User:Themsen/RWRM3-1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:41, 19 January 2015

edited feedback

un-edited feedback

Abstract

In this essay I will use three documentaries “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” by Slavoj Zizek and Sophie Fiennes, “The Men Who Made Us Spend” by David Alter, Claire Burnett, Mike Radford, and “Enjoy Poverty” by Renzo Martens - with "Enjoy Poverty': Interview with Renzo Martens" by Sean Jacobs as a supporting article - to critisize how their criticism on ideology benefits and counters western ideology.

---

Ideology: Commodified

Not only objects and services are commodities today. Ideologies are advertised and sold in a similar manner, as the three documenteries discussed in this text argue, as solutions for the debt to the subjects and servants of western ideology. (guilt for what?) The content of these documentaries educate us in the flaws of western society; the form of the documentaries (of the documentaries?) is made and distributed as a privileged object within the international business structures (which structures? could make it stronger to describe them) that support these flaws, by exploiting the servants of the west and manipulating their consumer-base; this allows the message of the documentary to be skewed, to be packaged into an already saturated media landscape. (is the media landscape that bad?) As Renzo Martens puts it:

Empathy as a reaction from the viewer towards the suffering of others as portrayed in film is possibly an inappropriate reaction to that suffering because the empathy allows you to disregard the structural violence that is at the basis of suffering. [Martens cites Susan Sontags “On Photography”] (Jacobs 2010)

The documentaries make us fearful as we see the great faults in our society. They give us hope when we see the proposals (maybe example of a promise?) to right (to improve?) the wrongs. As Slavoj Žižek puts it in “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”: liberty hurts, security comforts. That which isn’t painful to accept is allied with the current ideology; what Martens would call ‘cutting into the flesh’ (Jacobs 2010) of western society would be very hard to do for many when security is such a comfortable cushion and your mind is in a convenient mindset. The documentaries let us feel guilt and pain out of empathy without forcing us to leave our comfortable lives (nice formulation), not unlike a horror movie; they make us comfortable in our fear, as we feel secure in the conviction that the time will come when things will get better. (do we?) In an interview, Renzo Martens touched on this dynamic using his own position in western society:

[…]I’m also defined by the education I have, by the racism and the feeling of agency that I’ve grown up with, I’m defined by the idea that I think it’s normal that I have a cup of coffee every day and it’s normal that other people don’t drink coffee but work for me anyway. [reply made by Martens] (Jacob 2010)

This normalcy is what it comes down to, this feeling of familiarity of growing up in the West. Our outside-view is mediated or guided, as a consumer or a tourist. Our view is, at times, narrowed by the photo/video lens, and screen media once we're back home again.

in sum? : ideology is a (western) commodity, and the documentaries are made within the same ideology, which creates a kind of feedback loop

---

A Society of The Image

Similar to how riots may end in looting when consumerist impulses are kept from being realized by those with less means in capitalist societies, so does a saturation of worries in the western populace increase attention towards counter-west ideological messages when revolutions are kept back from those with less impact on western society. “We know about the problems, though we’d rather want comfort right now”. Our comfort leads us to delay this “right thing” which a revolution would entail, unless there is a crisis at our doorstep we are happy worrying about crises and not to partake in them. Perhaps we have even grown too used to crises. As Slavoj Zizek puts it, “capitalism is always in crisis”. With commercial enterprise tied to the well-being of a liberal democratic capitalist society media coverage mirrors this constant crisis and(bit loose — how is capitalism reaches us through the media?) continues to wash over us we are told we are as well. When we are always in crisis, we wait for a better time where we could calmly consider solutions, but for now we prefer the security of being a jour through established media to paint our world-view. (maybe good to conclude this paragraph: when we are always in crisis, we wait for a better time in which we could consider solutions, but for now we prefer to create some comfort?) Media is today seen more as a tool for conveying messages than to document, or picture a real place in a real time. As Martens mentions:

In the old days a painting of a swimming pool would represent a swimming pool [...] Now, since a long time, a painting of a swimming pool deals with the fact that it is a painting of a swimming pool. It is more a painting of a swimming pool than just a swimming pool.

