s seriousness embedded in a shroud of foolishness. The Hobbesian understanding of superiority theory too is not without problems, which states that laughter is simply self-congratulation when we favourably compare a weakness in another to ourselves; it is laughter of derision. This is proven false, as although much humour does arise from this comparison a significant proportion of what humans find laughable comes not from a comparison with perceived weakness in another but from incongruities, enjoyable group or individual situations and the aforementioned political or social satire, thus containing little to no malice. In all of these examples it is not laughter derived from a selfish desire to reduce the position of another person, they are social rather than psychological, they serve the purpose of group bonding or even in achieving altruistic goals. So humour “need not be self-evaluative any more than action need be self-serving”(Morreall, 1983: 14).

The superiority theorists developed an understanding of the effects of laughter upon their society that suited their world-view; they believed wrongly that laughter would have a negative impact upon the lives of the individuals that lived within their society. By developing a theory or understanding of laughter that placed suspicion upon it they failed to identify how laughter and humour could work as a mechanism for positive social change, by labelling laughter as the preserve of the foolish or small minded individuals they rejected the insight of social structures that could be discerned from the humour that ridiculed irrational aspects of society. The early superiority theorists believed that seriousness was the only morally and ethically defensible position for an intellectual, somewhat paradoxically promoting the use corrective laughter which identified a weakness in another and attacking them as the only positive form of laughter, rather than buffoonery that contained elements of thoughtful social critique. The attempts to suppress or discourage the carnival celebrations of the masses, similarly to the worry over the Grecian hierarchy being subverted by baser forms of humour, was raised from the concern with the social effects of the festivals to mock the traditions of the Christian faith. Additionally, like the Greek philosophical tradition, they believed that a serious and disciplined body was to be encouraged for the preservation of the correct lifestyle for Christians, in this they reduced the traditional celebrations and its social critique to frivolous neglect of the spiritual role the church should adopt. Finally, whilst Thomas Hobbes correctly identified the source of much laughter being unethical in its hurtful relationship between the superior and inferior subjects of the laughter he failed to address the innocent and positive aspects of laughter. By predominantly addressing the phenomenon of laughter in psychological terms he refused to confront the important social aspects inherent in the production of laughter and humour, those of group bonding and non-derisive self-reflection. Due to these weaknesses and oversights in the superiority theorists thoughts, their distrust of the social effects of laughter cannot be considered to be the correct position to have taken towards laughter and humour, by refusing to confront the positive aspects of laughter they rejected the powerful and effective results that are evident in some elements of humour.

References

Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage.

Bremmer, J. (1997). Jokes, Jokers and Jokebooks in Ancient Greek Culture. In: Bremmer, J and Roodenburg, H. A Cultural History of Humour: From Antiquity to the Present Day. Cambridge: Polity Press. 11-28.

Critchley, S. (2002). On Humour. London: Routledge.

Gilhus, I. S. (1997). Laughing Gods, Weeping Virgins. London: Routledge.

Hariman, R. (2008). Political Parody and Public Culture. Quarterly Journal of  Speech. 94 (3). 247-272.

Heath, M. (1996). Poetics. London: Penguin Books.

Morreall, J. (1983). Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Morreall, J. (2005). Humour and the Conduct of Politics. In: Lockyer, S and Pickering, M. Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 63-78.

Screech, M. A. (1997). Laughter at the Foot of the Cross. London: Penguin Books.

Wickberg, D. (1998). The Senses of Humor: Self and Laughter in Modern America. London: Cornell University Press.

Zillman, D. (1983). Disparagement Humour. In: McGhee, P. E and Goldstein, J. H. Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer-Verlag. 85-108.

How Advertisers Sell Us An Idea Rather Than Product

This was a piece of work I produced a few years ago analysing the visual advertisement techniques in Old Spice's 'smell like a man, man' campaign. 

*******************

This essay will examine the techniques used in the advertising of Old Spice body-wash during the campaign 'smell like a man, man'. Firstly, it will provide a description on why this advertisement was chosen to be examined for its techniques, who it targets, and why only one advertisement from the campaign was selected to highlight. Next the essay will explain the use of the assumption that males in society are less competent than the man being portrayed in the advert, and why the humorous nature of the advertisement is required to deflect some of the tension associated with males being portrayed this way for a male product. Following this the focus will shift towards the use of the 'female gaze' to sell this product and the associated assumption of male desirability that this advertisement is using to target a female audience, thus convincing them to buy this product for their partners. Finally, it will examine the advertisements signs and what picture they tell us about the products desirability and the what it tells us about the way the advertisers have positioned the product to assume characteristics associated with an idealised form of masculinity and social class mobility. 

The old spice campaign titled 'smell like a man, man', unusually for a male product, targeted a female audience as the old spice advertisers recognised that a large percentage of male health and beauty products were brought by females for their partners. This targeting of females offers some interesting variations and observations for the advertising campaign compared to a more traditional targeting of males for male hygiene products, and these variations in the techniques will be examined in this essay. The advertising campaign 'smell like a man, man' initially consisted of three advertisements for old spice shower gel, although this expanded to a series of web based advertisements which ran for a much longer period of time. For the purpose of this essay I will only focus on the initial television advertisement 'Smell like a man, man', although I may touch upon the other two television adverts in this campaign, as these had a much larger audience, many similarities, and clearer techniques used by the advertisers, than the web based ads utilised. The web advertisements largely played off their initial popularity in the process parodying the original adverts. 

The advert plays on the relationship between males and females in society, with the assumption in the advertisement that the idealised form of masculinity, for the female audience, is personified by the male in the advertisement. The male moves through the advertisement and performs a series of tasks that are considered to be ideal traits in a male. With the assumption being that no other man can live up to these expectations, but he can at least be more like this idealised male if he uses old spice body-wash. The portrayal of the idealised male in this advertisement works in opposition to the assumption of the female audiences incompetent male partner, for the purpose of generating a humorous attitude towards both the male in the advertisement and the male figure in real life. This incompetence amongst males, in advertising through the utilisation of humour, is a technique noted by Elliott and Wootton who, when writing about the portrayal of gender in television advertising, particularly chocolate advertising, stated that “stylings of men in ads which show them as prone to incompetence and ineptitude usually exploit forms of humour in which such ineptitude plays a central role” (Elliott and Wootton, 1997; 449). Although in this advertisement, the male is portrayed far from being inept and is shown perform a number of tasks with a high level of skill and ability, the humour is derived from the audience participating in the acknowledgement that this form of masculinity is unattainable for most men. Thus, its humour is derived upon this from the opening lines of the first commercial in this campaign, where the protagonist asks the female audience to engage in this narrative, saying “Hello ladies, look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly he isn't me, but if he stop using lady scented body-wash and switched to old spice he could smell like he's me”. Even though this advertisement is aimed at women, the product is for male consumption, as such the advertisement is set in a parody situation to avoid awkwardness with male audiences. This technique attempts to eliminate the risk of male alienation from the product being sold by offering a comedic element to the male viewing of this idealised form of masculinity. Men may feel uncomfortable with gazing upon the male physique within the advertisement if it offers a challenge to their heterosexuality, this could lead to a sense of sexual insecurity associated with the product, to avoid this the advertisements comedy allows the male viewer to not feel threatened by the male body on show through its use of comedy. As stated by Steinman with regards to this technique “risk is low, since parody is not erotic” (Steinman, 1992; 203).

