Closing Remarks...

So, it’s been quite the five weeks since our pop culture course began. So much has happened between the break up of Jon and Kate and the death of so many media figures in such a short span of time. When I teach this course, because I rely so much on what is going on in the world of pop culture, I never know where things will lead us. It’s been quite the adventure during this short summer semester. With the death of four media figures in the course of five days, it has given me pause to consider my own mortality. That’s one of the ways in which pop culture works: we use what the culture gives us in order to make determinations about our own thinking and perhaps beliefs. I have argued that pop culture comes at us with such frequency that we don’t have time to savoir any one instant and therefore the effects are not long lasting. In a sense that’s a shame, because pop culture could work toward the public good, especially given the amount of time we spend with pop culture each day. I have also argued that one of the stresses we feel in contemporary American society is derived from the competing ideas that are thrust at us through pop culture. Simply put: pop culture overwhelms us. It has been my hope that during this shortened summer version of the course that you have become more conscious of the role that pop culture plays in your life, as it has been one of the goals of the course to raise your awareness about pop culture, something we take for granted. And, although we have had only a short time to process a lot of material, I hope that as you move forward in your life that there will be instances that will remind you of some of the ideas, issues and theories you have learned in this course.

The Thriller is gone

I guess you can’t write a blog titled Imaginary Worlds without considering the untimely death of pop legend Michael Jackson and the many many people who had an imaginary social relationship with him. Imaginary social relations are relationships with media figures we don’t actually know, but with whom we feel an emotional closeness or perhaps toward whom we feel an emotional repulsion. Moreover, these media figures play important roles in our lives: mentors, friends, lovers, father or mother figures, among others. The degree and nature of one’s imaginary social relationship with Michael Jackson probably depends on your age. Students in this class do not remember a time when there was no MTV. And for those who are younger than twenty, you cannot remember a time when Michael Jackson was not embroiled in some controversy. If you are older, let’s say in your thirties, then you might remember Michael Jackson and his brothers at the beginning of their careers. The video above represents a seminal moment when Michael Jackson introduced the "moonwalk" during a performance of Billy Jean at the Motown 25th Anniversary Show. There is no question that his career has been a long one and that he impacted people in different ways. How did he impact you?

The King of Pop Culture is dead and I don't mean Michael Jackson

It’s been quite the weekend in Pop Cultureland. First it was Farah Fawcett who died of a dreaded illness, then the shock of Michael Jackson’s untimely passing, and now the unexpected death of Billy Mays. Billy Mays you ask? Oh come now. You may not recognize the name, but you know Billy Mays. At least you know his work. Billy Mays did infomercials for OxiClean and OrangeGlo among other products. He died Sunday of unknown causes. What is going to happen to the world of infomercials now? Will the Shamwow guy, Vince Shlomi, become the pre-eminent pitchman in America? Or, is Billy Mays, like Michael Jackson and Farah Fawcett simply irreplaceable?

Reality TV Teaches Nothing

Along with the story about protesters of the Iran election, the other big news this week was the announcement Monday that the Goslins have filed for divorce. I don’t watch the program, but on Monday I felt I had to be part of this “history.” And, TBS the cable station on which the program Jon and Kate Plus Eight airs milked it for all it’s worth. But this is not the first time a reality TV couple decided to divorce in the midst or as a result of their TV experience. What some people refer to as the very first reality program, The American Family, aired on PBS in 1973. The Louds, who were the featured family on this program that was based on 300 hours of filming, met the same fate. Yes, reality TV of this sub-genre has been around for quite a long time. I guess there are some lessons that we never learn: the Louds should have served as a warning to Jon and Kate – excessive exposure on TV leads to divorce. Or, would they have gotten a divorce anyway? Frankly, it doesn’t matter, because this played out before viewers—and there were 10 million of them (a huge audience by cable standards)—who once again witnessed the demise of an American family. The program has gone on hiatus until August, but you better believe the culture will be churning this story for quite a while. Which leads me to the point of this blog: I don’t think we ever learn life lessons from watching TV. I think that TV sends us a lot of signals about what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. But I don’t think those messages stick. Like a greased pick, they’re hard to hold on to. Perhaps this is because there are so many competing messages out there. Perhaps this is because we watch TV with half our attention. Regardless, the Louds had very little long-term impact on the culture, and the Goslins will do the same. It’s a shame. There’s a lot at stake, not only for this family, which God help them, have eight kids to raise (the point of appearing on the program, I think, was to help pay for their college educations), but watching this program made me feel bad, not just for the Goslins, but for all of us. You would think that more than 30 years since the first reality program destroyed a family that someone would have learned a lesson, but I guess not. We are still going around the same circle; churning the same story with, of course, variations. One point of note: the Louds’ son Lance “came out” on the program, which didn’t play well with his father. Remember, this was 1973. So, this time it’s eight children whose lives are being affected. This is serious stuff. I just hope, this time, someone learns something from the experience. Otherwise, all of this will have been for naught, just to keep the entertainment wheel spinning.

Politics, Twitter and Pop Culture

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For a while now I’ve been trying to understand the purpose of Twitter, the social networking tool that limits communication to 140 characters. In an earlier blog post I confessed to following Lance Armstrong the cancer survivor and elite bicycle racer on Twitter. And, I’ve recently learned that the Dell computer corporation has been able to “monetize” their presence on Twitter by offering coupons for their products. But I never imagined that Twitter, along with Facebook and blog sites would become a major factor in international politics. Case in point: the recent elections in Iran whose outcome, as I write this, is being protested, not just in the streets, but—you guessed it—on Twitter and Facebook. As the government of Iran began to crack down on conventional journalists wielding their video cameras, those journalists took to their cell phones to send video messages to TV networks. As communication is tightened, ordinary citizens are taking to social networking software to communicate with each other—to plan protest tactics—and to communicate with the rest of the world. This may not be the second Iranian revolution, but it certainly represents a revolution in the use of social networking technology via the Web. This is significant, I think, because this particular use of Twitter and Facebook lend much credibility to these social networking sites that they did not previously have. We kind of took Twitter and Facebook for granted. And, in the case of Twitter, I really couldn’t figure out its purpose. I want to say that this is a totally cool development. But to use the term “cool” diminishes the importance of this moment. Now matter what the outcome—and I think we know what it’s going to be—things will never be the same. Social networking tools will become elevated in stature and will gain an important footing on the world stage in politics, entertainment and beyond.

