Pretense.

“The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.” –Ecclesiastes.

Simulacrum is defined as an image or representation, however, when using this concept to conceptualize reality and socially constructed ideologies, the simple definition becomes rather complicated.

Simulacrum, conceptualized by Jean Baudrillard, is the concept of imitating an imitation where the original is lost. It is the idealized version of something that, perhaps, never was to begin with. The recycling of imitations of an original that never was suggests that existence precedes essence. In other words, if imitating over and over again something in which no original basis can be found, then hyperreality and exaggeration ensues. The result is a distorted version of a reality or notion. Mimicking or exemplifying an idea or behavior that never was allows nothing except for distortion to take place.

Anthropologist Eric Higgs suggests that, “the boundary between artificiality and reality will become so thin that the artificial will become the centre of moral value.” If there is no real or authentic original basis for an imitation that is continuously being copied, then artificiality is what is left, and in turn, takes on the form of reality. Baudrillard proposes that due to the hyperreality state, all that is left is the simulacra. Hyperrealism suggests a reality where the difference between what is real (that which has an origin) and what is a representation of the real can no longer be distinguished.

The imagined and the “real” are both simulacra because the reproduction or imitation has no origin. This can be seen in the socially constructed notion of gender and gender roles. Since both the imagined and the original, “real” version, are distortions, the perception of the model or norm is simply an idealized model. Gender roles, what is considered the norm and what is flamboyant (either too masculine or feminine) is then an exaggeration in every sense. This follows the stage of phases involving the simulacra: the transgression of a reflection of a basic reality, masking and perverting the basic reality, then masking the absence of the basic reality until it bears no relation to any reality whatsoever. It becomes its own pure simulacrum.

Judith Butler’s “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” discusses the issue of gender and gender roles, along with heterosexuality and homosexuality. She argues that, “gender is kind of imitation for which there is no original” (722). Therefore, masculine or feminine gender roles performed are not an innate or intrinsic quality of an individual, rather characteristics that are very much learned.  If there is no original, then the gender roles constructed by societal constraints of approving or disapproving masculinity, femininity, or even effeminate traits, are simulacra.

This can be stated very easily, however, one must take into consideration that self-identity first begins with the recognition of particular bodily traits and attributes. Female and male characteristics are what distinguish individuals at a very early age. The way one behaves, whether accordingly or not, stems from the basis of sex and then gender. Stripping away the notion that there is a fundamental basis of gender and sexual orientation not only contributes to confusion to the individual, but also to the formation of self-identity. If there was never an original, then society is simply pushing copies of normative behavior and self-identity can never fully be realized. Or can it? Isn’t performance of gender roles part of self-identity. Or perhaps deconstructing the social norms can lead to re-evaluation and progressing the concept of self-identity, and, in turn, reality. Though, to take it to the extreme, Baudrillard argues that there is no such thing as reality today because the concept of simulacra involves a negation of the concept of reality.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulations. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988. 28 July 2011. <http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Baudrillard_Simulacra_and_Simulations.html>.

Butler, Judith. Gender Studies, Gay/Lesbian Studies, Queer Theory. Chapter 7: Imitation and Gender Insubordination, 1993. 

Jerry Maguire quick post

On the surface, Jerry Maguire is all about ego and money. Even his football player client continuously reiterates the famous line, “show me the money.” But looking beyond the superficial surface of money and the material world, Maguire offers another take on love. The film suggests that love means showing up. In other words, being there for someone else through the downfalls and bad times to rise up and meet the success together. Initially, Maguire stressed his idea of love on his success. Essentially, that he could not have one without the other. Though, it is through his struggles that he is able to overcome himself and negative disposition and accept love. Shakespeare’s King Lear exemplifies this concept “Men must endure/ Their going hence, even as their coming hither:/ Ripeness is all” (5.2). There is no control of birth or exit from this world, but the rest is up to the individual.  It is through the struggles that are endured where meaning is found. 

Ethnography: Starbucks

Each of my mornings consists of either driving or walking to my nearby Starbucks for a double tall non-fat cappuccino. Compared to others’, my drink of choice is a simple one. Rather than heading home to enjoy my morning coffee, I sat for an hour on Monday morning, around 10:30a.m, to observe other individuals who frequented this popular coffee house.

The Starbucks on Louise and Saticoy is different from other locations as it does not offer an inside area. The inside of this Starbucks is small and contains only the eager staff fervently making each customer’s drink order. Though, it does have a walk-up window, small sitting area for those who choose to enjoy their beverages outside, and a convenient drive-thru for on-the-go customers, allowing them to purchase items of their choosing without ever having to get out of their car.

As I waited patiently in line, I noticed that there was music playing overhead. Surprisingly though, a CD was not placed by the window advertising the artist who could be heard overhead. None of the patrons seemed to notice or care about the music quietly playing, myself included. Instead, customers quickly placed their drink order and pastry or breakfast item of choice. Additionally, many of the employees already knew the coffee beverage requested by recognizable faces that presumably frequented the Starbucks on a daily basis.

I picked up my coffee from the window and chose a place to sit. I looked around and noticed an older woman, presumably in her 60s, reading a newspaper and consuming one of those overly complicated ice-blended options. Another table was occupied by a 20-something-year-old man typing away on his laptop, hitting each key as if it angered him. He was also consuming an ice-blended “frappuccino”, though his was a large (“venti”), perhaps indicating he wanted a beverage that would suffice for a lengthy period of time.