Effectively, most documentaries no longer depict reality. What the documentary tries to picture is what a movie about suffering conveys to us and so the documentary becomes a vessel for what we see in it, what we wish to take from it. The image no longer is the message, it is the form of the message which takes precedence, what you see behind the image. Our grasp on reality through media has changed into a more conceptual interpretation, and as media continues to take precedence this mentality will continue to influence western ideology.

In a way, Martens tried to get past this problem. By making his movie explore the process of uncovering the systematic poverty of Congo the viewer was allowed to take the same journey as Martens, (maybe good to explain the autoreferentialness shortly?) it forced its viewer to stand on a pedestal of morality and then take a look at themselves and the position they hold as a subject of the West. But still, the majority might either accept the message and work with it, (did you read that somewhere, or is it an assumption?) or perceive (do you mean percieve?) the documentary as a movie-piece of simply art, without any ideological, moral or ethical meaning; simply something you can put behind you once the footage has stopped.

---

An Ideological Movement to Counter the Politics of the Old?

On a lighter note, these documentaries were clearly made by people who want to right the wrongs and allow us think how we could change ourselves in order for western conduct to be less disruptive. Renzo Martens speaks of a working wage, similar to a minimum pay in western countries, for those working on the plantations in Congo; Jacques Peretti mentions stronger regulations on the world market to better fight consumerist society, and Slavoj Žižek makes it clear that in order for us to understand our present politics we need a different notion of ideology. ‘The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology’ relies heavily on video as a tool for ideological analysis, and deems it an important branch for cultural analysis. Meanwhile ‘Enjoy Poverty’ and Jacques Peretti focus on the physical and psychological traps of living in a consumer society. The documentaries are purposefully renditioned to show the stark reality, but they also share that sense of humanity and betterment. Which is a positive turn I'd say as there has been an existential crisis between being a pre- to post-industrial human culturally speaking.

(this needs examples and more explination, but not in the conclusion? it could fit very well to your last paragraph?)

(how would you describe the role/position of these documentaries? are they a reflection-tool on our current political system? something that politics or main media organisations wouldn't be able to do? what's the importance of these documentaries? this paragraph is maybe too describing-only, compared to the other two)

Conclusion

---

References

---

Žižek, Slavoj, dir. Sophie Fiennes, “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”

Alter, Burnett & Radford, “The Men Who Made Us Spend”

Martens, Renzo, “Enjoy Poverty”

Jacobs, Sean, ‘'Enjoy Poverty': Interview with Renzo Martens’, http://africasacountry.com/poverty-for-sale/

‘Slavoj Zizek - Biography’, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/biography/