How your Facebook is Linked In to your Twitter

At the urging of one of my colleagues, I set up an account on LinkedIn, which if you don’t know is a social networking site for professionals. Unlike Facebook, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, it’s not about friends, but rather it’s about business relationships or friends or both, maybe. It's confusing. By the way, I don’t have a Facebook account out of respect for students. I’m old school in that I still think, despite the recent trends among older individuals establishing Facebook accounts, that Facebook is the domain of college students, and I don’t want to inhabit that world or inhibit anyone's behavior. In other words, I don’t want to be your "friend," to put it bluntly. Hey, I’m operating out of respect for our social differences. And, that’s really the point of this blog post. It seems to me that the hierarchical lines that separated us—despite my desire to hang on to them--no longer seem to exist, at least not on the Internet. You know what they say: so goes the Internet, goes the rest of the world. When a couple of students recently tried to “link” with me on LinkedIn, I didn’t quite know what to do. After all, they are neither my friends, nor are they my professional colleagues. At the same time, I didn’t want to offend them, so I simply didn’t respond the requests. To this day, their invitations sit waiting for me to respond. I feel guilty; well, a little guilty. But I’m confused. Where do we draw the lines? Who is a friend? Who is a colleague? Who is superior? Who is inferior? Who is laterally related, socially speaking? These questions are compounded by my guilty pleasure of following the bicycle racer and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong on Twitter. I can’t believe I do that, but I have to admit to having an “imaginary social relationship” with LA. So, I check out what he’s saying regularly; not everyday or every hour. Although when the Tour de France begins in a few weeks, I’ll certainly be doing just that, getting his take on the Tour. I’m not a “follower” which is a formal category on Twitter. I’m merely a lurker. What does that make me? I’m curious to learn what you think about this phenomenon. Do you follow Ashton Kutcher on Twitter? Have you attempted to “friend” a celeb on Facebook? And, what about those other hierarchical relationships between family, and teachers, among others? Are we all equal in the world of the Internet?

Life Lessons From Jon and Kate Plus Eight

Popular culture is one of the means by which we negotiate our way through everyday life. By negotiate, I mean we come to understand the world and our place in it by processing the content of pop culture. Take for example Jon and Kate Plus 8, the reality TV program. It’s not just a simple short-lived television program as it has taken on a life of its own through the extended coverage the family has received in newspapers, magazines, Blogsites, websites, and other media that has become part of the public discourse regarding marriage, child-rearing, economics of the family, among other topics. We can also see this show as the site of a cultural and now a legal struggle; the latter refers to the question as to whether or not the appearance of the eight kids on the program is against Pennsylvania’s child employment laws. Beyond this legal issue are the cultural issues regarding what is right and wrong, what is moral or immoral in the context of contemporary family relationships. First, there are the “signals” that the family sends us. In the case of Jon, he was spotted leaving a bar at 2 a.m. with a woman other than his wife. That’s a clear signal of infidelity. But what are we, the consumers of this pop culture pablum, to do with that? In other words, how do we process this information both internally, through the thoughts we have, and through the social interaction we have with others in which we talk about the program and share our thoughts in order to reach or not reach consensus. It is in this way that Jon and Kate Plus Eight helps us make sense of the world in which we live. Yes, popular culture is a sense making mechanism that has replaced other means by which we would have in the past made sense of our lives. But because we live disparate lives that have fewer institutional connections, and because we consumer an awful lot of media, pop culture has become a replacement for traditional venues of public discourse. I’m not suggesting this is either a good or bad phenomenon; I merely want to point out a role that pop culture plays in our lives about which you may not have been fully aware – pop culture is a way that we make sense of the world.

A Reunion of sorts

I attended a reunion this past Thursday. No, it wasn’t my high school or college reunion; I would never go to one of those. It was a reunion with the characters from ER, which aired its last episode after fifteen years of being on the air. That’s a long run for any television program, and it is evidence of the continuity that media can provide in a culture that is somewhat volatile. I may not be able to count on my job, government, or relationships, but I could—for the past fifteen years—count on ER being there for me. The continuity of programs such as this provide opportunities to establish imaginary social relationships with the program’s characters. I cannot express how good it felt to see Dr. Carter after all these years (I wondered what had happened to him), and all the other characters from ER I grew over a period of years to know (or at least I thought I did). I haven’t seen the program in quite some time, as I lost interest after the story lines became over-exaggerated (a sign of weak writing in my opinion – hint Grey’s Anatomy). But when I heard that NBC was airing the last episode on Thursday, I just had to watch. I even watched the pre-show in which characters and the producers spoke about the meaning of the program. I think this kind of event provides an opportunity for collective mourning – it is experienced as a loss by fans. I have characterized the loss elsewhere as being more like the loss of a pet then the loss of a close relative. Nevertheless, it is experienced as a loss. Going forward, there will be fewer opportunities to mourn our long held imaginary relationships as not many programs currently being aired provide the opportunity for deep engagement. I mean, are you really going to miss the characters on Survivor when it no long is aired? You can name any reality program you choose and apply the same logic. Okay, The Real World which has been on for a very long time, might be an exception. However, except for a couple of iconic characters, as the cast changed with every season, there was little opportunity to develop the kind of deep engagement that makes for an imaginary social relationship. The dramatic program Lost will not have the longevity of an ER. So, if you bond with one of the characters, the level of engagement will not be deep. Television content has become fleeting as ratings, not quality of writing, drive the medium. And, it’s a losing battle in a highly fragmented media landscape. Jay Leno, who will be moving from his late night slot, will fill ER’s time slot this fall. Yes, Jay Leno is an iconic figure for which many people have developed a para-social relationship. My point, however, is the 10 p.m. time slot is being filled not by a drama that over time develops characters whose dimensions we learn to admire, perhaps love. The media world, to me, is becoming volatile just like other institutions in our society. I yearn for long-running series in which I can find characters to identify with, characters I can admire, and characters I can learn from. It’s ironic, perhaps, how a superficial medium like television can provide a forum in which we can develop deep and abiding relationships. As television transforms into something else, we will have the opportunity to mourn, not just its content, but the loss of the medium itself.

Who loves ya baby? Celebrities, that who.