This assumption assumes that the viewer and target audience for this advertisement wants this form of masculinity and requires the audience to subscribe to the hetero-normative values outlined by the advertisement. Throughout the advertisement the male, through both his actions and language, is asking the female audience if they want this man, it is playing on the assumption that this form of idealised masculinity is the version of masculinity that the female audience would desire of their 'men', by repeatedly asking whether they desire this man. This is achieved through his feats, abilities, and his knowledge of stereotypical female desires. This is further enhanced by utilizing the 'female gaze' over the males body, unusually for a male product, rather than the 'male gaze' typically being used to advertise men's products, such as Lynx. The male in the advertisement is seen throughout all three versions standing and walking topless through the scenery whilst performing his desirable tasks, the chiselled physique of the man, who alerts the audience to it through his speech, is on show allowing the audience to take control over their gaze and become active participants in the sexualised nature of his body. Within this advertisement campaign the male on show offers all of the qualities associated with the idealised form of masculinity that the female audience is told to desire in media portrayals of masculinity. As Suzanne Moore writes “he is tough but tender, masculine but sensitive – he can cry, cuddle babies and best of all buy cosmetics. He is not afraid to be seen caring but mostly he cares about how he looks” (Moore, 1988; 45). The 'female gaze' in this advertisement, speaks to the predominantly female audience of desirability, they are allowed into this man’s world to gaze upon his body, to listen to his reassuring words of lovingness and accept his gifts. The scenery plays a large part in creating a desirability for this man, and as a result the promise that this product will offer the women if she buys it for her man, with carefully selected locations including expensive boats, exotic locations, dream homes, even the voyeuristic appeal of the shower all appealing to the lifestyle aspirations of the females this advert is targeting. These locations and subtle hints at the economic or cultural capital of the man in question, in addition to his looks, appeal to the female audience as Moore writes “campaigns aimed at women sometimes deliberately play upon the ability of women to decode the visual clues that signal class and status” (Moore, 1988; 49). Playing into this is the presumed wealth of the male in the advertisement, he is able to provide exotic locations and gifts to the female audience at their whim, transporting the audience all over the world and through locations that would be beyond the reach of the ordinary male. Although the advertisement plays into the 'female gaze', the power over his sexuality is still his, by directing the audience to look at his body it acts as an assurance to the female audience that they are allowed to look at him sexually. The purpose of this is to retain control and not appear 'passive', and therefore be conceived as having feminine qualities. Power and control is a central theme in this advertisement. When the man is submitting himself to the audience, by playing to their perceived desires sexually, spiritually and economically, he still maintains control through the interaction with the female audience and his masculinity by being 'active' and performing masculine tasks. Dyer, cited in Steinman, states when writing about male bodies in movies “Images must disavow... passivity if they are to be kept in line with dominant ideas of masculinity-as-activity” (Steinman, 1992; 202). His constant eye contact with the camera serves to assure his dominance in the situation and over the audience, portraying a man who is confident in knowing what the audience desires and needs from their man. This also acts as a bridge between the 'real world' and the 'fake world' of the advertisement, allowing the audience to feel as though they are being directly spoken to by this man. 

The content of the advertisement produces many signs to make both the male and the product desirable equally to males and female audiences. The advertisement progresses through three key scenes seamlessly, with the man performing his monologue in one unbroken sequence, whilst performing seemingly impossible feats. This advertisement relies on the magical element to persuade the viewer that these feats are accomplished by this perfect man and that they may be within reach of the ordinary man if they use Old Spice. The use of signs to signify the man's position in the social and economic hierarchy as a result of his manliness serves to further imprint this argument on to the audience. Throughout the advertisement, all products and offerings to the female audience are held in the left hand of the male on screen, which initially hold an Old Spice product. This encourages the audience to create a link mentally between the products qualities as a provider of masculinity and the rewards for the female audience for purchasing the product for their partners. At the start the camera catches the male in the bathroom with the shower running and the man wearing only a towel to cover the lower half of his body. The narrative directs the female audience towards the man on screen by asking them to look at their man and compare them, before adding “sadly he isn't me, but if he stopped using lady scented body-wash and switched to Old Spice he could smell like he's me”. In the terms of Baudrillard, this narrative forms the distinction between this product and the other, and between the masculine and the feminine in relation to the desirability of the product, “a need is not a need for a particular object as much as it is a “need” for difference” (Kellner, 1989; 15). This positioning of the product away from the 'lady scented' products sets the presents later offered in opposition to the other, what would be offered by a feminine man or product, throughout the remainder of the advertisement. With the implication that all the man achieves throughout the advert would not be possible without obtaining the status by being different and switching from the products rivals. The bathroom itself is clean, uncluttered and minimalist. These characteristics act as a signifier of this males lack of femininity, with no colour present in the shower room and no other products on show. The positioning of the man in the centre of the scenery draws your attention to his body which is on show to highlight the masculine traits that this ideal man possesses, with the facial hair, muscular physique (Steinman, 1992), and the fact he is black all acting as a signifier for the hyper-masculinity of the male in the advertisement. The stance and expression of the man, alonside the deep voice, further enhances this association with masculinity through the composition of the image. These traits are designed to maintain the sense of power and authority over the audience assuring them that this performance of masculinity is the one that all men should aspire towards. The positioning of the product, although initially hidden, also serves to act as a sign that Old Spice can transform your man into this form of masculinity, with its central position alongside the male performer. The proximity of the two providing the only contrast to the dull white and grey background of the initial shower scene. Following this the bathroom moves out of shot, revealing a boat that the man is standing on, this boat acts in itself as a signifier for wealth and authority. As is noted by MacKinnon, authority for a male character in advertising not derived only from his physical appearance, stating “his strength may be suggested not only in terms of his physique, but also in the suggestion of his affluence and business success” (MacKinnon, 2003; 89). The boats location in an exotic, or at least hot climate, encourages the audience to aspire to not only this form of hyper-masculinity but also for the material wealth that the advertisers are associating with a successful masculine male. The positioning of the shirt that falls as the scene changes around the neck of the man indicates an upper middle class background, a reference to the preppy subculture in the USA (Ward, 2010). This subculture is known for its expensive clothing, university education and the high cultured status of individuals within it. The timing of this shirts positioning around the man’s upper torso indicates an arrival for the male into the upper middle classes by embracing the masculinity offered by the Old Spice product. The transition and attainment of social power is a technique used greatly in advertising when trying to convince the consumer that they will transcend class boundaries or confirm their own status through the consumption of the product, as Douglas Kellner writes when discussing Baudrillard, “individuals distinguish themselves and attain social prestige through the purchase and use of consumer goods” (Kellner, 1989; 15). This is due to the nature of the two scenes during this transition, the original bathroom scene was a dull composition of white and grey with little to distinguish it as being an expensive location. Almost immediately after the Old Spice product is revealed and men embrace hyper-masculinity the shirt falls and the scenery changes to an exotic and expensive location. This is the arrival of the proper form of masculinity, made possible by using Old Spice, and where the man has earned enough money and status to acquire his own boat and travel to exotic locations. The Flags positioned behind the man in the first part of the opening scene indicate a well travelled and cultured man, with flags from countries such as Finland, France and Japan further solidifying the association between using Old Spice, becoming a real man, and then being able to afford travel to exotic locations. As the scene progresses the man magically makes an oyster appear with tickets inside to the “thing you love” indicating a deep knowledge of female desires playing upon the stereotypes of males in society not understanding women (Brizendine, 2010). This advert is saying that although this product will make a man who uses Old Spice become more masculine it will also allow him to better understand your needs and desires. This form of masculinity is therefore desirable for both him and the female the advertisement is targeting. The man's superhuman ability comes into play again quickly when he transforms the tickets and oyster into diamonds. This serves two purposes, to highlight the man's status upon becoming a more masculine male and being able to afford the more expensive luxury items, the use of diamonds to highlight this whilst using a black actor is reflective of the commodity fetishism associated with black 'bling culture'. When writing about 'bling' in films and television Mukherjee noted that the culture celebrated “neo-liberal individualism and the promise of class transcendence” (Mukherjee, 2006; 606). Less apparent but more powerful is the syntagmatic association between diamonds being a 'girls best friend' (Hawks, 1953) and the transformation of this male into your best friend through the use of Old Spice body-wash. This association with the use of Old Spice and the transformation of their man into their perfect man is enhanced when the diamonds begin to transform back into a bottle of Old Spice whilst the man says “anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady”. Whilst this transition of the tickets, into diamonds, into the Old Spice symbolic of the 'man your man could be', is happening the scenery changes once more from the boat into a beach tableau where the natural setting reassures the audience of the naturality of the masculine identity being portrayed in this advertisement. Alongside the horse that the man appears on during the final few seconds of the advert, it shows the masculine identity being portrayed as timeless, as powerful, and as capable of adventure. As Merskin notes “when the rugged Marlboro man is situated on his horse, on the open plain, almost always alone, the meanings of the constellation become clear – freedom, love of the outdoors, release from the confines of industrialised society – he is a “real man”, self-sufficient and individualistic” (Merskin, 2001; 162). The choice of a white horse serves symbolically to highlight the purity of this ascension into an idealised form of hyper-masculinity and of the choice to be a 'real man' achieved through the use of Old Spice.