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div style="width:800px">
+<span style="color:red;">edited</span> feedback
+<span style="color:blue;">un-edited</span> feedback
+'''Abstract'''
-'''Abstract'''
+In this essay I will use three documentaries “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” by Slavoj Zizek and Sophie Fiennes, “The Men Who Made Us Spend” by David Alter, Claire Burnett, Mike Radford, and “Enjoy Poverty” by Renzo Martens - with "Enjoy Poverty': Interview with Renzo Martens" by Sean Jacobs as a supporting article - to critisize how their criticism on ideology benefits and counters western ideology.
 ---
-In this essay I will use three documentaries “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” by Slavoj Zizek and Sophie Fiennes, “The Men Who Made Us Spend” by David Alter, Claire Burnett, Mike Radford, and “Enjoy Poverty” by Renzo Martens to analyze and critisize how their criticism on ideology benefits and counters the hegemonic ideology.
+'''Ideology: Commodified'''
-'''Ideology: Commodified'''
+Not only objects and services are commodities today. Ideologies are advertised and sold in a similar manner, as the three documenteries discussed in this text argue, as solutions for the debt to the subjects and servants of western ideology. <span style="color:red;">(guilt for what?)</span> The content of these documentaries educate us in the flaws of western society; the form of the documentaries <span style="color:red;">(of the documentaries?)</span> is made and distributed as a privileged object within the international business structures <span style="color:red;">(which structures? could make it stronger to describe them)</span> that support these flaws, by exploiting the servants of the west and manipulating their consumer-base; this allows the message of the documentary to be skewed, to be packaged into an already saturated media landscape. <span style="color:red;">(is the media landscape that bad?)</span> As Renzo Martens puts it:
----
+*Empathy as a reaction from the viewer towards the suffering of others as portrayed in film is possibly an inappropriate reaction to that suffering because the empathy allows you to disregard the structural violence that is at the basis of suffering. [Martens cites Susan Sontags “On Photography”] (Jacobs 2010)
-Not only objects and services are commodities today. Ideologies are advertised and sold in a similar manner, as solutions to guilt. The content of these documentaries educate us in the flaws of western society; the form is made and distributed as a privileged object within the structures that support these flaws; this allows the message of the documentary to be skewed, to be packaged into an already saturated media landscape, full of horror, negativity and disillusion. As Renzo Martens puts it:
+The documentaries make us fearful as we see the great faults in our society. They give us hope when we see the proposals <span style="color:red;">(maybe example of a promise?)</span> to right <span style="color:red;">(to improve?)</span> the wrongs. As Slavoj Žižek puts it in “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”: liberty hurts, security comforts. That which isn’t painful to accept is allied with the current ideology; what Martens would call ‘cutting into the flesh’ (Jacobs 2010) of western society would be very hard to do for many when security is such a comfortable cushion and your mind is in a convenient mindset. The documentaries let us feel guilt and pain out of empathy without forcing us to leave our comfortable lives <span style="color:red;">(nice formulation)</span>, not unlike a horror movie; they make us comfortable in our fear, as we feel secure in the conviction that the time will come when things will get better. <span style="color:red;">(do we?)</span> In an interview, Renzo Martens touched on this dynamic using his own position in western society:
-Empathy as a reaction from the viewer towards the suffering of others as portrayed in film is possibly an inappropriate reaction to that suffering because the empathy allows you to disregard the structural violence that is at the basis of suffering. [Martens cites Susan Sontags “On Photography”] (Jacobs 2010)
+*[…]I’m also defined by the education I have, by the racism and the feeling of agency that I’ve grown up with, I’m defined by the idea that I think it’s normal that I have a cup of coffee every day and it’s normal that other people don’t drink coffee but work for me anyway. [reply made by Martens] (Jacob 2010)
-In a way, Martens tried to get past this problem by making his movie autoreferential, it forced its viewer to stand on a pedestal of morality and then take a look at themselves and the position they hold as a subject of the West. But still, the majority might have gone so far as to still treat the documentary as a movie-piece of simply art, without any ideological, moral or ethical meaning; simply something you can put behind you once the footage has stopped.
+This normalcy is what it comes down to, this feeling of familiarity of growing up in the West. Our outside-view is mediated or guided, as a consumer or a tourist. Our view is, at times, narrowed by the photo/video lens, and screen media once we're back home again.
