Blog Post #7: sociological textbook study question

Question #3: Do you think people today use the mass media differently compared with how people used media 10 or 20 years ago? Whatever your position, justify it.

When you analyze mass media and how it differs based on time period, you can see a very clear shift in focus of content. Arguably, in some aspects, mass media hasn’t changed—the same persuasion tactics and hypersexualization of women are seen in advertisements, for example. But with the rapid evolution of technology, the mass media industries simply cannot survive without running alongside, if not ahead of, the tide of consumers wanting more things and better things.

An important concept that plays a significant part in this apparent change with the times is the uses and gratifications theory, which helps to understand why people to seek out certain media in order to satisfy their needs. On a Friday night, we want to relax, so we’ll choose something off Netflix to watch. When we need to budget groceries or other day-to-day necessities, we look through ads so that we can price match and save money. Because we now have access to unlimited opportunities and the expanse of availability is nearly infinite, we can use mass media in ways that we couldn’t have before. And since our wants and needs have shifted, the industries that market goods and services to us have changed the way they appeal to us, as a result.

In terms of the news and reporting realm of mass media, information reaches audiences and then becomes ‘old news’ a lot faster than it did before. With social media platforms incorporating news stories in their apps and news companies always connected on social media, it is easier for people to stay in the loop and easier for reporters to interact with users rather than merely present them with information. As more time passes and we become a more complex and advanced society, it may not even take 10 or 20 years for there to be a change in media use. The way people use media and the way it affects our lives is changing every single day.

Blog Post #6: sociological analysis of Miss Representation

The documentary Miss Representation provides insight to the human rights issue of gender equality and feminism, emphasizing the repercussions of a social construct that is defined by hierarchy and varying power levels that are placed upon certain groups of individuals due to their differences. With relation to sociological analysis as a look into human interactions and personal relationships, Miss Representation attempts to break down the stigma attached to social influences on an individual’s self-concept and their relationships to the people around them. It touches on body image issues for males and females, which are especially relevant among youths. The film shows both male and female teens describing their stories and opinions on why misrepresentations -- images of how one “should” be -- in the media have such a negative effect on kids and minimize their ability to become their full potential as adults and future citizens of a future society. Especially since young girls and boys and teenagers are still developing physically and mentally, they are experiencing a critical stage in their lives when they are extremely susceptible to external influences. At this time of their lives, they experience the most peer pressure, bullying, and identity issues as they try to discover exactly who they are and how they fit in among their peers and others in the world around them. In the text, Berger identifies a few basic concepts of sociological analysis that is relevant, especially since Miss Representation is a documentary that fights for a mission. With regards to children and teenagers, alienation is a concern that sways youths to make (or not make) certain important social and relational decisions that largely determine where they end up in the future. The focal point of the film is to influence teens and young adults to decrease the stigma of social representations in the media. Furthermore, the documentary discusses the importance of intellect and explains how the media negatively misrepresents intellectual and politically powerful women as compared to a standardized image of an “attractive” woman.

Blog Post #5: psychoanalytic criticism

Psychoanalysis is the study of how the conscious and the unconscious mind interact, influencing a person’s personality, behavior, and attitudes. The psychoanalytical method of media analysis revolves around characterization but focuses even deeper than representations and symbols. The psychic mind of any given character of a story is divided into three realms: the id, which encompass all the instinctual passions, wishes, and desires, the superego, which dictates by morality, and the ego, which attends to self-preservation. As defined by Sigmund Freud, and other researchers since his time, the id and the superego are opposing forces in the psychic mind. The ego is the conscious mind, the superego is preconscious, and the id is unconscious. The three entities together make up what Freud refers to as a structural hypothesis of mental functioning.

Another important aspect of psychoanalysis is the idea that we use defense mechanisms, sometimes unconsciously, when reacting to anxiety inducing or distressing subjects or events. There are eleven defense mechanisms that correspond to specific descriptive behaviors that come from our unconscious: ambivalence, avoidance, denial, fixation, identification, projection, rationalization, reaction formation, regression, repression, and suppression.

The final significant aspect of psychoanalytical criticism is the concept of archetypes as characterization in media content. As defined by Carl Jung, archetypes are a universal theme found in dreams, myths, religions, and works of art. Archetypes exist independent of the personal unconscious of an individual. These are important because they contribute to the plot development.

Along with semiotics and marxism, building up analysis methods when consuming media content will result in better comprehension and deeper understanding of the role it plays in society.

Blog Post #4: marxism

Analyzing media in a marxist perspective requires attention to hierarchical structure within characters as well as how characters impact the way in which media conforms or does not conform with societal standards. An important thing to note when analyzing with a socioeconomic mindset is societal evolution with regards to the historical context because social norms are constantly changing, depending on political, economic, environmental (etc) events occurring at the time.

The marxist method of analysis focuses on power levels between characters. Who establishes dominance, and who does not? We can see evidence of this from dialogue between certain characters, actions that infer power or lack thereof, and a character’s status based on their views and opinions, as well as how their ideas influence their intentional or unintentional behaviors.

