http://www.youtube.com/user/enews#p/u/36/3xDDu5uTtR0
This clip from E! News illustrates how celebrities' bodies are being constantly analyzed and criticized in the pop culture public sphere. This particular clip is about how Snooki was bullied for being overweight, and how she overcame it. I think the way in which the news is presented is interesting. For the majority of the clip, it details Snooki's difficulties and problems with being bullied. For example, it uses three quotes that relate to the harsh criticism she received and her negative self body image. On the other hand, there is only one quote at the end which applies to her newfound positive self body image. The clip doesn't seem to focus on the positive aspects, such as her new healthy outlook on life, until the very end. Also, the news clip is comprised of mainly glamorous images of Snooki, and they seem to be photos from after her weight loss. The photos are primarily used to support her new positive body image and possibly inspire others to rethink their own body images as well.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Consequences of Splitting Reality
In his book True Enough, Farhad Manjoo warns against the dangers of splitting reality. He shows that through different thought processes, such as selective exposure, selective perception, and central and peripheral routes to decision making, people can choose what to believe and can even create their own truths. The consequences of this division and creation of truth are especially interesting to me. In the epilogue, Manjoo describes a concept that I found intriguing: the difference between generalized and particularized trust. The decrease in generalized trust and the increase in particularized trust are consequences of splitting reality.
Generalized trust describes “how likely it is that two strangers from a given community will be willing to trust each other” (223). The level of this trust among Americans has plummeted in the last fifty years. For example, in 1960, “nearly 60 percent said they trust most people,” while in 2006, that number dropped to “32 percent, the lowest ever” (223). This drastic decline in trust amongst each other has led to a decrease in participating in civic activities, such as different groups and volunteer work. I think that this falling trust is a consequence of the increasingly split reality. The advent of new technology, such as television and the Internet, in the past few decades has given people too many options for their news and has altered their perception of reality. Therefore, it is easy to see why by the twenty-first century, not many Americans are willing to trust each other; because the media offers various understandings of the news, they can choose one to believe and distrust all others.
The other type of trust that Manjoo describes is particularized trust, which describes “how we feel about people who are like us—in our families, in our ethnic groups, in people at our company, or in other groups we may belong to” (225). The classic example of particularized trust is the small town, which reminded me of my father’s hometown of Reinbeck, Iowa, which has no more than 3,000 people. Whenever my family visits, it amazes me how trusting everyone is; nobody locks their doors when they go out, and everyone knows and cares for each other. However, there is a problem with this type of trust in that it destroys generalized trust. Because people tend to trust others who are similar to them, then they tend to distrust people who are unlike themselves. Manjoo supports this point with the examples of the Ku Klux Klan or a street gang because they involve high levels of trust within their groups.
In general, the new divergent realities that are appearing everyday are having a serious effect on people’s levels of trust. The escalation of particularized trust is creating prejudices and exclusivity, while the decline of generalized trust is causing suspicion and skepticism among Americans. I think that these consequences can be dangerous because they are detrimental to our country and its sense of community. If people cannot trust other people outside of their own groups, then they will not be able to understand others’ views or cooperate with each other, leading to a lack of unity.
Generalized trust describes “how likely it is that two strangers from a given community will be willing to trust each other” (223). The level of this trust among Americans has plummeted in the last fifty years. For example, in 1960, “nearly 60 percent said they trust most people,” while in 2006, that number dropped to “32 percent, the lowest ever” (223). This drastic decline in trust amongst each other has led to a decrease in participating in civic activities, such as different groups and volunteer work. I think that this falling trust is a consequence of the increasingly split reality. The advent of new technology, such as television and the Internet, in the past few decades has given people too many options for their news and has altered their perception of reality. Therefore, it is easy to see why by the twenty-first century, not many Americans are willing to trust each other; because the media offers various understandings of the news, they can choose one to believe and distrust all others.