My sister-in-law is a professor at a medical school, and during a conversation she lamented that medical students were dressing like they were on television programs: men wearing scrubs instead of traditional lab coats; and women wearing more provocative clothing than they had in the past. She spoke to me about it, because she thought there might be a connection to popular culture. Indeed there does seem to be some modeling going on between characters on television and young doctors. So I wasn’t surprised when I read the abc12.com celebrity blog about this very phenomenon. The blog post confirmed what my sister-in-law and I had been speaking about: medical schools are concerned about where doctors in training learn about their profession. Some informal learning comes from Grey’s Anatomy, ER and other medically oriented programs. But it goes beyond those likely culprits as other programs, like Law and Order often feature medical situations. Oh, and the problem isn’t isolated to breaking dress codes, medical students also learn about intubation and CPR from medical programs. On the one hand it makes sense that medical students would enjoy medically oriented entertainment. And, modeling behavior is nothing new when it comes to popular culture, as much of the academic literature has focused on the transference of violent behavior from the screen to actual life situations. The kind of modeling these young doctors are performing relates, I think, to the concept of imaginary social relationships. In this case the young doctors see idealized images of media figures that over-time they learn to be like. It is a form of admiration that makes sense for students who do not yet know how to behave and how to look like a physician. What makes it interesting is that formerly medical students would have obtained this information from medical professors and others in the field with which they would have contact. The fact that the influence is from television makes this phenomenon all the more interesting. This is not the first time this has happened. I can remember what was called the Kojak effect, so named for a nattily dressed police detective named Kojak. As a result of his popularity among police detectives many began to dress in suits and ties, like Kojak, instead of the normal police uniform. Media figures model behavior and we sometimes adopt it. I guess you could count the popularity of former Friends star Jennifer Aniston’s hairstyle that swept the nation after she appeared on many magazine covers. Or, the “Be like Mike” advertising campaign where youngsters were beckoned to become like their favorite basketball player. To be like a media figure or to dress like a media figure suggests a greater role for celebrities than they perhaps had in the past. In the past it would have been parents or other relatives, teachers, civic leaders, among others who would have been our role models and major influences. Today, in our media saturated world, it is celebrities and the characters they play on television and in movies that provide such modeling. I have to tell you though, the next time one of my doctors starts acting like the ones on Scrubs, I outta there!

Pop culture brings stability to our otherwise unstable world

I’ve been thinking about the construct of stability and instability, as this comes up at a time when I usually ask students whether or not they perceive their world to be stable or not. But given the current economic situation and the elusive job market they will be chasing, I think I know the answer. But beyond the instability of the economy, what about the physical world itself? Fires in California. Volcanoes erupting. Glacial melting. Rising sea levels. The list goes on. And what about the stability of society? Relationships seem like a temporary thing, or virtual (if you count your seven hundred friends on Facebook). Oh well, you get the picture. The world is not a very stable place. But we (humans) need stability in our lives; we seek stability in our lives. This is where pop culture enters into the picture. You know the world may not be a particularly stable place but on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, for sure, American Idol will be on television. I may not be able to trust the world around me, but I can trust that pop culture will be there routinely – I can count on it. And so, we develop media rituals around pop culture and technology that lend stability to our lives: you wake up to your cell phone or music on your Ipod; you immediately check out PerezHilton.com or Facebook to see what’s going on in the world (your world) of gossip; you turn on The Today Show (as I do) or one of the other morning programs; read the newspaper (I know you don’t do this, but I read two every morning); listen to music on your Ipod on the way to campus. You see where I’m going with this – we use pop culture in order to develop routines in our everyday lives that ultimately provide a sense of stability in an otherwise unstable world. Did you ever think that pop culture could play such a vital role in our lives? Furthermore, we utilize what pop culture provides to make sense of our world. The tragic loss of actress Natasha Richardson reminded us that life could be extinguished in a moment. Pop culture. We don’t think much of it, but it’s really important in a post-modern world such as ours.

Why can't we advertise our way out of the recession?

If advertising worked the way many people seem to think it works, then why can’t we advertise our way out of this recession? Over the years, advertising has been given such a bad name for being manipulative and highly persuasive. If there is any basis for such claims, then surely it has the power to manipulate and persuade people to consume, even under these present circumstances. But instead of going after us consumers, according to a March 11 article in The Wall Street Journal, advertisers are going after each other. The article refers to a style of advertising called “comparative advertising” in which one advertiser utilizes some piece of data in order to claim superiority for their product or brand. The Pepsi Challenge is a good example of comparative advertising. The article refers to the ways in which advertisers utilize misleading or incomplete information to make a claim, like when Campbells attacks Progresso or when Dominos attacks Subway or Pepsi attacks Coke. I guess you could call this attack advertising as one marketer attempts to claim a superior position for the product by directly diminishing an attribute of another. Well, it’s not atypical to attack a competitor’s product, but in many cases it’s done implicitly. In this latest round of comparative advertising, marketers explicitly depict the competitive product along with their own in order to make their point. This type of advertising began around 1978 when the FTC actually began to encourage use of such comparative data. The FTC thought that comparing one product to another would actually clarify differences between products with the net result being that consumers could make more informed decisions. It’s a shame it never turned out that way. I guess when the going gets tough….well, you know the rest. But is this kind of backbiting going to help us out of this recession? Seems to me like a waste of resources based on the serious economic situation at hand. A comparative advertisement may sell one more hamburger, one more bottle of soda and one more can of soup, but brand advertising is usually atmospheric in nature, and as such I think there is greater opportunity to provide an upbeat atmosphere for consumers to encourage them to buy more. I like the ads, for example, from that insurance company that sponsors the “aha moment.” Those commercials feature average individuals who have had an epiphany that changed their lives. Very uplifting. I hope others join this bandwagon. Because if advertising works the way many people think it works, it could be of great public assistance to brighten our lives and affect our attitudes toward a more positive outlook. Do I think it works this way? Not a chance. But under the circumstances, even I think it’s worth a try.