As I sat and sipped my coffee from the labeled cup and matching logo “sleeve,” I noticed the different drink orders: some simply ordered a “medium coffee”, while others chose customized drinks. One woman ordered a very specific drink consisting of specific pumps of white mocha, shots of espresso, soymilk, half something else, and even a temperature direction. Most of the middle-aged men and women had simpler orders and did not pay attention to Starbucks’ “tall, grande, venti” labels for the corresponding small, medium, and large sizes. Conversely, many of the younger individuals seemed to enjoy their overly complicated and personalized drink orders.

Starbucks has successfully taken an ordinary item, coffee, and transformed it into an experience. Since “popular culture is constituted throughout the production of popular meaning located at the moment of consumption” (Barker, 54), Starbucks is, therefore, part of popular culture. Furthermore, Starbucks is not only a brand amidst popular culture but has even produced its own culture. The individual who orders the “large coffee” versus one who prefers the “triple grande no foam soy fat-free sugar-free vanilla latte” differ, however, they do share one thing in common: both are willing to pay a little extra for their coffee. For some, Starbucks might be conveniently located on an individual’s daily route, for another Starbucks is more than just coffee, more than a brand.

Seemingly, people don’t want just an ordinary cup of coffee anymore. Starbucks glamorizes its beverages, offers a personalized menu, even suggesting additions, and charging extra. It seems as though individuals appreciate something they pay a little extra for. Individuals want to hold the cup that features the well-known logo on it. Essentially, Starbucks has successfully transformed coffee into a novelty item.

Popular culture has integrated Starbucks and its cultivation of the coffee beverage. Starbucks’ coffee is generating quite a bit of money, not solely based on its product, rather its brand. Starbucks coffee has become a novelty fixture as opposed to what it really is: caffeine in a nicely designed cup with matching sleeve. As Marx has suggested, "commodification is the process associated with capitalism by which objects, qualities, and signs are turned into commodities. The surface appearance of goods sold in the marketplace obscures the origins of those commodities in an exploitiative relationship" (Barker, 13). Starbucks does not simply sell coffee and pastries; they offer a kind of popular culture lifestyle by way of a commodity.

Starbucks is taking away individuality by placing people under the umbrella of the culture of Starbucks customers, while giving them personalized options to contribute to individuality, a perfect contradiction. Where is the “common sense” or “good sense” of paying $5 for a novelty item that can easily be made at home, or better yet, purchased at a similar coffee house is not a brand-name, for less money. Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, suggests that, “all people reflect upon the world and, through the ‘common sense’ of popular culture, organize their lives and experience" (Barker, 67). It is through Gramsci’s ideology of popular culture that we can see how Starbucks has risen and remains planted within popular culture.

As of today, Starbucks has over 24 million Facebook followers who have “liked” the company and another 2 million who have taken the time to “check in” to their various Starbucks locations. Starbucks has become a common meeting place for many individuals: students, first dates, friends, and others. As individuals scurry through everyday life trying to make sense of it all, if indulging in a $5 brand name coffee makes us happy, then why not.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3^rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd. 2008.  

"The Politics of Culture"

Welcome. This blog will focus on popular culture and aims to present an approach to deconstruct the many aspects of “popular culture.”

What is popular culture?

Depending on an individual’s preconceived notions and idiosyncratic beliefs, popular culture and its definition many vary from person to person. Generally, popular culture refers to a trend in “mainstream,” by adding stylistic value to a particular idea, person, or object. Some may like what it represents, others may not share the same positive feelings associated with the term. In either case, in order to divulge the meaning of popular culture, one must deconstruct the concept to two simple words is encompasses: what is popular and what is culture.

The term “popular” denotes a characteristic of something that is widely accepted, regarded, or even used. Popularity, depending on the interpretation, can suggest either a negative or positive connotation. There are those who attribute respect with popularity, while others who are convinced the opposite is true. When generalizing the term, popularity is considered to be something that is mainstream or commonly accepted by the majority. Therefore, popular culture is a constantly evolving phenomenon, which can define or characterize a culture or time period.

“Culture” is a socially constructed concept, which unifies or groups together a specific persons or particular subject matter. Culture can represent a broad idea or be deduced to a smaller scale. Culture may also serve as revealing the multi-facets of a particular time period or population. Culture refers to shared ideas, attitudes, and even behaviors. Ultimately, culture inspires. It inspires a specific point of view, perceptions, beliefs, and action based on those beliefs.

An excerpt from Literary Theory: An Anthology suggests that, “culture is both a means of domination … and a means of resistance to such domination, a way of articulating oppositional points of view to those in dominance.” The excerpt also presents the notion of “culture from below” and “culture from above.”

“Culture from below” signifies a response to the dominant ideas. It is seemingly the subculture. If “culture from above” is the dominant ideologies dispersed throughout a population, than “culture from below” is the challenge or opposition to those particular ideas or the hegemonic power structure. The hegemonic power structure is able to maintain its influence over a set culture or population by way of mainstreaming popular culture; in other words, reinforcing the status quo.

Popular culture spotlights widely held beliefs of a group of people in a specific time period. It brings to light something ordinary and portrays that certain something as extraordinary (even without any intrinsic value). In other words, iconic. Popular culture cultivates an illusionary mechanism. For example, it can transform an individual from seemingly common to one of allure and intrigue. Popular culture glamorizes.

Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.