The other type of trust that Manjoo describes is particularized trust, which describes “how we feel about people who are like us—in our families, in our ethnic groups, in people at our company, or in other groups we may belong to” (225). The classic example of particularized trust is the small town, which reminded me of my father’s hometown of Reinbeck, Iowa, which has no more than 3,000 people. Whenever my family visits, it amazes me how trusting everyone is; nobody locks their doors when they go out, and everyone knows and cares for each other. However, there is a problem with this type of trust in that it destroys generalized trust. Because people tend to trust others who are similar to them, then they tend to distrust people who are unlike themselves. Manjoo supports this point with the examples of the Ku Klux Klan or a street gang because they involve high levels of trust within their groups.
In general, the new divergent realities that are appearing everyday are having a serious effect on people’s levels of trust. The escalation of particularized trust is creating prejudices and exclusivity, while the decline of generalized trust is causing suspicion and skepticism among Americans. I think that these consequences can be dangerous because they are detrimental to our country and its sense of community. If people cannot trust other people outside of their own groups, then they will not be able to understand others’ views or cooperate with each other, leading to a lack of unity.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Decision Making
In True Enough, Farhad Manjoo describes two psychological methods, the central and peripheral processes, which help us make our decisions. I think that these two mechanisms are important, especially in the context of this book, because they explain how we make decisions. They help us choose what experts to trust and listen to, and this factor plays a part in what we consider to be the truth.
The first and more rigorous method, the central route, "describes a diligent attempt to investigate the facts of a case" (118). This takes up more time, and we will use this strategy when we really want to analyze something. I think that this method is also probably more valid, because we are researching the information in-depth ourselves. On the other hand, the peripheral route uses "'cues'- like emotional reactions or what an expert or a celebrity or some other trustworthy figure thinks- to guide us toward a decision" (118). While this method can be great when we have no free time to analyze the decision ourselves, I think that this method can be particularly dangerous; by using peripheral cues, we are putting all our trust in a person or group.
Overall, I found these two concepts to be intriguing because before, I had never really noticed how I make certain decisions. Now, I will be more aware of which method, the central or peripheral, I tend to use in different circumstances.
The first and more rigorous method, the central route, "describes a diligent attempt to investigate the facts of a case" (118). This takes up more time, and we will use this strategy when we really want to analyze something. I think that this method is also probably more valid, because we are researching the information in-depth ourselves. On the other hand, the peripheral route uses "'cues'- like emotional reactions or what an expert or a celebrity or some other trustworthy figure thinks- to guide us toward a decision" (118). While this method can be great when we have no free time to analyze the decision ourselves, I think that this method can be particularly dangerous; by using peripheral cues, we are putting all our trust in a person or group.
Overall, I found these two concepts to be intriguing because before, I had never really noticed how I make certain decisions. Now, I will be more aware of which method, the central or peripheral, I tend to use in different circumstances.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Selective Exposure & Selective Perception
Even thought Farhad Manjoo's novel True Enough mainly focuses on the different truths in political events, I find the psychological aspects that he brings up to be fascinating. Specifically, Manjoo explains the phenomena of selective exposure and selective perception. I found these two concepts to be particularly interesting because they explain how we use our existing beliefs and biases to shape our own realities. Both of these ideas can show why people may develop divergent truths over the same concept.
According to Manjoo, selective exposure says that "in an effort to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes out of receiving news that challenges our beliefs, we cunningly select the messages we consume" (30). By selectively exposing ourselves to certain sources, we are creating a small comfortable sphere in which we can obtain news that confirms our biases. To me, this idea can be somewhat disturbing. If we are not willing to listen to all sides of an issue, including beliefs that contradict ours, then we are becoming too narrow-minded. Instead, we should be open-minded, and we should take into account all views to get a better and more balance perspective on an issue. In this way, we can better understand other people and the world.
Selective perception says that "even when two people of opposing ideologies overcome their tendency toward selective exposure and choose to watch the same thing, they may still end up being pushed apart from each other" (71). I think that Manjoo provides us with great examples of this concept, from the 9/11 attacks to the Princeton-Dartmouth football game. Like selective exposure, this idea is disturbing, more so especially since both sides are exposed to the same thing. If we cannot perceive the same reality, then it will be harder to understand other people and their views on the same event.