Tattoos and the Commodification of Self

It is perhaps ironic that we just finished a class discussion on tattoos as a means to “mark” one’s identity both physically and metaphorically. This discussion took place in the broader discussion regarding fashion and identity. Tattooing is an art form. Tattooing is a fashion statement. Getting a tattoo is a significant act imbued with all sorts of meaning. It’s not cheap either. I brought up a point that I think was difficult at that time to digest: the idea that young people mark their bodies because they do not feel they are likely to leave a mark on this world. The tattoo is permanently yours, no one can take it away from you, and it is something you’ll likely die with (although we acknowledge the possibility of laser removal). When I said that young people feel they will not likely make a mark on this world, one student was able to clarify better than I what this might mean: she referred to a friend at a large university who was known only by his student number. Yes, we live with growing anonymity in this postmodern world where identity is shape shifting on what seems a constant basis: who I am in class is not who I am at my internship, etc. etc.

Tattooing is a way of temporarily fixing identity, of grounding it in something that is physical – you can look at it, although often times we hide tattoos from others, and it is meaningful; quite meaningful we learned as people get tattoos to mark moments in time (travel abroad), as a statement of belief, in memory of someone lost, among other reasons. Of course, once you have one tattoo, you have to get another one, because that is the only way one can create “difference” and in that individuality. The more anonymity grips us, the more we grope for difference. The New York Times (2/18/09) reports on the phenomenon of renting one’s body as a commercial billboard, in this case with a temporary henna tattoo advertising Air New Zealand. This strikes me as interesting, first because I’ve read about this in the past. Indeed a few years ago I read of a woman who offered to rent her bulging pregnant belly to an advertiser. And another young man offered to rent his forehead for a commercial message.

This commodification of the body seems to me to represent the final blow to the tattoo trend, LA Ink notwithstanding. Here I mean to reflect another point that came out of our discussion: that tattooing isn’t as popular with Gen Y as it was with members of Gen X. Trends are like that, eventually they all get flushed through the system. But that doesn’t mean that this current generation of teens and young adults has found an antidote for social instability, of which I think the recent tattoo trend is emblematic. Rather, there may be greater significance to renting out one’s body to an advertiser: it may mean that the commodified body is one that is totally devoid of personal meaning. It may be the ultimate statement of anonymity. To give one’s self up to a corporation renders the body meaningless (George Orwell, where are you when we need you!). When I think of this state of affairs it saddens me until I realize that culture is dynamic, and another trend will ultimately replace this one. What the next generation of youngsters will move on to is anybody’s guess. But how they will deal with a society that increasingly treats them as a number and not a person is another matter entirely.

Celebrity apologia: Springsteen, A-Rod, Phelps say I’m sorry

Blender Burner: Springsteen: Hard to Be a Saint in the Rock & Roll City @ Yahoo! Video

The fan-celebrity relationship is a complex one, especially so in an age of instant communication: A celebrity driving drunk on Santa Monica Blvd. crashes into another vehicle and the video is quickly available on TMZ.com. The information about celebrities’ comings and goings is the stock and trade of Perez Hilton, whose website for many of my students is the first one they go to upon waking each morning. Celebrity gossip fuels our very being, it would seem. At the same time, such relationships—imaginary as they are—are dynamic; subject to negotiation. That is why marketers are so fearful of celebrity spokespeople to the point that several marketers have opted in recent years to employ the images of dead celebrities, including Steve McQueen, Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, and Audrey Hepburn, among others, in their advertising campaigns.

This has been a banner week or two for celebrity gossip mongers: Chris Brown allegedly beats up Rihanna, Phelps' photo appears in a British tabloid with lips pressed to a bong, and A-Rod admits using banned substances. And, I don’t want to leave out Bruce Springsteen, champion of the working-class union worker, who apologies for two things: first, for the exclusive deal he made with Wal-Mart to sell a greatest hits CD (Wal-Mart is not known for its union friendly policies); and, many fans who wanted to obtain tickets to his upcoming concert tour were, upon learning that a concert was sold out, were re-directed to a ticket re-seller (use to be called scalper) who offered tickets at a much higher price.

All of this not only gives us pause to think, it requires that we invest a lot of energy in making up our own mind regarding the behavior of these media figures - good or bad, right or wrong. One could suggest that it is time wasted, but I am suggesting that it is through the processing of these kinds of instances they we make sense of our world, where we find common ground with others, and in the process seek terra firma – solid ground upon which to stand our values. That is the way pop culture works and the work we do with it. It requires a lot for us to stay engaged in this system. I guess that’s why my students upon waking go directly to the Perez Hilton web site.

The dictionary defines the word fanatic as someone “marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.”

The question remains: will Chris Brown’s fans abandon him, or will people shun Michael Phelps because of his substance abuse, or will fans stop attending Yankee games because they think A-Rod is a fake? We’ll have to pay attention as fans negotiate their relationship with each of these media figures. As for Springsteen, if you’re a devoted fan, are you really not going to go into a Wal-Mart to purchase the CD if you really want it? John Fiske, the cultural theorist, said that pop culture is contradictory to its core. As the fan-celebrity relationship is part of that complex system, so are we.

Kellogg’s to Michael Phelps: We’re just not that into you!

Michael Phelps brought this on himself; that’s what the blogosphere seems to be suggesting. As one blogger bluntly put it – “he’s an idiot.” It is through such public and private expressions that we make sense of our world, and since we learn about such events through popular culture, this is an opportunity to discuss the role that pop culture—not Michael Phelps—plays in our lives. The public criticism of Michael Phelps centers on his alleged use of an illegal substance while being a role model for young people all over the world. Some defenders of his actions assign them to mere immaturity and they offer forgiveness. Then there are those, like the blogger quoted above, who publicly want to chastise him. There are middle positions that condemn his actions, but want to forgive him because of his youth. That’s the way pop culture works – it gives us one or perhaps several versions of a story and then we measure them against our own beliefs. Of course there has to be salience and above all else relevance in order for this process to ensue. It is through that “measuring” process that we do the work of culture – producing meaning in order to make sense of the world in which we live. In that way pop culture is a sense making mechanism. We sometimes discuss situations like this one with people we actually know through what I would call authentic relationships, and sometimes our conversations extend to social networks, primarily over the Internet, which I would call virtual relationships. But there are internal musings as well – we talk to ourselves about Michael Phelps – a kind of running commentary inside our head; I call this the imaginary social world. It is the combination of the three that extends the nature of what we call reality. There is authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and an imaginary world that mimics both the authentic and inauthentic worlds. We readily acknowledge the former, and we reluctantly admit to the inauthentic, which might be represented by the hundreds of pseudo-friends you have on Facebook. But we rarely admit to the third. It is from the label imaginary social world that this blog gets its title, and it is that world in which I’m most interested, if for no other reason than the fact that action-oriented Western culture holds the imaginary world in disdain. Westerners don’t like to recognize this inner world because it encompasses thought in the form of self-talk, daydreams, and nocturnal dreams. These are aspects of everyday American life in which we are engaged, but go against the grain of being a productive citizen. Nevertheless, we spend an inordinate amount of time in the imaginary social world making sense of our authentic reality.