The Old Spice campaign targets females in this advertisement, making clear assumptions of male beauty and desirability often associated with idealised masculinity in western cultures. The use of a stereotypically attractive male physique and confident demeanour, as well as the status symbols associated with the male in this advert, provide him authority over what he is saying about masculinity and the products ability to transpose some of these characteristics on to any man who uses Old Spice. The position of the man throughout the advertisement in the centre of the screen ensures that the focus of the audience remains on him at all times, allowing the man to remain in control of the situation and of the female audiences gaze so, although he surrenders some authority over his sexuality, the power still remains with the man providing the product with even greater sense of masculinity associated with it. The risk of alienating a male audience through directly speaking to women has been offset by the humorous nature of the dialogue and visuals in the advertisement, meaning that the male consumers of this product do not become threatened by the nature of the male in the advert. The advertisements visual signs throughout the story indicate that the product is being associated with masculinity, power and class mobility. The story appears to be assuring females that a more masculine partner would provide economic and social benefits to themselves and to him, and that it can only be achieved through the use of Old Spice body-wash. 

References

Elliott, J and Wootton, A. J. (1997). 'Some Ritual Idioms of Gender in British Television Advertising'. The Sociological Review. 45 (3), 437-452. 

Moore, S. (1988). 'Here's Looking at You, Kid!'. In: Gamman, L and Marshment, M. The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of Popular Culture. London: The Women's Press. 44-59. 

Steinman, C. (1992). 'Gaze Out of Bounds: Men Watching Men on Television'. In: Craig, C. Men, Masculinity, and the Media. London: Sage. 199-214. 

Kellner, D. (1989). Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

MacKinnon, K. (2003). Representing Men: Maleness and Masculinity in the Media. London: Arnold Publishers.

Ward, R. K. (2010). The Official Preppy Handbook. Available: http://fashionandpower.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/official-preppy-handbook.html. Last accessed 4th May 2013. 

Brizendine, L. (2010). Why your man will NEVER understand how you feel. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1262932/Why-man-NEVER-understand-feel.html. Last accessed 6th May 2013. 

Merskin, D. (2001). 'Winnebagos, Cherokees, Apaches, and Dakotas: The Persistence of Stereotyping of American Indians in American Advertising Brands'. Howard Journal of Communications. 12 (3), 159-169. 

Mukherjee, R. (2006). 'The Ghetto Fabulous Aesthetic in Contemporary Black Culture'. Cultural Studies. 20 (6), 599-629. 

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, (1953). Film. Directed by Hawks, H. USA: 20th Century Fox.

Smell Like a Man, Man, (2010). TV Advertisement. Directed by Unknown. USA: Wieden and Kennedy.

The Social Significance Of Humour: Nathan Barley

The social phenomenon of humour has attracted the interest of theorists with competing views of the role it plays within a social environment. One such theory that attempts to provide an understanding of humour is the 'incongruity' theory which states that humour is formed by aligning two distinct subjects, that appear on the surface to be very different from one another, into one subject thus revealing the truth of that subject, in essence it is satirical. This theory suggests that humour is concerned with critiquing the political and cultural irrationality of institutions and individuals in daily life.

A comedic text which incorporates elements of incongruity to create humour and message is the television show Nathan Barley (2005) written by Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker. The shows premise centres on the rise of new media productions since the increase in digital television availability, and in particular the internet, which gives a platform for expression to those who previously would be unable or excluded from the mass media. The first episode begins by highlighting one example of this in the website www.trashbat.co.ck which is run by Nathan Barley, an example of the idiocy infecting the urban environment and media. His status, and subsequently the status of the followers of this trend, as an 'idiot' is established by Dan Ashcroft's article 'The Rise of the Idiots' as read aloud by Dan and Nathan themselves in the first episode's opening minutes. This article sets the parameters for the comedy and establishes the language and mannerisms of these idiotic urban professionals as the humorous element of the series, by being simultaneously a product of, and parody of the modern media both in the context of the series and in reality. This parodying of aspects of the social and political world is important because “modern laughter is the applause given in a civic theatre devoted to performances in which the discourses of public life are doubled, unmasked, and remediated” (Hariman, 2008: 263). If the article can be considered a linguistic form of wit in connecting opposing realities to reveal the truth, for example, in the lines “the idiots are self-regarding consumer slaves oblivious to the paradox of their uniform individuality, they sculpt their hair to casual perfection” then the opposing characteristics of Dan's melancholy and Nathan's foolishness present two humours. The 18^th century terminology outlined by incongruity theorists for a 'humourist', in being someone “with an extreme character that seemed to compromise a single humour rather than a balance of various humours” (Billig, 2005: 62).

More importantly for the shows comedy the audience is invited to relate to Dan Ashcroft in his ridiculing of those who work within this new media and their tastes in entertainment, fashion, and the cultural contribution, or lack of, that they provide. He is distinguished from the majority of the 'humours' that populate this comedic text by his ability to provide wit in situations that the 'idiots' are unable to understand, often as commentary upon their ridiculous and often immoral nature. An example of this in the re-branding of Sugar Ape, the magazine that Dan Ashcroft reluctantly works for, which changes its logo from reading Sugarape to what appears to be Rape with the suga being incorporated into the structure of the R. The incongruity between the journalists endorsing a re-branding of their magazine into something that is offensive and the usual corporate attitude to negative publicity creates the comedy. This works satirically as the truth is revealed at once in that the shock value of such re-branding can be deemed desirable to some sections of the media, particularly in the new media avenues that Nathan Barley is satirising. From an incongruity theorists perspective, mockery provides a moral purpose and usefulness, it critiques their actions and makes the subject of the mockery question their perspective, or in the case of this comedy highlighting the existence and satirising these media outlets it encourages the audience to question the ethical implications of doing such. Therefore, the societal function of laughter directed at a person or institution is that “it curbs the sallies of eccentricity, it recalls the attention of mankind to the one uniform standard of reason and common sense” (Smith cited in Billig, 2005: 79). In other words it trains individuals through fear of ridicule to understand the importance of, and to conform to certain social values concerning taste.

A less subtle form of incongruity is presented within the comedy of Nathan Barley due to the behaviour of Dan Ashcroft's colleagues at Sugar Ape, often seen playing games and acting in a juvenile manner whilst in the office space. The juxtaposition between the behaviour of the journalists and the professional environment the inhabit seems to be conflicting in its nature, however, it reveals a truth about modern corporate structures that value structured fun as a strategy for improving workplace morale and team cohesion. A further truth is added to this incongruity in that Dan Ashcroft is visibly dissatisfied with this corporate silliness, which echoes the sentiments of many office workers in society. The essence of the comedy in this is that it “lets us see the familiar defamiliarized, the ordinary made extraordinary and the real rendered surreal” (Critchley, 2002: 10) as such it encourages the audience to observe the irrationality of the modern white-collar workplace.