Overall, these concepts show why groups can be fragmented, creating tension and lack of unity. Furthermore, with today's overwhelming amount of news sources and technology, selective exposure and perception is even easier to achieve. Although we have a wide range of options, we are still narrow-minded in our choosing.
According to Manjoo, selective exposure says that "in an effort to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes out of receiving news that challenges our beliefs, we cunningly select the messages we consume" (30). By selectively exposing ourselves to certain sources, we are creating a small comfortable sphere in which we can obtain news that confirms our biases. To me, this idea can be somewhat disturbing. If we are not willing to listen to all sides of an issue, including beliefs that contradict ours, then we are becoming too narrow-minded. Instead, we should be open-minded, and we should take into account all views to get a better and more balance perspective on an issue. In this way, we can better understand other people and the world.
Selective perception says that "even when two people of opposing ideologies overcome their tendency toward selective exposure and choose to watch the same thing, they may still end up being pushed apart from each other" (71). I think that Manjoo provides us with great examples of this concept, from the 9/11 attacks to the Princeton-Dartmouth football game. Like selective exposure, this idea is disturbing, more so especially since both sides are exposed to the same thing. If we cannot perceive the same reality, then it will be harder to understand other people and their views on the same event.
Overall, these concepts show why groups can be fragmented, creating tension and lack of unity. Furthermore, with today's overwhelming amount of news sources and technology, selective exposure and perception is even easier to achieve. Although we have a wide range of options, we are still narrow-minded in our choosing.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Obliteration of Opposition in 1984
George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 recounts the journey of Winston Smith, a man struggling to survive under the oppressive dictatorship of the Party in a country called Oceania. The Party yearns for absolute power, and they utilize psychological manipulation techniques to successfully control the minds and bodies of its citizens. The goal of the members of the Party is domination of all facets of life, from society in general down to the individual mind. By writing this novel, Orwell is warning the world that the danger of the desire for power lies in the strength of psychological manipulation. Through eliminating all outlets of opposition from the sociological level to the personal level, including memories, language, emotions, and intelligence, the Party can eradicate any possible source of rebellion.
The people of Oceania are conditioned to repress any significant cultural and historical memories from the past. The Party even has a specific institution, the Ministry of Truth, which specializes in changing history. With the constant alteration of past events, it becomes literally impossible to distinguish between what was real and what was not. Then, the public has no choice but to believe whatever the Party tells them is the truth. Winston believes that the proles, the common working class of Oceania, are the key to rebellion; however, even they cannot conjure up any meaningful memory that would be destructive to the Party. Throughout the novel, Orwell emphasizes the significance of historical and cultural memories because they threaten absolute power; if some memory can be used against the Party to prove that the actions of the Party were wrong or misleading, then that could be detrimental to their regime. For example, Winston finds a photograph that proves the innocence of three former Party leaders. The photograph “was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known” (81). If the public could have seen this photograph and realized that the Party had explicitly lied to them, then they would have questioned the motives of the Party and lost their allegiance to them. Furthermore, this skepticism could have eventually sparked rebellion. Therefore, because history and culture are seen as such threatening channels of resistance, the Party needs to quell all memories of everyone in society.
Another outlet of opposition, language, is closed off by the Party through the development of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania. Newspeak seeks to repress language through shortening phrases, simplifying words, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The old language of Oceania is threatening to the absolute power of the Party because it allows for freedom of speech, creativity, and expression of new ideas. Orwell stresses the importance of language in this novel because without it, resistance is hopeless. According to Syme, who is working on developing the latest Newspeak dictionary, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect” (54). He tells Winston, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (53). By creating a language in which one is limited in what he or she can say, it will be impossible to defy the Party. Furthermore, the critical period for language development is at a very young age; if children learn Newspeak during this time, then it will be nearly impossible for them to learn any other language later in life. This will assist the Party in creating future generations of acquiescent and loyal subjects that know no other way of expression of thoughts or ideas. It is necessary that the Party create this strict and simplified language so that they can eliminate another major threat to their dictatorship. Overall, manipulating language is another important psychological technique that is essential in reaching absolute power.