-'''A Society of The Image'''
+<span style="color:red;">in sum? : ideology is a <span style="color:red;">(western)</span> commodity, and the documentaries are made within the same ideology, which creates a kind of feedback loop </span>
 ---
-Looting in riots = Deffered gratification (without means) leads to delayed gratification (looting). Deffered revolution (saturated worries) leads to delayed revolution = increased attention to ideological messages with counter-hegemonical intentions
+'''A Society of The Image'''
-“We know about the problems, though I’d rather want comfort right now”. Our comfort leads us to delay this “right thing” which a revolution would entail, unless there is a crisis at our doorstep we are happy worrying about crises and not to partake in them. Perhaps we have even grown too used to crises. As Slavoj Zizek puts it, “capitalism is always in crisis”, and as media coverage continues to wash over us we are told we are as well.
+Similar to how riots may end in looting when consumerist impulses are kept from being realized by those with less means in capitalist societies, so does a saturation of worries in the western populace increase attention towards counter-west ideological messages when revolutions are kept back from those with less impact on western society. “We know about the problems, though we’d rather want comfort right now”. Our comfort leads us to delay this “right thing” which a revolution would entail, unless there is a crisis at our doorstep we are happy worrying about crises and not to partake in them. Perhaps we have even grown too used to crises. As Slavoj Zizek puts it, “capitalism is always in crisis”. With commercial enterprise tied to the well-being of a liberal democratic capitalist society media coverage mirrors this constant crisis and<span style="color:red;">(bit loose — how is capitalism reaches us through the media?)</span> continues to wash over us we are told we are as well. When we are always in crisis, we wait for a better time where we could calmly consider solutions, but for now we prefer the security of being a jour through established media to paint our world-view. <span style="color:red;">(maybe good to conclude this paragraph: when we are always in crisis, we wait for a better time in which we could consider solutions, but for now we prefer to create some comfort?)</span> Media is today seen more as a tool for conveying messages than to document, or picture a real place in a real time. As Martens mentions:
-The documentaries make us fearful as we see the great faults in our society. They make us hope when we see the promises to right the wrongs. As Slavoj Žižek puts it in “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”: liberty hurts, security comforts. To continue on this pessimistic point of view, that which isn’t painful to accept is allied with the current ideology; what Martens would call ‘cutting into the flesh’ (Jacobs 2010) of western society would be very hard to do for many when security is such a comfortable cushion and your mind is conveniently dulled. The documentaries let us feel guilt and pain out of empathy without forcing us to leave our comfortable lives, not unlike a horror movie; they make us comfortable in our fear, as we feel secure in the conviction that the time will come when all will be over. In an interview, Renzo Martens touched on this dynamic using his own position in western society:
+*In the old days a painting of a swimming pool would represent a swimming pool [...] Now, since a long time, a painting of a swimming pool deals with the fact that it is a painting of a swimming pool. It is more a painting of a swimming pool than just a swimming pool.
-[…]I’m also defined by the education I have, by the racism and the feeling of agency that I’ve grown up with, I’m defined by the idea that I think it’s normal that I have a cup of coffee every day and it’s normal that other people don’t drink coffee but work for me anyway. [reply made by Martens] (Jacob 2010)
+Effectively, most documentaries no longer depict reality. What the documentary tries to picture is what a movie about suffering conveys to us and so the documentary becomes a vessel for what we see in it, what we wish to take from it. The image no longer is the message, it is the form of the message which takes precedence, what you see behind the image. Our grasp on reality through media has changed into a more conceptual interpretation, and as media continues to take precedence this mentality will continue to influence western ideology.
-This normalcy is what it comes down to, this feeling of familiarity of growing up in the West. Our outside-view is mediated or guided, as a consumer or a tourist. Our view is at times truncated by the photo/video lens, and screen media once we're back home again.