Digital Media Rights: Who Owns What?

Copyright infringement and pop culture is something we don’t think much about in this day and age of forgery and fakery. The latest issue comes from the use by street artist Shepard Fairey(I first learned about Fairey when he appeared on a recent Colbert Report.) who designed a poster with an image of President Barak Obama “owned” by an Associated Press photographer. The Associated Press says in news articles that it wants to be compensated for the use of the photograph, and it wants to be credited with taking the original photograph on which this Fairey’s artwork is based. In other words, AP is charging copyright infringement. The stylized image of Obama has been described as Warholesque, referring to the late pop artist Andy Warhol. Which made me think of Warhol’s use of those Campbell soup cans in a series of art works he created. Weren’t those soup can images owned by Campbell. Turns out, the answer is yes. Campbell’s did sue Warhol for copyright infringement. However, they garnered so much free publicity from the artistic rendering of the soup can, they eventually dropped the lawsuit.

In this present age of “cut and paste,” it’s becoming more difficult to know where the lines are drawn. In other words, when it comes to intellectual property, we are no longer certain what is legal to reproduce and what is not. Perhaps if Fairey didn’t sell the images he created, there wouldn’t be much ado about this, but because commerce is involved, and I don’t want to underestimate the rights issue here, AP seems to have a legitimate gripe. Whether they will go the Campbell’s route—feasting on the publicity—I don’t know. With digital images so readily available over the Internet, law professors with an interest in copyright are very busy these days. The legal concept of fair use does not grant absolute right to the originator of the intellectual property. The extent of those rights depends on how the original work is utilized, among other things. In the case of the Fairey work, use extends beyond the Obama campaign poster to a book cover, art exhibit, and to a permanent display at the National Portrait Gallery in D.C.

From my initial readings on the issue, I don’t think AP is going to go after Fairey in court; street artists rarely are worth suing. But the point AP is making has to be taken seriously, and should remind us that what seems “free” over the Internet may actually be someone’s property.

I'm Good. You're Good. We're all Good

Okay, so comedic violence is nothing new. Think about the merging of Greek tragedy and Greek comedy. In contemporary society, there is no shortage of it. Although the late communication scholar George Gerbner spent much of his life researching media violence by counting the number of violent acts in television programs, as early as the 1970s he gave into the demand of CBS to eliminate the category of comedic violence from his studies. The network's position was that to include acts of comedic violence with, well, regular violence would drive the number of violent acts exorbitantly high.

Now for the pause that refreshes…an assessment of this year's Super Bowl commercials. In particular, I’m interested in the commercial for Pepsi Max. (I know I take this stuff way too seriously, but some one has to. And, I know my analysis of commercials sucks all the fun out of watching them, but so be it - that's my role in life.) So, what's up with the Pepsi Max spot, titled "I'm Good," that joins the long list of advertisements -- Super Bowl and otherwise -- that attack masculinity?



As you can see for yourself, the spot goes through a series of vignettes: the first one features a guy being hit in the back with a length of wood that is spit out of a planner, in reaction to which he declares "I'm good," meaning he's okay, even though a two-by-four just hit him in the lower back at twenty mph. This is followed by a golfer who in the process of teeing off swings and hits his golfing buddy both with the back and forward stroke of his driver. Then a bowler drops a ball on the head of his bowling buddy, and a passenger stands up through the sunroof of a limousine, declaring "I'm the man..." while being struck by the low abutment of a parking garage the limo is entering. After each of these sequences the object of the "comedic violence" declares to his buds, "I'm good." The last scene depicts several guys doing electric work on a house. One fellow sticks his hand into an outdoor light socket as another switches on the electricity. The guy with his hand in the socket goes flying through the air for about 30 feet until he hits a trailer parked on the property, and upon landing also declares, "I'm good." The voice over at this point boldly states: "Men can take anything, except the taste of diet cola...until now." Of course Pepsi Max is offered as a solution to this problem. The announcer then says that Pepsi Max is the first diet cola for men. Isn't that nice? A diet cola just for men; men who can take anything, that is, except the taste of diet cola. All in good fun, until you focus on the comedic violence.

Researchers have found that social conditions, like the economic recession we are presently experiencing, encourage people to gravitate toward more violent comedy. Why? According to one study:

“because violence makes comedy harder and angrier, although also satisfying viewers’ authoritarian desire to see those in power discipline transgressors.”

This means people enjoy seeing good guys punish bad guys. In the ad for Pepsi, the guys aren’t necessary good or bad, they’re, well, just guys. So where is the pleasure? The ad, in my opinion, is merely an attack on middle-class values, and part of a continuing attack on masculinity that started in the mid-1990s. I’ve been tracking this trend for several years now, having studied commercials in which guys are caught in public with their pants down, guys depicted as werewolves, and guys depicted as cavemen. In my opinion, the sum total of these advertisements suggests advertisers seek to discipline this target audience in a way that nudges them in the direction of the brand, product or service. I don’t think this trend is connected only to our current economic problems, although I think it is rooted in the economic problems men experienced in the early nineties when many lost their jobs and never were able to regain their status as “breadwinners.” So, rather than blaming this current trend on what I hope will be a relatively short-lived economic downturn, I suggest it is part of a longer term effort by advertisers to contain and control masculinity.

Muti-tasking with multiple media: A way of life

The concept of multi-tasking isn't new. Just ask any homemaker and you'll learn a lot about juggling many tasks at once. And, multi-tasking with media, that is watching TV while eating, for example, isn't terribly new either. That's why in the 50s they called it the TV dinner! What is relatively new, however, is multi-tasking with multiple media. I did a study that you can access here on this topic in 2005 that concluded:

"..eating is the most common activity followed by socializing, doing chores and dressing. Although it is speculative, this may indicate a shift toward more individualized or private consumption of media. One can imagine, for example, an individual alone in their bedroom where the television and computer are likely to be located eating while engaged in multiple media-centered activities. This study found that males are significantly more likely than females to use multiple media and to play video or computer games. However, females are likely to engage in physical activities or write while the television is on. Although there are gender differences regarding particular activities, it may be that both males and females are moving toward more solitary uses of multiple media."