Nathan Barley gains significance through its critique of modern media culture and its influence on the wider society, the comedic text utilises the humour and wit of incongruity to project the ridiculousness of the characters to the audience. The incongruity in the humour encourages the audience to engage with the rationality of practises and taken for granted assumptions in society by revealing their irrational nature. In doing so it reveals the social function of comedy as an important tool for individuals in society to utilise in critically evaluating their understanding of correct mannerisms and taste.

References

Hariman, R. (2008), Political Parody and Public Culture. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 94 (3). 247-272.

Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage.

Critchley, S. (2002). On Humour. London: Routledge.

Brooker, C and Morris, C. (2005), Nathan Barley, Television Programme: Talkback Productions.

Representations Of Druids By The Media, Academics, And Self

A short piece about representations of non-church based spiritualities, focused on Druidic beliefs but could easily be applied to any form of new spirituality.
It has been uploaded mostly as somewhere to keep the work safe and has little to do with the usual subject matter on this blog, but if you are a student, and find something useful in my waffling, then you're welcome to use it as a guide.

**************************************

This essay will examine the cultural and historical context that has paved the way for the re-emergence of pagan beliefs in the UK, focusing on the growing popularity of Druidry. Firstly, this essay will focus on the mass media and its interpretation of druidic spirituality. This is essential to fully understand the way in which representations of pagan beliefs have been shaped in both the journalistic areas of the mass media and how pagan beliefs are presented to a cinematic audience. Next this essay will look at arguments from academic sources explaining druidic beliefs and the cultural influences that have encouraged a resurgence in this form of spirituality. To do this the essay will look at the representations of Druid beliefs in academic literature, their practises, and the way that their rituals are conducted in order for Druids to feel a connection to the natural world they inhabit alongside the historical context which has aided the growth in popularity of nature religions like Druidry. Finally, the focus will be turned onto Druid representations of themselves in publications, such as blogs and books. This will allow for a greater understanding of how those practising Druidry see their rituals, ceremonies and place within the natural and social world, revealing their reasoning behind their choice to become druids.

The media often react negatively to pagan beliefs through fear of the erosion of established faiths, and often point to pagan practises as being dangerous to communities, individuals or societies values. Recently Druidism has become a registered charity within the UK, with this it is now recognised as an official religion and the rights of those practising the religion are now protected by law. An article on the Mail Online written by Melanie Philips explores concerns about what this recognition of Druidry means to the UK. Within this article she writes that this is an “attack upon the very concept of religion itself” (Philips, 2010). She describes the belief system as having no religious substance as “none of these beliefs involves a 'supreme' being that exists beyond the earth and universe”. Within this article the Druids, and Druidry itself, are mocked as being an irrelevant religion from a long forgotten past, and something that attracts eccentrics, referring to Druids as belonging to a cult. The article reacts negatively towards practitioners who work within the armed forces or police forces seemingly questioning their ability to perform their duties adequately, because they do not adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian belief structure of the UK. The article echoes fears within the country of a devaluation of traditional values held within society and accuses Druids of being “tied up with both Communism and Fascism” (Philips, 2010). This can be seen as a reaction to the increased secularisation of the UK and fears portrayed in the media of a society growing more dangerous without a strong dogmatic belief system to help morally guide individuals actions on a day to day basis. This fear of the growing belief in pagan spiritualities and Druidry is not limited to the print media, cinema has also echoed these concerns. The Wicker Man, filmed in 1973, can be seen as “a warning against the dangers of reviving paganism in a modern context” (Hutton, 2007; 121). The villains of this film are the pagan inhabitants of an island. In the climax of the film the hero suffers at the hands of these pagans by being burnt alive in an effigy associated with Druid sacrificial rituals. This can be seen as echoing fears within society of Druids being dangerous and unstable individuals who partake in ritualistic behaviours and sacrifices. This is an excellent example of the portrayal of druids within the media and the sensationalism that can accompany it, as Hutton writes “when presenting Iron Age Britain to an audience, to bring in some evil Druids is a sure way of spicing up the material and one which is, arguably, justified by the evidence” (Hutton, 2007; 207). The evidence Hutton is using as an example to justify the media’s portrayal of Druids is based upon historical records and archaeological data, this information provides a basis for the representation of druids in contemporary society and influences the extent that the media stereotypes practises, rituals, and those who hold druidic beliefs. This essay will now examine the representations of Druidry amongst practitioners.

Within the modern UK there has been a successful revival of older pagan belief systems that pre-dated Christianity in Britain. This rise in pagan beliefs has drawn a significant amount of attention from academics studying religion within society. When discussing the creation of a Nemeton, a shrine used by Druids, at a festival for pagans Pike states that “the nemeton is a collective creation that brings together festival goers with mushrooms and moss, reminding them of the fluid boundaries between human and nature” (Pike, 2001; 64). Harvey notes that “people who join Druid groups want to understand the way the world works, how it came to be as it is, how it might be possible to prevent ecological disaster” (Harvey, 1997; 30). Both of these statements suggest that the rise of Druid beliefs and practises can be seen as being linked to a rise in the societal assumption of personal responsibility over the impact of an individual on their local ecology and the environment of the world as a whole, and as a romanticised desire to feel part of the natural world that has been largely forgotten in industrial and post-industrial societies. This connection with the natural world is encouraged by those within Druidic groups, as Crowley states “pilgrimages to sacred sites and spending time outside communing with Nature are encouraged as a way of contacting the spirit of the land and learning to live in harmony with it” (Crowley, 1994; 71). This suggests that to modern druids the world around them needs to be connected with, allowing them to feel a part of the natural order of things. In addition to this connection to the natural world Harvey suggests an openness to promote the individuality of those participating in the Druidic belief system, suggesting that believers find their own meaning in the world around them without a guiding doctrine. Harvey expands upon this by noting that although Druid groups use the same materials to guide their beliefs they “express their understandings in different ways” (Harvey, 1997; 31), they can do this through ceremonies, political activism or through teachings and passing on knowledge to others. This view is echoed by Crowley who writes that “some teach a wide curriculum of esoteric lore. Others encourage the development of spiritual understanding through the creative arts such as music and poetry.” This suggests that alongside the connection to nature Druid orders place a strong emphasis on the individual's personal spiritual journey, and the development of their spiritual self can be seen as an extension of the wider cultural emphasis within society that emphasises the autonomous individual as something akin to being sacred. Academics have argued that the rise of Druidic beliefs in the UK has been linked to the emergence of the importance of the individual in society and as a reaction to environmental concerns commonplace in modern society, the following paragraph will explore these themes through the representations of druidry by the practitioners of the druidic belief system.

Writing about the practise of ceremonial activities in the outdoors, Pauline and Don Campanelli write that “As the sacred nights of the sabbat approach, we are drawn to our rituals out of doors, whenever possible, just so that we can be affected by the elements... While others bow and kneel in temples and cathedrals, insulated from the elements, we who follow the Old Ways choose to worship in green forests or at the ocean's edge” “Campanelli, Campanelli cited in Pike, 2001; 49). They, when writing this, overtly wish distinguish themselves from the practise of worshipping a singular omnipotent god, by mentioning that they are choosing to connect with their beliefs through the practise of 'out of doors' rituals in order to feel closer to the natural world. They are distinguishing themselves from the more mainstream religions that hold only certain places of worship as scared, by stating that they can worship and practise religion in any area, that nature to them is sacred. This sacrilisation of nature is a common theme amongst the assumptions of modern day society with secular groups and movements, such as Greenpeace, leading the fight against the destruction of our natural world making Druidry an attractive spirituality in modern Britain. Practitioners of Druidry often see their spirituality as being a lived spirituality, they see little need for written words or codes of practise telling them that they need to perform a ritual in a specific way, it for them is about the journey of learning and gaining a deeper understanding of their religion through their practises. Cat Treadwell, a practising Druid, comments on this, she writes that some new to the faith “want the books to give them answers, which they can learn and parrot back without true understanding” (Treadwell, 2012). This suggests that the journey for practitioners is more important than the right or wrong way to perform rituals, or to express their spirituality when worshipping. To achieve true understanding of what it is to be a Druid you have to learn through your experiences that lead you to the practise that best suits your needs at the time or the social context that you inhabit. This emphasis on the lived experience as a journey though your spirituality is culturally, within the context of a modern UK, compatible with the assumption of individual autonomy promoted through the values held within modern society.