+In a way, Martens tried to get past this problem. By making his movie explore the process of uncovering the systematic poverty of Congo the viewer was allowed to take the same journey as Martens, <span style="color:red;">(maybe good to explain the autoreferentialness shortly?)</span> it forced its viewer to stand on a pedestal of morality and then take a look at themselves and the position they hold as a subject of the West. But still, the majority might either accept the message and work with it, <span style="color:red;">(did you read that somewhere, or is it an assumption?)</span> or perceive <span style="color:red;">(do you mean percieve?)</span> the documentary as a movie-piece of simply art, without any ideological, moral or ethical meaning; simply something you can put behind you once the footage has stopped.
 ---
-'''An Ideological Movement to Counter the Politics of the Old (forged in the fires of Mount Doom)'''
+'''An Ideological Movement to Counter the Politics of the Old?'''
-On a lighter note, these documentaries were clearly made by people who want to right the wrongs and allow us think how we could change ourselves in order for western conduct to be less disruptive. Renzo Martens speaks of a working wage, similar to a minimum pay in western countries, for those working on the plantations in Congo; Jacques Peretti mentions stronger regulations on the world market to better fight consumerist society, and Slavoj Žižek makes it clear that in order for us to understand our present politics we need a different notion of ideology.  ‘The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology’ relies heavily on video as a tool for ideological analysis, and deems it an important branch for cultural analysis. Meanwhile ‘Enjoy Poverty’ and Jacques Peretti focus on the physical and psychological traps of living in a consumer society.
+On a lighter note, these documentaries were clearly made by people who want to right the wrongs and allow us think how we could change ourselves in order for western conduct to be less disruptive. Renzo Martens speaks of a working wage, similar to a minimum pay in western countries, for those working on the plantations in Congo; Jacques Peretti mentions stronger regulations on the world market to better fight consumerist society, and Slavoj Žižek makes it clear that in order for us to understand our present politics we need a different notion of ideology.  ‘The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology’ relies heavily on video as a tool for ideological analysis, and deems it an important branch for cultural analysis. Meanwhile ‘Enjoy Poverty’ and Jacques Peretti focus on the physical and psychological traps of living in a consumer society. The documentaries are purposefully renditioned to show the stark reality, but they also share that sense of humanity and betterment. Which is a positive turn I'd say as there has been an existential crisis between being a pre- to post-industrial human culturally speaking.
+<span style="color:red;">(this needs examples and more explination, but not in the conclusion? it could fit very well to your last paragraph?)</span>
----
+<span style="color:blue;">(how would you describe the role/position of these documentaries? are they a reflection-tool on our current political system? something that politics or main media organisations wouldn't be able to do? what's the importance of these documentaries? this paragraph is maybe too describing-only, compared to the other two)</span>
+'''Conclusion'''
-Main question: What ideology is behind the criticism of the current hegemonic ideology?
+---
-Following question: What is the purpose of this criticism as part of the current hegemonic ideology?
-Assumption: There is no anti-ideology, ideologies directly transfer from one to another; there is only the dominant hegemonic ideology and the counter-ideology which could potentially become hegemonic, unless it’s undercut and made to cater to the dominant ideology.
-[TMWMUS]= The Men Who Made Us Spend [TPGTI] = The Pervert's Guide to Ideology [EP] = Enjoy Poverty
-Notes to expand on:
-•	Rests on the fear from current hegemony, which is based on exploitation
-•	Fear (dislike of fear) [TMWMUS] and through temporary solutions easing fear [EP]
-•	Embracing the dislike of fear [TMWMUS] through struggle [TPGTI]
-•	Injustice as structural [TMWMUS] -> power distributed in networks to retain power [EP]
-• 	Marxist, the division of labor (intellectual and physical), material dominance of relations made ideal/conceptual
-•	Hegelian, ideas are what moves the world forward (thesis/antithesis)
-•	Marxist, ideas come from arguments between the people with the means and the people without the means (division of labor)
-Slavoj Žižek et al.: struggle to be liberated from ideology
-Renzo Martens: equal privilege for all workers
-Jacques Peretti et al.: consumer enquiry to protect the weak and dumb
-•	Cultural criticism to feel better about ourselves, aim at the center to enjoy the surface [current ideology]
-•	Cynic’s guide to Ideology: they know why they do it, but still they do it
-•	Capitalism in "constant crisis"
-•	Ideology the filter through which we rationally interpret the world
+'''References'''
 ---
-References
 Žižek, Slavoj, dir. Sophie Fiennes, “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”
@@ Line 92: / Line 66: @@
 ‘Slavoj Zizek - Biography’, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/biography/
+</div>