While removing the outlets of memory and language pertain to a more sociological level, the Party also reaches down to control the personal emotions and family relationships of the individual. Family bonds and the emotions that result from these bonds are another threat to the Party. If the citizens of Oceania were allowed to have strong familial relationships, then that could serve as a foundation on which to build resistance movements. Also, the Party desires to divide families; they created the Junior Spies League, which encourages children to report any traitorous acts by their parents or relatives. Through organizations like this, the Party creates mistrust amongst families, decreasing any chance of opposition. The Party also condemns any sexual acts, eradicating any sense of intimacy or connection between people. The Party needs to manipulate all relationships so that people cannot bond; otherwise, opposition may form and become stronger through these bonds. Winston represses memories of childhood trauma, which begin to recur in his dreams. He stifles these memories in order to alleviate the suffering he felt towards the disappearance of his family and the shame he felt for having stolen chocolate from his sister. Suppression of these memories is necessary because they would have allowed Winston to feel emotions towards his family; he could have felt upset, angry, and guilty about their sudden and inexplicable disappearance. Possibly, he would have directed these emotions towards the Party, and blamed them for these traumatic events. This situation poses danger to the rule of the Party, and therefore, they must close off this outlet of opposition through repression of emotions and division of families.
The ultimate form of psychological manipulation through the elimination of outlets of resistance is self-repression. By conditioning citizens to repress their own intelligence and minds, the Party can achieve utter control at a completely personal level. Self-repression requires that the individual restrain his or her logic and reason so that he or she does not question the motives or acts of the Party. Like memory, language, and emotion, Orwell shows that intelligence is a major threat to absolute power. Repressing one’s intelligence “needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain” (289). Even though it seems ironic that one needs a certain level of flexibility of the mind to reach stupidity, it is a crucial part of the Party’s rules. The citizens need to rid their minds of any knowledge that will threaten the dictatorship; they need to learn to be ignorant. Besides that, they need to force themselves to believe things that go against their logic. If people can self-repress common sense and believe in absurdities, then they can more easily accept the principles of the Party, transforming them into obedient citizens. Through the ideas of self-repression and escalation of stupidity, Orwell proves that psychological manipulation of one’s mind and intellect contributes to absolute power.
Psychological manipulation is a main theme of 1984 that recurs throughout the book. By cutting off all outlets of resistance on all levels, any person or group can attain total power. This strategy shows that the desire for power by anyone can be extremely dangerous to humanity in general. This concept is applicable to the world at large; for example, psychological control techniques are used to indoctrinate prisoners of war. During the Korean War, the Chinese in North Korea utilized such methods to eliminate any resistance from the American prisoners. By psychologically conditioning people through fear and pain, anyone is susceptible to losing his or her human nature. Orwell’s novel serves as a warning against totalitarian regimes, and creates awareness about the effects of their desire for power.
Work Cited
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949.
The people of Oceania are conditioned to repress any significant cultural and historical memories from the past. The Party even has a specific institution, the Ministry of Truth, which specializes in changing history. With the constant alteration of past events, it becomes literally impossible to distinguish between what was real and what was not. Then, the public has no choice but to believe whatever the Party tells them is the truth. Winston believes that the proles, the common working class of Oceania, are the key to rebellion; however, even they cannot conjure up any meaningful memory that would be destructive to the Party. Throughout the novel, Orwell emphasizes the significance of historical and cultural memories because they threaten absolute power; if some memory can be used against the Party to prove that the actions of the Party were wrong or misleading, then that could be detrimental to their regime. For example, Winston finds a photograph that proves the innocence of three former Party leaders. The photograph “was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known” (81). If the public could have seen this photograph and realized that the Party had explicitly lied to them, then they would have questioned the motives of the Party and lost their allegiance to them. Furthermore, this skepticism could have eventually sparked rebellion. Therefore, because history and culture are seen as such threatening channels of resistance, the Party needs to quell all memories of everyone in society.