The kind of isolation we experience that I describe in the study was echoed during our class discussion in which several students noted they sit around their dorms with their roommates, each with a laptop and the TV going in the background (sometimes the foreground - my study also delves into the issue of shifting attention back and forth between media). More important, they described a lack of direct communication that takes place between them. In class we expressed a kind of sadness regarding this shift away from the social toward the solitary. Interesting, I think, is that while males and females may engage in different sorts of multi-tasking with multiple media, there is little difference when it comes to the solitary nature of their experience.

What has all this wrought? A review in The Wall Street Journal (1/30/09, p. A11) of a new book, Snark, by David Denby, defines snark as "low, mean, annoying, philistine, dreadful, coarse, lazy, second-rate and slightly unclean language." Remember the snarky dialogue in the movie Juno? Snark is, in my opinion, a kind of short-hand utilized by those within an increasing smaller circle who "get it." From a cultural perspective, you are either "in" or you are "out" of the culture. I raise the specter of possibility that it could become a circle of one. Do I really want to blame the coarseness of our language on multi-tasking with multiple media? Perhaps that's going too far. But does it play a role? Perhaps.

The implications of the social isolation we are experiencing are great. As we lose our ability to speak to one another, social convention and etiquette with regard to social interaction goes by the way-side. What happens to a society that no longer knows how to communicate with one another in a direct manner? As one student in the class noted, there has been a significant increase in multi-tasking with multiple media since she came to college three years ago. It's difficult to imagine where the trend will take us and at what point the system begins to break down, causing some to participate in a backlash in which people begin to actually talk directly to one another, with civility.

image courtesy of: http://www.wordle.net/.

Pre-gaming the Super Bowl Ads

You know what the term pre-gaming refers to, but that's not how I'm using it in this blog post, well, not exactly. I'm using the term pre-gaming in the sense that I believe advertisers are metaphorically trying to make you "drunk" with their ads before the ads air during the upcoming Super Bowl. How are they doing this? In recent years, advertisers have learned to become more efficient with their advertising expenditures. After all, does anyone really think $3 million for a 30 second ad is worth it? Perhaps if you calculate the value based on CPM it may constitute an effective "reach" if the audience is large enough. But exposure does not equal effectiveness, as consumers don't necessarily pay close attention to television advertising, even the Super Bowl ads. My favorite example of this phenomenon relates to the results of the day-after recall surveys that oftentimes indicate that consumers mistake a brand like Tostitos for Doritos, even though it is the latter that is paying the big bucks for the Super Bowl ad. So, how do advertisers defend against this? Extending the relationship beyond exposure to the 30 second TV commercial is one way of engaging the consumer in an experience that I'm calling pre-gaming. The pre-gaming to which I refer to involves multiple opportunities for consumers to deepen their experience with a brand, product or service. Doritos stands out for its consumer generated advertising (CGA) effort. But other corporations, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, are engaging in this tactic: Pedigree dog food, E*Trade, Cars.com, Pepsi's SoBe, and CareerBuilder.com, among others. Opportunities abound this year to engage with the brand on perhaps a deeper level and in a more sustained way.

I attempt to do similar things in my courses: provide experiences that extend our learning community beyond the classroom. Think about the numerous ways we "engage" this semester on Netvibes the course aggregator, the Wetpaint Wiki, and the blog sites. I know students are often distracted during class, this is particularly so when we convene in a computer lab where, instead of focusing on the work at hand, students send email, text-message, and of course, check out their Facebook page. Did I mention day-dreaming? For me, utilizing social software is an attempt--my experiment--to engage students beyond the classroom (the classroom is s-o-o-o 20th Century). Learning through contextual experiences, and participating in simulations are alternative ways to create and maintain a learning community. You'll let me know how well this works in our class by the end of the semester.

The Super Bowl extravaganza takes place in a much shorter time frame, so the intensity and forcefulness of the engagement must be up to the task. I've got a little more time. Advertisers want you to engage with their brand, knowing that 30 seconds isn't enough time to do so. Water-cooler talk that takes place the day after the game (post-gaming) helpful in extending the experience of the brand, but interactive websites, games, contests and other on-line activities are more immersive. In this way education and advertising have something in common: we both want you to pay attention, engage deeply with our content, and learn something as a result of the experience. I hope what I'm doing appeals to a higher cause; marketers just want you to buy a six-pack.

Pre-gaming is a way for consumers to deeply engage with brands, products and services through their interactions on web sites and through social media. For those of you who are considering imbibing alcohol prior to the Super Bowl, I offer this alternative. Pre-game with the brands and all the engaging activities marketers have to offer. Fat chance.

The Intersection of Pop Culture and Economics: Lil' Wayne & AT&T

Often times we look at the economic function of pop culture, but fail to look at the cultural economy, which refers to the ways in which we circulate meanings. The latter is more of a symbolic function. It’s often difficult to separate the cultural from the economic as they have become increasingly intertwined in our postmodern society. For example, we tend to judge the success of a movie based on the revenue it garnered during a particular week or several week period. As such we avoid discussing aesthetics (associated meanings); rather, it’s all about the money. In a capitalist economy, we shouldn’t be surprised by such a close connection between the two: culture and finance. Having said that, aesthetics seems to take a back seat to the economics of pop culture. Perhaps in our contemporary culture it’s too difficult to judge something as good or bad; such concepts seem to have lost their meaning, especially when audiences are so fractured - good for whom and bad for whom? And so when it comes to pop music the connections between culture and commerce run deep. Last week I wrote about Bruce Springsteen’s massive effort to promote his new album. Tonight AT&T and Lil’ Wayne are teaming up to stream live material from his new album. Traditional means of promotion no longer exist (spectacle is the only way to get noticed), and when one company so dominates the radio airwaves, it’s difficult unless approved by the programming committee, for artists to break through the barriers. So pop music becomes integrated into other forms; what we might refer to in pop culture studies as “intertextuality”: a pop song becomes the "bed" in a product commercial.