The response of the media to the rise of pagan beliefs in the UK highlights a large basis of fear and misunderstanding of modern Druidry, with those who practise this belief being labelled as dangerous, eccentric, or somehow incapable of providing a meaningful contribution to wider society. The cinema represents Druids as savage, backwards, people who conduct ritualistic human sacrifices, labelling druids and pagans as a product of a uncivilised historical era, culminating in a fear of a return to pagan beliefs and the brutality associated, historically, with these misunderstood beliefs. Journalists in the media, choose to differentiate those who belief in traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs from those who have chosen to belief in Druidry. Their beliefs have been attacked as being of no value without having a single monotheistic god, promoting the belief that they lack morality without having a doctrine to guide their believers decisions. In contrast to this, both the representations of pagan beliefs by Druids and academics show a concern with the natural world around them. They highlight a belief in the responsibility of the self in protecting and ensuring the environment and natural world is undamaged by human lives, this response highlights the growing concern with the natural world by the wider society. Far from being of no value to anyone in contemporary society, it shows that the beliefs of Druids hold greater value, when compared to the beliefs of the secular masses, than the more 'traditional' belief systems. These representations offer an answer to why Druidry and nature religions are growing in popularity in the UK, and in the USA, as a response to the damage climate change is causing on the earth, and the need to learn an embrace the natural world around the individual. Within both of these representations of Druidry, there is a strong emphasis on the person, and their personal journey through their spirituality. The individual is encourage to learn from their exploration of rituals and worship, and to shape their own understandings of the beliefs to fit their own needs and the social world they inhabit. Academics have noted that the roles of Druids vary based on their interpretations of the beliefs, they may choose to pass on knowledge to others, help guide decisions of those who seek their wisdom, or be largely politicised in their day to day lives. This variation in what paths those who practise Druidry take can often interpreted as a response to the societal assumption of the individual as being sacred and the emphasis placed on individual autonomy in wider society. Both academics and practitioners, therefore, offer the most complete argument to explain the rise in the numbers of people adopting the Druidic spirituality, and the wider cultural causes that have led individuals to see it as an attractive alternative to controlling traditional forms of religion.


References

Crowley, V. (1994) Phoenix From the Flame: Pagan Spirituality in the Western World, London: The Aquarian Press

Harvey, G. (1997) Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism, London: C. Hurst & Co

Hutton, R. (2007) The Druids, London: Hambledon Continuum

Philips, M (2010) Druids as an official religion? Stones of Praise here we come, Mail Online. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317490/Druids-official-religion-Stones-Praise-come.html [accessed 7th December 2012]

Pike, S. M. (2001) Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community, London: University of California Press

Treadwell, C. (2012) Life – a Tale Told, The Catbox. Available at: http://druidcat.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/life-a-tale-told/ [accessed 7th December 2012]

Renewing Trident Should Not Be A Decision Made By Parliamentarians... Or The Labour Party Either

With the upcoming referendum on Britain's EU membership and the success of Scotland's referendum on independence I would argue that Britain, in its entirety, has and will continue to show a willingness to engage in the big political questions. We have shown that, as a nation, we have the desire to directly participate in questions that have massive implications on the country in which we reside and its future.

That is why the renewal of Trident, the means by which Britain's political class can commit war crimes through nuclear weapons should they desire, is also an ideal candidate for a referendum and should be decide through directly democratic methods. It is not something which can be taken lightly, or indeed something we can allow only those who may or may not have vested interests in seeing it renewed to decide upon. 

Critics of the position I am taking on this could argue that by voting in the general election you have provided your support for the governing party, or supporters of the renewal of Trident on either side of the divide, to make that choice for you. They would argue that we live in a representative democracy and have chosen these people to represent our views. That if we do not like a policy they pass we can always vote them out of power next time around. Unfortunately this is a gross over-simplification at best. At worst it can be a justification of the Plutocracy in which we are currently subjected to.

Trident is an issue of national importance, however, with the exception of the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, no one during the election wanted to make the renewal of Trident a central issue. This included the media who wished to focus their attention on the two issues that formed their ideal narrative, the aforementioned EU membership and the economy. Deliberately making the arguments against the renewal of Trident, outside of the voters of the three main anti-nuclear parties, go largely unnoticed. Thus, many voters in the general election could have supported a pro-renewal party despite having little or no knowledge of the parties stance on nuclear weapons. 

It is of the utmost importance that issues of this magnitude, with serious implications on the countries finances and moral positioning, should be decided by the people. With clear and precise presentation of the facts laid bare before the nation to decide upon.

An article I was reading earlier on the Guardian website alluded to the importance of this issue as a peoples decision and the need to engage people directly in democratic decision processes making more frequently. The Guardian quoted Jeremy Corbyn as saying "my whole election programme was based on the need for ordinary people to be able to participate much more in politics so that leaders don't go away and write policy, that executive groups don't go off and decide what the policy is, that ordinary people do. There is brilliance in everybody who has got some ideas. That is the whole basis. That is why I think our party membership has got so much bigger, because people are enthused by the idea that they can participate."

Whilst this would be a positive move from the leader of the Labour Party, who realises that a matter of this importance requires more than the self-serving career politicians that infest parliament to decide upon, it does not meet the requirements of the nation. He is arguing for the party membership to decide upon the Labour Parties continued support for the renewal of Trident, which in his current position could be argued is the limit of his ability to have an effect what is to come. 

There remains the fact that he, the opposition parties, and anyone who believes in maintaining a suggestion of democracy room to breathe in Britain, before the life is completely choked from it by the Conservative Party, could do more. Collectively they must pressure the Government, along with the people, to put it to a national referendum in order to allow the people to decide, for themselves, whether they care more about the potential to end lives, expensively, for the gain of the few at the top than alleviating issues blighting those that the bottom. 

Regardless of how the upcoming vote in parliament goes and how many of them support its renewal.

Important Lesson From The Past: Moral Panics And The Mass Media

I don't know how many people see the constant narrative about the threat posed by young Islamic fundamentalists in the media in the same way as I do, hyperbole, but I do feel that people should be more educated on the techniques many of the less reputable news sources employ in order to sway public opinion in a direction that fits their ideology.

Rather than write something new on the subject, here is an early essay, one which I suspect was more about getting people up to speed than anything else, from my degree studies which highlights some important issues I have with much of the media and its current spotlight on 'radical Islam'. Most, if not all' of what is written below in the essay can easily be observed in the everyday narrative of politicians, the media, and the audience, with regards to this new threat from Islamists.

****************************************************************

The aim of this essay will be to outline and explain what a moral panic is and how it goes from the early incidents that get picked up by the media and its transformation into a national issue. The essay will focus on how the moral panics in the mass media help us make sense of the role that the media plays in the wider society, I will do this by making reference to studies conducted into moral panics and by analysing the effects they had on the society at the time.

A ‘moral panic’ is the creation of a deep concern around a group or practise in the media; this is usually something that has been blown out of proportion by the media after one or two incidents having happened. The term ‘moral panic’ is used to describe the reaction to a particular subculture or group in society by the media; these panics amplify the generally small scale problems that these groups cause. Jenkins as cited in Macionis and Plummer states that “although there is often massive concern over serial killers, they are in fact very rare indeed, and serial killings have remained at roughly the same low rate for 100 years.” (Jenkins cited in Macionis, Plummer: pp. 777) This amplification of the incidents leads to the creation of these groups as ‘folk devils’. These moral panics focus upon groups, or individuals, that are perceived to be against the traditional norms of the society, and serve to amplify the hysteria surrounding them further in the media narrative. The media play the most important role in creating the ‘moral panic’ in this way, by taking the initial small incidents, sensationalising the stories surrounding them, and creating these ‘folk devils’.