Another outlet of opposition, language, is closed off by the Party through the development of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania. Newspeak seeks to repress language through shortening phrases, simplifying words, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The old language of Oceania is threatening to the absolute power of the Party because it allows for freedom of speech, creativity, and expression of new ideas. Orwell stresses the importance of language in this novel because without it, resistance is hopeless. According to Syme, who is working on developing the latest Newspeak dictionary, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect” (54). He tells Winston, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (53). By creating a language in which one is limited in what he or she can say, it will be impossible to defy the Party. Furthermore, the critical period for language development is at a very young age; if children learn Newspeak during this time, then it will be nearly impossible for them to learn any other language later in life. This will assist the Party in creating future generations of acquiescent and loyal subjects that know no other way of expression of thoughts or ideas. It is necessary that the Party create this strict and simplified language so that they can eliminate another major threat to their dictatorship. Overall, manipulating language is another important psychological technique that is essential in reaching absolute power.
While removing the outlets of memory and language pertain to a more sociological level, the Party also reaches down to control the personal emotions and family relationships of the individual. Family bonds and the emotions that result from these bonds are another threat to the Party. If the citizens of Oceania were allowed to have strong familial relationships, then that could serve as a foundation on which to build resistance movements. Also, the Party desires to divide families; they created the Junior Spies League, which encourages children to report any traitorous acts by their parents or relatives. Through organizations like this, the Party creates mistrust amongst families, decreasing any chance of opposition. The Party also condemns any sexual acts, eradicating any sense of intimacy or connection between people. The Party needs to manipulate all relationships so that people cannot bond; otherwise, opposition may form and become stronger through these bonds. Winston represses memories of childhood trauma, which begin to recur in his dreams. He stifles these memories in order to alleviate the suffering he felt towards the disappearance of his family and the shame he felt for having stolen chocolate from his sister. Suppression of these memories is necessary because they would have allowed Winston to feel emotions towards his family; he could have felt upset, angry, and guilty about their sudden and inexplicable disappearance. Possibly, he would have directed these emotions towards the Party, and blamed them for these traumatic events. This situation poses danger to the rule of the Party, and therefore, they must close off this outlet of opposition through repression of emotions and division of families.
The ultimate form of psychological manipulation through the elimination of outlets of resistance is self-repression. By conditioning citizens to repress their own intelligence and minds, the Party can achieve utter control at a completely personal level. Self-repression requires that the individual restrain his or her logic and reason so that he or she does not question the motives or acts of the Party. Like memory, language, and emotion, Orwell shows that intelligence is a major threat to absolute power. Repressing one’s intelligence “needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain” (289). Even though it seems ironic that one needs a certain level of flexibility of the mind to reach stupidity, it is a crucial part of the Party’s rules. The citizens need to rid their minds of any knowledge that will threaten the dictatorship; they need to learn to be ignorant. Besides that, they need to force themselves to believe things that go against their logic. If people can self-repress common sense and believe in absurdities, then they can more easily accept the principles of the Party, transforming them into obedient citizens. Through the ideas of self-repression and escalation of stupidity, Orwell proves that psychological manipulation of one’s mind and intellect contributes to absolute power.
Psychological manipulation is a main theme of 1984 that recurs throughout the book. By cutting off all outlets of resistance on all levels, any person or group can attain total power. This strategy shows that the desire for power by anyone can be extremely dangerous to humanity in general. This concept is applicable to the world at large; for example, psychological control techniques are used to indoctrinate prisoners of war. During the Korean War, the Chinese in North Korea utilized such methods to eliminate any resistance from the American prisoners. By psychologically conditioning people through fear and pain, anyone is susceptible to losing his or her human nature. Orwell’s novel serves as a warning against totalitarian regimes, and creates awareness about the effects of their desire for power.
Work Cited
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)