At first, I thought AT&T and Lil’ Wayne made strange bedfellows, until I remembered that until 2001, AT&T was one of the largest distributors of pornography in the country (In 2001, under pressure, they sold that business to Comcast). Lil’ Wayne is incredibly popular: he’s everywhere it seems. But Lil’ Wayne’s music is coarse by any standards, and he continues a legacy of misogyny. I admit this is my two-generation removed assessment, and so I recognize it doesn’t hold much meaning or significance. I know that many listeners don’t pay attention to the lyrics, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t available for those who want to take a closer look. The song Lillipop, is a good example: rife with language that debases women. If most people don’t listen to the lyrics, does that mean there is no meaning? Perhaps not. I have argued for a while that meaning has given way to something else – experience. And, experience can be meaningful or not. So the question isn’t: is Lil’ Wayne’s music good or bad, but how do you experience that music? We’ve also learned that it isn’t the lyrics themselves that convey meaning, in the case of AT&T, a certain validation comes along with the live webcast of Lil’ Wayne’s new work (what we call "text in context"). One could argue that AT&T’s target audience is one that purchases a lot of wireless service, and so the connection is fitting. But in sponsoring the live streaming performance, the corporation is, again, displaying a certain hegemony over a culture that is rife with contradiction.

Where politics and pop culture meet

Perhaps you saw Bruce Springsteen’s performance on the Mall in D.C. this weekend as the spectacle unfolded surrounding the inauguration of Barak Obama, the 44th president of the United States. The pre-inaugural concert represented a continuing and growing phenomenon: Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, and Beyonce, among others joined an ever-growing interconnection between pop culture and politics (check out the song America's Song by Wil.I.am and David Foster available from Oprah as a free download). For the political part, Springsteen’s presence was a demonstration of his support for working class values. Indeed, such values are consistent with the populist values of our new president. The intersection between President Obama’s political values and Springsteen’s working class values is an easy one to consume. Together their ideas create a hegemonic force that we might expect to filter through the culture. However, culture doesn’t do its work so simply. Once a big idea is put forth, it tends to take on a life of its own. In the process, it is up to individual consumers (the words consumer and citizen have in this postmodern era become somewhat synonymous) to twist and turn such ideas in ways that work within an individual's identity management. What I’m suggesting here is that ideas--political and otherwise--cannot be imposed from above. We participate in the dynamic production of culture. Not to get too romantic about it, but it is empowering to think about the role we as individuals play in the making and remaking culture.

The political presence of Bruce Springsteen is easy to understand, but his role in the pop culture industries is a little more complicated. To the point: in this day of downloading, how does an artist sell CDs? Springsteen has a new album that is going to be released next week. Several pop stars (including Springsteen) have “sold out” to Wal-Mart offering exclusive distribution rights to the retailer. Others have “sold out” to advertisers; in one instance the pop singer Sting appeared in an automobile commercial in order to hawk a new album. Yet others have decided, like Radio Head, to give their music away in hope that, in the long run, they will attract more paying customers.

Springsteen’s appearance at the pre-inauguration ceremonies was part of a managed mega-spectacle in which he will next appear during the half-time show at the Super Bowl, and he will appear on one of the upcoming awards shows, given that one of his songs is featured in the movie, The Wrestler (which, by the way, I enjoyed immensely). In addition, starting in March, he will embark on a tour with his band. It has been reported that his last tour earned over $200 million. B-r-u-c-e is big. And when a pop star is that big, she or he must do something really big in order to command our attention. In this age of inattention, perhaps the only way to “break through the clutter,” as they say in advertising, is to create spectacles or participate in spectacles that are so large, we cannot turn away. In this way, at least as pop music goes, Springsteen is a hegemonic force. Personally, I don’t buy working-class ideologies from a guy worth millions of dollars. I guess that makes me a counter-hegemonic force, although that may be a bit grandiose on my part. This blog post did, however, give me the opportunity to work in some terms we’ve been discussing in class.

High Culture/Pop Culture: Who cares about the difference?

I’ve been humming the tune to Samuel Barber’s symphonic piece Adagio for strings, which features a haunting melody. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra performs the version I have on my IPod, and if I wanted to see the piece performed, I would likely attend a concert at a symphony hall. Symphony halls, historically, are not exactly what we might think of as a pop culture venue. Indeed, one would likely assign Samuel Barber’s symphonic piece to the level of high culture. But wait a minute, as I imagine the music, I could overlay the images of the Baltimore Ravens losing to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC division playoffs. But really, if you are a fan of Vietnam War era movies, you might recognize the piece from Oliver Stone's movie, Platoon. I will never forget the images of William Defoe’s bullet riddled body collapsing to the haunting melody of Adagio. Well, movies aren't high culture, they’re pop culture. So what happens when high culture becomes pop culture? I’m reminded of Aaron Copeland’s modern symphonic piece Rodeo that I also have on my IPod. But you might recognize part of that piece of classical music, Hoedown, from the “What’s for Dinner: Beef” commercial. Again, the use of classical music in a television commercial represents the melding of high culture and pop culture. Have you ever seen paintings by Andy Warhol? You know, the ones with the Campbell soup cans. Historically, fine art would have been associated with high art and therefore high culture. So, what happens when fine art is mixed with pop culture, as is the case with an Andy Warhol painting? The mixing of high and pop is a function of our post-modern existence where the lines of difference are blurred, in this case, rendering the difference between high and pop meaningless. The cultural studies approach we take in this course is less concerned with “High” (literary, elitist) and “low” (trashy, banal) culture distinctions. Rather the approach we take does not prejudice one “text” as better (high) or worse (low) than another. Lack of concern for such differences allows us to focus on other things: the social production and reproduction of media content (what we as consumers do with media content and how we reintegrate it into our everyday lives). Furthermore, we are concerned with power and the struggle against that power (resistance) evident in media content and expressed by users of media content. That’s why race, gender, class, ethnicity and national strata are important to the study of pop culture.

If I were a boy...