In the book ‘folk devils and moral panics’ Cohen observed that societies sometimes undergo periods of time where they are subjected to an increase in moral panics, these can often be brought upon by fears that something is beginning to become a threat to the traditional values of that society. He states that these moral panics are often “associated with the emergence of various forms of youth culture (originally almost exclusively working class, but often recently middle class or student based) whose behaviour is deviant or delinquent.” (Cohen: 9). This study was conducted in the 60’s and was concerned with the media portrayal of a series of events that occurred, over a small number of bank holiday weekends, in some seaside towns around England between two youth subcultures. The study looked at the way that the media was sensationalising the stories and reports of violence between the Mods and the Rockers, in it Cohen explains why the media choose to pick up and distort events in a way that creates a moral panic. Cohen claims that an important measurement to understand how a society (both the public and those in power positions) would react to deviant behaviour is the way in which the information is received about the deviancy taking place. He means by this that differing societies will react to a phenomena in different ways due to the way that each individual will receive that information, Cohen states that in our industrial society the information we receive has usually already been processed by a third party, such as the mass media in the form of newspaper reporters or journalists. This means that the news has been bent and shaped by those individuals or organisations to fit what they define as being ‘news’, this would often lead to the misreporting of the incidents and would shape the public’s opinion in a distorted manner. Erikson states “a considerable portion of what we call “news” is devoted to reports about deviant behaviour and its consequences” (Erikson cited in Cohen, 17). The emphasis on what is considered to be deviant forms of behaviour being reported in the news tells us that society uses the media to reinforce the norms that the society values as being important to the everyday live and the continued harmony of those within the society. In this sense you could see the media as being an agent of tertiary socialisation, and that the society as a whole uses it to be told what are acceptable forms of behaviour, and to show the society what the stereotypical devils look like, who they are, and what behaviour they get up to.

In this paragraph I am going to focus on why the media focuses on particular phenomenons and in the process create ‘moral panics’ and ‘folk devils’. The media often pick up on these stories of crime or delinquency because they are perceived to be newsworthy, this newsworthiness stems from many places, “there are built in factors, ranging from the individual newsman’s intuitive hunch about what constitutes a ‘good story’, through precepts such as ‘give the public what it wants’, to structured ideological biases, which predispose the media to make a certain event into news.” (Cohen: 45) This would suggest that the role the media plays in choosing the events that become moral panics, by reporting on them, is complex, in that a newspaper or news programme may over-hype a certain event as they believe that this dramatic story, is what the public wants to read or hear, or that the media outlet wants to fit a phenomenon or event into a category to reinforce the organisations own interests. In this way the media play a role in shaping attitudes of the public by escalating a fear within the wider society that these events are commonplace or that they will start to become a more frequent occurrence in the landscape of that society. In the article ‘Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse in Families’ it reports that, “Public recognition of sexual abuse in families scarcely existed until the events in Cleveland in the spring and summer of 1987” (La Fontaine 1990; Kitzinger 1996, cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 84). The article explains that the Daily Mail's initial headline for the story. when they first broke the news of child abuse. was ‘Hand Over Your Children, Council Orders Parents Of 200 Youngsters’. This story was picked up upon by other news outlets and as such the story almost immediately became a ‘moral panic’. This coverage of the events in Middlesbrough Franklin and Parton wrote that it was “extensive and without precedent” (Critcher: 86) as the length of the ‘moral panic’ over the child abuse lasted for a year. The reporting of these sexual abuse cases sided largely with those people who held traditional values within the society, these tended to be males, and a female Doctor at the hospital that these cases were being reported from, named Dr. Higgs, was presented to the public by the media as a ‘scapegoat’. This highlighting of Dr. Higgs, who was reported as a feminist, an Australian and therefore holding different values to British society, and for having a househusband, (Critcher 2003) as being the guilty person in this ‘moral panic’ gave the public a group which went against the norms of society. This meant that “the spectre of feminism becomes the folk devils” (Nava 1998:105 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 87) ultimately fitting the Daily Mail's ideology. The media, therefore, seems to use these stories in this way to reinforce the values that the individual, society, or organisation holds, or is perceived to hold. It attempts to shape public opinion on these ‘moral panics’ in order to fit the consensus of what should be expected of individuals in relation to the values held within the media source.

This purpose of this paragraph will be to explain how the ‘moral panics’ reported in the media can shape social policy making. When a story is picked up upon by the media, and hyped to the extent that the public become fearful of similar incidences happening more frequently, often the media can launch a campaign to make the politicians or policy makers take action to prevent more cases of the offending phenomenon reoccurring. Although this is not always the case, as sometimes the media may simply report on the incidences and create the ‘moral panic’, which may instead spawn a dedicated organisation that would protest or put pressure on the policy makers to take action from the audience. The ‘Audience’, at which the reports of the phenomenon are aimed at in the ‘moral panic’, often respond to these cases in an equally disproportionate way in relation to the way that reports of these cases are significantly elevated in severity or frequency. In the case of the child abuse in Middlesbrough the most receptive audiences were “influential policy makers, ministers and civil servants within the DHSS” (Critcher: 93) this ‘moral panic’ over child abuse led to this ‘audience’ pressuring for change and culminating in the Children’s Act of 1989 (Hill 1990 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 93). This was not the only ‘audience’ that was receptive to the ‘moral panic’ surrounding these child abuse allegations, the Social work profession began to actively seek out abuse in children, as the Critcher article explains, “The profession as a whole seemed highly susceptible to new definitions of dangers to children and remarkably unwilling to question the evidence on which they were based” (Critcher: 94). This suggests that the ‘moral panic’ had been sensationalised to such an extent that the ‘audiences’ at which the media was aiming were so fearful of the breakdown in morality in regards to these issues that they needed little or no evidence of the behaviour to believe that it was commonplace in society amongst these ‘folk devils’. In the study of the Mods and Rockers by Cohen the most receptive audience to the perceived threat in this ‘moral panic’ was the police. This can be seen by the way that local police forces paid for extra man hours from neighbouring forces and paid overtime to the police force in that area, Cohen states that “The simplest response of the police to their definition of the situation and the pressures placed on them, was to implement the ‘show of force’ principle and to increase the sheer number of officers on duty.” (Cohen: 92). This is evidenced by the fact that in Whitsun 1964, the amount the police paid in overtime was £2000, around four times the cost of damage due to vandalism from the original incident. The following bank holiday weekend Brighton police brought in the Metropolitan police as reinforcements at the cost of £3000 (Cohen: 92).

The media, in conclusion, use ‘moral panics’ to shape attitudes to events, by reinforcing or creating stereotypes of the groups or individuals in a society that are perceived to be of a big enough threat to the norms and values upheld within that society. The media do this by taking a phenomena that has occurred once or twice that it considers to be ‘newsworthy’ enough based on individual bias of the society, the organisation, or individual that deemed it to be ‘newsworthy’, and sensationalising the facts and events that surrounded the incident or incidents. In doing so they create a ‘folk devil’, whom the large proportion of the audience of the media source reporting the events consider to be an outsider and become fearful of what that group stands for. The media's relationship with society also helps shape policy making, and the way in which those in power react to events, by building up a big enough fear of these ‘folk devils’ in the media to the extent where groups or organisations take disproportionate measures to counteract these perceived threats to society or to individuals.

Macionis, J, J and Plummer, K. (2012) Sociology: A Global Introduction, 5th Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils And Moral Panics The Creation Of The Mods And Rockers, Suffolk: Granada.
Critcher, C. (2003) Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse In Families, In Moral Panics And The Media, Ed. Critcher, C. Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 81-98.