In terms of characterization, certain types of characters are identified via Grid-Group Analysis. There are four types of characters: the hierarchical elitist, the egalitarian, the individualist, and the fatalist. The hierarchical elitist believes in stratification and the typical traits of dominant responsibility over lower classes. Egalitarians promote the individual differences in people and how those differences affect their behavior. Individualists are interested in their own lives and expect a right to their fair share. Fatalists are ignorant to this kind of political structure and system. All of these types coexist to make up political order.

When analyzing media with a marxist mindset, pay attention to storyline events that show cause and effect based on interactions between characters. How does a character’s social status affect their behavior and, as a result, their actions as it is developed in the story? And most importantly, why is this power structure important? All stories revolve around a hierarchical structure because that is how humans have naturally built the society we live in.

Blog Post #3: marxism

This week, I watched Zack Snyder’s 300 (2006) and David Fincher’s Seven (1995), in addition to the episode of Freaks and Geeks we watched in class.

The film 300 has a very clear divisions of power as it focuses on King Leonidas of Sparta. In the grid-group analysis, Leonidas would be a fatalist because he defies the oracle and Spartan law and sets off with his army of 300 to war against the Persians. His wife, Queen Gorgo, is an egalitarian because she is independent, abandoning the stereotypes of a submissive woman and standing up for her husband as she tries to convince the council that Leonidas is right in his decision.

In Seven, the power divisions are slightly less clear-cut. Throughout the movie, viewers see Detective Somerset as having more power in his department, even though he is not the captain, because of his age and experience. He displays mannerisms similar to Sherlock that are contrary to the typical behavior of a police officer (i.e. does NOT take notes in the crime scene, jump to conclusions if the crime seems obvious, or take coffee from Detective Mills). Detective Mills is seen as less powerful in comparison to Somerset in skill and experience, but their partnership evolves as they investigate the seven deadly sins murders. This evolution expands their character profiles to overlap each other in some aspects.

After gaining insight on the purpose of this class, my media consumption has become keener to break down elements of the story, think about it in terms of what happens behind the scenes, and dig deeper for underlying meanings and themes.

Blog Post #2: semiotic analysis of Sherlock Holmes

The BBC show Sherlock Holmes provides many details that allow an in-depth semiotic analysis. The first episode, “A Study in Pink,” tells a story about serial killings disguised as suicides and is an epic introduction to the characterization of Sherlock Holmes. The most important key themes in the show are references to Dr. John Watson’s struggle to adapt to civilian life, as well as understanding Sherlock as a very complex main character.

Throughout the show, Watson’s cane and the topic of the limp in his leg are brought up frequently as a metaphor and symbol for his vulnerability and the fact that he is unable to accept missing the battlefield. Among Vladimir Propp’s functions, Watson is best described with transfiguration as he evolves from weak and insignificant at the beginning of the show to strong and confident towards the end.

Sherlock’s characterization is referenced with great depth via subtle details. His overcoat and scarf signify that he is a detective. In the show, you see the way his living space is set up, and the police even end up going through it. The way in which his possessions and his environment are set up in a way that is organized to him but messy to everyone else is a metaphor for his mind and his thought process -- seemingly random and scattered to others but structured and organized to him. It’s also important to note that the purpose Sherlock holds of assisting the police as a “consulting detective” is not as one would expect because of good morals and putting criminals to justice but rather because he gets a thrill out of the drama and is interested in why bad guys do the things they do and think the way they think.

Other details are important to consider because they all contribute to the storytelling as a whole. In the beginning, Mike was an index that introduced Watson to Sherlock, which began their relationship. The way the scene revealing the killer was shot had him coming out of the shadows, which signifies suspense. Whereas almost everyone else wore dark or monochrome colors, two females in particular wore bright colors: the first, the victim in bright pink because she was the victim who allowed Sherlock to discover that the deaths were murders not suicides, and the second, Mrs. Hudson in bright purple because she kept repeating “There’s a cab for you” to Sherlock in the moments leading up to the killer revealing himself. The bright colors represent cracking the case open, clues that stick out among the darkness. Intertexuality is shown by quotes that referred to similar corresponding quotes from the novel series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Blog Post #1: semiotic analysis

This ad for the World Wildlife Fund is making an attempt to persuade the public to pay more attention to endangered animals that are not widely known. The ad shows a school of bluefin tuna with one wearing a panda mask. Underneath features a quote that says “Would you care more if I was a panda?”

This ad is powerful in the way that the dark lighting and little color variation sets a very somber mood and portraying seriousness and heaviness of the issue of the overfishing of bluefin tuna. WWF uses the panda as a way to evoke greater sympathy for this particular cause since the face of the panda has long since attracted attention from the public. The audience can immediately recognize the panda, but the rest of the ad will make them stop and think about the real issue. Another symbol that plays into the way the ad is viewed is the sunlight at the top that shines into the water. The tuna are swimming in the opposite direction, away from the fishermen above sea level. It could also be ironic because light usually represents hope and positivity, but in this context, it is the opposite, where the darkness is where the bluefin tuna belong and thrive.

The theme that is prominent with this ad (as well as the gorilla and rhino versions) is sympathy. As previously stated, the panda is an icon for the WWF and its target audience. They’re typically seen as cute, non-threatening animals that people feel they should support because they are endangered. However, people don’t typically feel bad for fish or think about how overfishing can be a problem. This method of persuasion seems slightly harsh, especially with the quote, but it is powerful in getting the message across and raising awareness.