I haven’t blogged on this site for quite some time, however, that doesn’t mean I haven’t been blogging. I just went underground, or more to the point, I confined my blogging to the Blackboard website we utilize in my pop culture course. I’ve decided to hand over that blog to students in the pop culture class, and I will return to blogging on this site. So, I’ve been thinking about what I want to write about as I reintroduce this blog. Because of my interest in gender studies—in particular my research on masculine gender identity—I could not help being struck by the gender issues addressed in Beyonce’s new song “If I were a boy.” Indeed the title is quite telling as it is based on a contradiction: Beyonce physically cannot be a boy (well, that’s not wholly true, I know). But for all intent and purpose what she demonstrates by declaring, “If I were a boy,” is empathy for the “other.” This reminds me of a totally unrelated song by Shania Twain – “Man, I feel like a Woman.” Empathy is traditionally a feminine trait, and so the song sets up the listener (or reader of the lyrics) to see what deconstructionists refer to as a binary opposition: women are empathic/men are stoic. It is the space between these two variables—empathy and stoicism—that culture does it work. You can check out the full set of lyrics on any number of web sites. Below, I go over them and provide my considered opinion of what I think they mean. I fully recognize that meanings are variable, and so I expect that you (the reader) may interpret the lyrics differently. That difference, hopefully, will become the point of discussion:

When Beyonce begins the song she declares, “If I were a boy…Even just for a day,” she is pointing out that her voyage into gender switching is temporary. She can, however, walk—metaphorically speaking—in a boy’s shoes. In this way she demonstrate her ability to empathize—if only for a short period of time—with the “other.” By raising the point about being a boy or acting like a boy, if only for a day, opens up the question: what does it mean to be a boy? Implicit in that question is a further one: What does it mean to be a man? The difference between the two is where the cultural play begins. What’s the listener—at least the one that’s paying attention to the lyrics (and I readily admit few people do)--to do?

So, when Beyonce continues to sing, “I’d roll outta bed in the morning…And throw on what I wanted then go” she is suggesting that boys don’t have to take responsibility: they can wear what they want; and, they don’t have to please anyone else. She continues this line of thinking when she sings, “Drink beer with the guys,” which is a hallmark of masculinity – (not just the beer drinking, I’m referring to camaraderie). Take away camaraderie from men and they are like isolated animals.

Boys are socially powerful, as Beyonce sings: “And chase after girls…I’d kick it with who I wanted…” This suggests that boys can be the aggressor. Implied in this binary is that girls are passive participants as it is boys who get to “kick it.” Furthermore, the line, “And I’d never get confronted for it. Cause they’d stick up for me” indicates that boys can “hook up” without responsibility and boys are unimpeded due to the protection and camaraderie of other guys.

So, in the chorus, when Beyonce sings, “If I were a boy…I think I could understand…How it feels to love a girl…I swear I’d be a better man,” she is positioning herself as one who understands relationships – a characteristic that is traditionally feminine. Also, to “be a better man” also means, not to be a boy. We, again, see that binary: boys (irresponsible) vs. men (responsible). This is echoed in the next refrain: “I’d listen to her…Cause I know how it hurts…When you lose the one you wanted…Cause he’s taken you for granted…And everything you had got destroyed.” Simply put, what it means to be a man, in Beyonce’s view, is to be empathic. In other words, men have to operate within traditional feminine boundaries; otherwise they are acting like boys.

The song continues….”If I were a boy, I could turn off my phone. Tell everyone it’s broken, So they’d think that I was sleepin’ alone. I’d put myself first. And make the rules as I go. Cause I know that she’d be faithful. Waitin’ for me to come home (to come home).” In this verse Beyonce describes how the “boy” may seek the camaraderie and protection of others, but a man will jettison himself from the pack. In isolation, the man can act responsibly, in this case offering empathy and staying faithful.

In this verse the boy has crossed her: “It’s a little too late for you to come back. Say it’s just a mistake. Think I’d forgive you like that. If you thought I would wait for you. You thought wrong. And, Beyonce is not in a forgiving mood. Perhaps there’s too much social and psychological pressure for the boy to act like a man. So, Beyonce then laments in the chorus: “But you’re just a boy. You don’t understand.” This confirms her belief that boys will be boys. And, this position is amplified when she declares, “Yeah you don’t understand…How it feels to love a girl someday,” that as she stated at the beginning of the song, boys lack the ability to be empathic.

We’re not sure when Beyonce sings, “You wish you were a better man” whether she believes the “boy” can indeed be a man or whether she concedes that, as I said before, boys will be boys. We also might raise the question what does it mean to be a better mean? What does it mean to be a lesser man? Is a lesser man a boy?

Beyonce is confirming her original position when she declares: “You don’t listen to her. You don’t care how it hurts. Until you lose the one you wanted. Cause you’ve taken her for granted. And everything you have got destroyed. The ending of the song suggests that it is only through personal loss that the boy will learn to be a man. Perhaps it is only through the trauma of loss that change is forged. In the end, she sings, “But you’re just a boy.” Conclusion: you’re not a man.

One of the things I like about Beyonce’s “If I were a boy” is the larger shape shifting in which she is engaged. Not only is Beyonce transformational in this song, the album from which it comes is titled, I am Sasha Fierce, her alter ego. In this way Beyonce is signaling that she is not one thing. This ability to shape-shift oneself is a hallmark of postmodern existence. Madonna is the master at this pop culture game. So there you have it…my first post on this blog in quite a while and a short interpretation of Beyonce’s song, “If I were a Boy.” It’s a place to begin a discussion about the work that pop culture does and the work we do with it.

Why called it Imaginary Social Worlds

Perhaps I should start by explaining the title of this blog – Imaginary Social Worlds. It’s a term that I borrowed from John Caughey who coined the term in the early 1980s. The basic idea behind an imaginary social relationship is that we engage with media figures in ways that parallel actual social relationships. We also engage with media content as we build out the cultural context of our imaginary world. Critics do not like to think about the amount of time we spend “inside,” as we live in an action-oriented Western culture – no time for daydreaming. Caughey wrote his book at a time when the personal computer was just emerging; there was no Internet. It seems to me that we spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with media and with people that we don’t know or don’t know well (consider the “friends” you have on Facebook). Social networking through social media is all the rage today, and so Caughey’s idea is amplified in ways we could not have imagined. I write about imaginary social relationships in my book, Advertising in Everyday Life. And, as a scholar I continue to look not only at what the mainstream pundits refers to as social networking through social media, but I also consider the social “world” that is inside our head. It is a world populated by places, things and people that to some extent are out of the media – movies, TV (news and entertainment), the Internet, among others. I think it is worthwhile, as others look at the exterior world, they this blog spend some time and effort focusing on the interior world of the individual and how we utilize the content of media in order to make sense of our place in society.