The Impact Of Stuctures On An Individual - Social Theory (First Year Essay)

This first year essay dealt with the impact of societal control structures on the ability of an individual to act freely. It earned, what I feel was, a rather generous A- grade.

***********************************************************************

How do ideas of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ enable us to understand the degree of freedom people enjoy in our society?

The aim of this essay will be to explain how ‘structure’ within society inhibits a person’s ability to exercise their own free will or ‘agency’ before moving on to explain ‘agency’ and its role in the process individual’s decision making and actions. Firstly this essay will explain what is meant by ‘structures’ and what role they play in shaping the action of an individual and how this limits their choices. After this the essay will explain how people’s perceptions of what is acceptable can shape the choices he or she makes throughout their life and how they may be guided by societal values. The next paragraph will then put focus upon how an individual’s choices may be determined not only by themselves, but also by a privileged few whom hold power, and how the individual’s freedom is limited by the decisions of those with power and influence. Following on this the essay will explain how some sociologists believe ‘agency’ shapes the way society is structured though the actions of the people within it. The final paragraph will highlight how ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ can both be seen to play a role in shaping the actions and lives of individuals in society and how freedom is achieved within these parameters.

To understand how ‘structure’ impacts upon a person’s freedom and autonomy first you must understand what is meant by the term structure. The term structure, within the field of sociology, refers to outside influences or perceptions of a person or group of people that live within the sphere of any particular society, these can be institutions to which the person belongs, stereotypical views based on appearance or background that the person has come from, their respective place within the societal hierarchy or methods used to control the population.

Within society there are many key structures that influence the perception of the person and therefore inhibit their freedom to exercise their ‘agency’. Parsons referred to this as “a system of patterned expectations of individuals who occupy particular statuses in the social system” (Parsons cited in May, 1996; 50), by this Parsons is explaining that an individual’s freedom can be limited by widely held notions about how he or she should act in certain circumstances, influenced by the perception others have of this individual for example, the ethnicity or gender they belong to. These ‘structures’ in society can also be held by the individual and help shape their own actions within particular contexts, whereby beliefs can influence the decisions the person takes, or the direction they choose to take, during the course of their life. Durkheim referred to these ‘structures’ as social facts, when writing about society’s influence on the individual, Durkheim referred to these social facts as having “an objective reality beyond the life’s and perceptions of individuals. Cultural norms, values, religious beliefs - all endure as social facts.” (Macionis and Plummer; 125) When referring to these social facts within society Durkheim is explaining that the power that these ‘structures’ has over the individual is due largely to the way that society itself is structured, because these influences are beliefs or norms and values held by the majority of people in society, it makes it harder for the individual to choose whether or not to exercise their free will and do what they wish to do rather than what is expected of them. To do so is to risk being ostracised, vilified, or at the least seen as a deviant and an outsider.

Some structures that have an effect on a person’s ability to act independently and influence their behaviour may not be imposed upon the individual by society itself, but by a privileged few who hold some power and influence within it. These structures can serve to control the ability of a person to exercise their freedom in the choices that they can make, one such example can be laws that are made by those whom are considered qualified or have been chosen to make these decisions on behalf of the entire population. Laws within a society serve the purpose of a deterrent and guide the actions of an individual, in most cases to stick within the boundaries of that societies accept behaviours as stated in Thinking Sociologically “if we break the rules that are meant to guide people’s conduct, then we may be punished. The act of punishment is intended as a confirmation that we are responsible for our actions.” (Bauman and May 2001; 18) Although usually intended to provide a level of happiness and safety for everyone in society and are beneficial to the majority of the population these laws, however, are a form of structure and therefore impede an individual’s ability to act with complete freedom.

Another form of control that is imposed upon the majority of the population is through capitalism; Marx called this a ‘superstructure’. Within capitalism individuals are subject to the control of a privileged few who control the means of production, the political sphere, and the ideological power within society. Marxist theory states that the bourgeoisie control society, by holding the power to influence and control the proletariat financially and ideologically. This ‘superstructure’, Capitalism, serves their purpose and limits the freedom of the individual within the proletariat, this is explained in Capitalism and Modern Social Theory as “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Marx cited in Giddens 1994; 41) With this Marx was explaining how an individual’s place within the hierarchy of society has an effect on the way that the individual chooses to act. This can be either through choices available to them or through how they are expected to act in the capitalist society, always based upon their social class they were born into or are a member of.

Although the structures in place can inhibit a person’s ability to freely make decisions that would allow them to do, or achieve, what they wish, an individual’s ‘agency’ has a significant impact on the choices that they make every day. A person has free will; they have a mind capable of making decisions based upon their own circumstances and their own goals in life. To say ‘structure’ shapes every person’s choices in life would be to assume that every individual within a society is merely a programmable machine. It does not wholly take into consideration the differences in behaviour between people whom may have come from a similar economic background, ethnicity, or belong to a particular institution that expects its members to act in a certain manner. Individuals within these groups, although sharing many common sets of beliefs, may make choices radically different from the next person within the same group. Some sociologists would argue that societal structures do not exist as a unifying overpowering element in the lives of those within a society, but that instead society is made of individuals, and that their choices and actions shape the society around them. This view was discussed by Becker in which it states that “social reality is made up of actors’ point of views” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 138). An argument which claims that an individual’s actions are controlled only by his or her perceptions, and as such society is shaped by the actions of every individual, stating that individuals have complete control of their actions and their own ‘agency’.

Actions are unlikely to be shaped simply by only ‘agency’ or ‘structure’, but are most likely a combination of both being resolved in way that is most suitable for the individual making the choices. There is no denying that every person within society, capable of enacting their free will and choosing to make decisions for themselves based upon what would most likely bring them the greatest level of happiness, would do so, however, these choices would have been made on informed decisions or moral grounds by the ‘structures’ they encounter every day. Most people would choose to act within the set, acceptable, behaviours within their respective society. They would do so because of the structures in place. Structures they are taught, through socialisation, to adhere as the normative structure of their society, or indeed are bound to comply with due to restrictions on their behaviour by the laws in place. This process of guiding an individual’s actions by the societal structures does allow for the individual to still make some choice and exercise their freedom, there may be, for example, more than one option to choose from after the unacceptable options, according to the structure of society, have been eliminated from the decision making process. This is highlighted within ethnomethodology in which they see the action of an individual as being simply guided, but not limited, by social ‘structures’. Sharrock and Button explained this, they see “‘social structure’ as a casual force which might pre-empt agency” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 163). If social ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ do play a role in shaping an individual’s actions, firstly by the ‘structure’ pre-empting any decision making process, it shows that an individual does get, an albeit limited, say in the choices available to him or her. This although inhibiting the freedom of the person making the choice of action, does not mean that that person has no ability to act in a free manner, therefore allowing for some room for the individuals ‘agency’.

To conclude this essay I believe that the amount of freedom that an individual has is limited by the ‘structures’ in place within society, they play a key role in guiding people’s behaviour in to actions deemed acceptable  by the majority of societies individual’s, their culture, or the institutions they belong to. These ‘structures’ control the choices made to various levels of extremes from very little influence, although enough to still be present, for example whether a female makes a decision on working in a traditionally male-domination sector of work, to the choices made on behalf of an individual by those in a position of power that can affect their course of actions. However, I do not believe these to be the only influence over a person’s actions, I believe that every individual, even when the choices they make are guided by the structures in place, still has the ability to act freely to an extent, as such I cannot say that freedom is wholly inhibited by the ‘structures’ people encounter everyday within life. Whilst they are guided by these into what is deemed acceptable, people retain an ability to refuse and rebel against the structures of society.


References

Bauman, Z and May, T. (2001) Thinking Sociologically. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Giddens, A. (1994) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Macionis, J and Plummer, K. (2011) Sociology: A Global Introduction. 5th Ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall

May, T. (1996) Situating Social Theory. Buckingham: Open University Press

Sharrock, W and Button, G. The Social Actor: Social Action in Real Time. In: Button, G. ed. (1993) Ethnomothodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Perspective On The Paris Coverage

I wasn't going to blog about this subject. Frankly the prospect of what I have to say on such an emotive subject scared me somewhat. But with recent events, and the lack of equality in reporting, I do feel the need to... Even if it has the potential to smack me a few times around the choppers for doing so.

It has been ten days since the western world sat still, stunned, watching the news come in about the horrific attacks on Paris. The media awash with images and footage offering the audience a safe space in which to peek, voyeuristically, into a world barely seen on our privileged lands. Mouths gaping as if to signal to others of our shared repulsion at the acts of barbarity committed by the murdering thugs in the name of today's villain. ISIS, the foreign invader, had thrusted its savage ideology into modern Europe.

Sections of the population silently, and very secretly, revelled in the moment. Their incoherent and unsupported arguments about the Islamification of Europe was being validated. Their imaginations running wild with images of their great crusade, of a civil war they equally feared and welcomed, a chance to spread their own savage ideology further through the collective European consciousness. Their revulsion at what they have glimpsed via a media complicit in the spreading of this ideological hatred only matched by the warm feeling someone is overwhelmed by when the finally get to utter, through the ground gnashers characterising the hate filled and bile spewing, 'I told you so'.

I also, like anyone with a modicum of compassion within their hearts, was stunned by the scenes depicted in the media. I still am shocked and fearful that someone I know will have to endure the heart-wrenching loss suffered by the families and friends of those killed in Paris. But unlike those I have characterised above, I also have as much compassion for the victims of the other terrorist attacks that have occurred this month.

The ones forgotten by the media and by the masses.

Victims from countries such as Mali, Lebanon, Nigeria, Somalia, Egypt, Iraq, Cameroon, and doubtless many other attacks committed by groups, states, or individuals as acts of terrorism, small scale or large in their devastation.

Let's not act like this attack in Paris is something unique, beyond it taking place in an imperialist, white, western nation. But that is the only reason people care so much. The only reason for the intense level of coverage in the media when compared to the barely recognised, aforementioned, murders. Even the downing of the Russian plane by a bomb on 31st of October, which coincidentally killed more people than died in Paris, barely achieved comparable levels of media interest. I would argue that this is perhaps because they are not quite 'white' enough for the media and us in the west for their lives to equal a Parisians.

I cannot recall post after post of articles based on these terrorist attacks on Facebook. Was there a whole episode Question Time devoted to the terrorist attacks in Beirut that I missed? I did not see anyone choose to press that button to change their profile pictures to have a Lebanese filter. I've yet to see a bunch of white masks declare war on Boko Haram for it's continued war of terror in Nigeria and the surrounding nations. Where were the news reporters tears Iraq?

So let us not pretend we as a society are repulsed by vile terrorists and their savage ideology. For most people they only care that it is now on their doorsteps once more. Yes it is disgusting and tragic, but its proximity to the things we care about has been the catalyst for this outrage and outpouring of emotion. That and good old fashioned British xenophobia.

Boycotting Bacon And The Hateful Eight

Surfing the web this week I stumbled across the latest in a continuous line of hypocritical reactions to truthful assertions made by individuals against the police. Fascists really do not like freedom of speech when it is directed against themselves.

On this occasion Quentin Tarantino, whilst attending a rally organised to highlight police brutality, said "I'm a human being with a conscience, and if you believe there's murder going on, you need to rise up and stand against it. I'm here to say I'm on the side of the murdered. When I see murders, I do not stand by... I have to call a murder a murder and I have to call the murderers the murderers."

This statement, when read alone and out of the context of the rally, could easily be a quote pulled from a handbook named Policing for Dummies. It might as well say "don't support bad people doing bad things." Unfortunately for the police it was not. It was part of Quentin Tarantino's speech at a rally called 'Rise Up October'. 

Unsurprisingly, given the sheer amount of instances of police brutality well documented by now in the media, and given that the protest was aimed at raising awareness of and opposing "police terror", particularly the disproportionate number of murders committed against black individuals by the police, they reacted poorly. 

In fact they acted like MRA's. In fact they even have #notallcops #bluelivesmatter campiangs like their dense counterparts, whom also completely miss the point being argued by their opponents. Just because not all cops are murderers it does not excuse the disproportionate number of incidents of hate crime committed by white officers on black citizens. How hard is that to understand? The Blue Scholars, definitely worth a listen, said it best with the lyrics "I hear them saying that this shit (meaning police brutality and murder) don't ever happen in Seattle, and if it does it's really just a couple bad apples, but if you're keeping count you will see the shit is not the apple, it's the tree, it's rotten underneath"

As with the MRA's outrage over the understandable, and thoroughly justified, #yesallwomen campaign to highlight violence against women committed by men whereby they chose a film to vainly attempt a boycott of,  Mad Max: Fury Road, so too have the Fuzz. A mixture of right-wing and racist morons have criticised Tarantino for highlighting the injustices committed against black citizens and subsequently calling for a boycott of his latest film, The Hateful Eight. 

Fox News' very own Klan member, Bill O'Reilly, said of the Tarantino speech that just last week a police officer was "shot dead by a long-time drug dealer that a judge refused to incinerate" a man who had "28 arrests on his sheet." An argument based upon the assumption that if people, or more accurately black people, were given the death penalty then tragedies against cops would not occur. Now I know like most well educated people that Bill O'Reilly, from what limited exposure to his rantings I get in the UK, is an idiot and a racist bigot. But it is still worth noting that his response to something as unobjectionable as campaigning against systemic abuse of power by some sections of the police is this vitriolic and distasteful. 

They say a picture paints a thousands words, and it so often does, but knowing what to look for in language reveals just as much. Some other commentators, such as Amanda Lozada, revealed their disgusting attitude towards the continued abuse of black people's freedoms in publications such as the New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdock of course. This white woman (shock) reported the legitimate concerns and frustrations of the protesters as a "gripe", the dictionary definition of which is to complain about something in a persistant and irritating way, that the speech by Tarantino was characterised by "complaining", and the cop was a "hero". In an article otherwise devoid of emotive language these three little words paint a vivid picture of the journalists lack of concern for black lives. 

Sentiments such as the above two are echoed all throughout the mainstream media, as would be expected from companies that exist to push a conservative agenda and maintain the white hegemonic position on societal justice matters. Something actively encouraged and maintained through the language employed by what Antonio Gramsci (here is a brief explanation of the theories) would call traditional intellectuals within his description of how hegemony permeates societal interactions. Those working within the mainstream forms of media being one such group of traditional intellectuals. In brief terms they operate in accordance with the prevalent hegemonic position. They are the group in this context seeking to legitimise and maintain force as the sole preserve of the state to dispense at its will when citizens will not do as their betters please.

Support of the black citizens of America, and worldwide, who are suffering at the hands of the (predominantly) white hegemonic class, with movements such as Rise Up October, is support of the organic or specific, depending on your ideological viewpoint, intellectuals seeking to other throw the system that enables one persons life to be viewed, whether subconsciously or otherwise, as more valuable than another. At the very least they are trying to forcibly change the position of the oppressed which is no bad thing. It is a long road but one needing to be walked. One ending in the emancipation of all humanity. 

I'm going to break with my usual position (hopefully just this once) and encourage anyone reading this who was going to see the film and thought twice about due to the boycott being attempted to just see what you wanted to in the first place. I would like to think that my words have been enough to convince you that this boycott is ill thought, irrational, and above all else, a petty reaction to some stinging truths. Hopefully it might even convince a few of you finding my blog in this dark corner of the internet to hop on a bus once in a while and join a protest or two in support something important like the right to life.