1.
Regarding the debate about the cultural and social
consequences of the symbolic economy and post-Fordism: Do you believe the
consequence is that the trend toward differentiation of segments and media
experiences undermines our shared sense of national community? Is this a bad
thing?
18 comments:
This question truly has me torn. In terms of the book, I agree that before cable, television networks offered a set of cultural experiences that most Americans shared. This can be seen in television shows that had the nuclear family like Leave it to Beaver or I Love Lucy. Now, as networks and media industries cater to different types of people, there is more segregation and no common theme. However, before this change in the media often women, gays, lesbians, and African-American people felt left out and struggled to relate to the culture that was being conveyed on television. Therefore, yes, this differentiation of segments and media experiences is undermining our shared sense of national community. Is this a bad thing? No. American culture has transformed entirely. More people of different races, sexual orientations, and genders are now accepted in society and need representation on media outlets. There is something that people can all relate and connect to on television. Although this does segment audiences, I think it would be hard in this age to create a text that appeals to every type of individual.
I do not think that post-fordism and symbolic economy has undermined our sense of national community, if anything it does the opposite. It allows for our country to produce more goods and adapt to changes that occur much greater than in the past. While some may argue that this makes it so workers aren't as specialized in the production process, I think that it allows them to connect more with the people they are making the product for rather than just the product itself. The main draw that I see from this is the increase in consumerism within the United States. Because more diverse goods were being created, Americans were very excited to buy something new which sparked this ongoing mind game of the vast consumerism in American culture. In a sick way this is another point as to why post-fordism did not undermine our country's sense of national community- if anything it brought us together through the bonds of consumerism. And even though companies are now creating content/goods that appeal to an international audience, there are different cultural appeals within each country that the producers have to appeal to when marketing their product.
I agree with Elizabeth in that yes the differentiation of segments and media experiences is undermining our shared sense of national community, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. It is true that prior to the symbolic economy Americans would come around as family to watch one of three TV shows. There was always something to talk about and the shows were something everyone could relate to. Now though there is something on TV that can fit individuals’ specific interests and desires. Audiences with shared interests can come together around a TV show aimed at these interests., making a strong community There is no longer ‘family time around the TV,’ but Dad and Mom can watch their show and little Billy and Sue can watch theirs. There is this division, but it also brings the community together. Prior it was just accepted what was on TV is on and won’t change for a while. Now there is TV watching parties, binge watching shows, and more options for people to come together.
I do not think that the differentiation of media is a bad thing at all. In fact, I think it is a really positive trend and that it is highly beneficial for our sense of national community to be undermined. The more voices heard, the better. The one downfall to this is that people tend to seek media outlets that agree with their already held beliefs and find media outlets that just reinforce their opinions. This could be the reason for increasing polarity among US citizens. Since there are so many networks, the networks do not have to try to appeal to a more moderate audience and present both sides, but can rather find their specific audience that could be rather extreme. Laws were established in the past like The Fairness Doctrine that made it mandatory for outlets to allot equal amount of time to presenting both sides, however this was repealed. This is all of course, speaking in terms of news networks and politics mainly. In a more social and cultural sense I think that variation and more segments allows for more user control and power, something that they lacked before, which could be helpful in calling for demands in new more revolutionary shows. Viewers are not subject to the power of the few networks anymore that could essentially disseminate any type of cultural message they want because they basically had a monopoly. Of course, there is also the point that shows are not really that different from each other they are just variations of one another. Since Downton Abbey has been successful we now see a host of english monarchy/ royal shows popping up. For me, the more diversity the better.
I agree that the surge of symbolic economy has fragmented our sense of national identity but I believe that in this era, it is a good thing—especially in terms of media content. The United States (in comparison to the rest of the world) is filled with so many cultures and voices. Also, the differentiation of media provides exposure, exposure to different beliefs and different lives which I think leads to more empathy and compassion towards those beliefs and lives that may not have been there in the first place. In that sense differentiation can unify more than it fragments.
That's our real identity—the fact that one nation contains so many. I think the symbolic economy serves that identity more than the Ford era.
Fordism catered to a nuclear family—or the majority: think along the lines of W.A.S.P. With differentiation of the media, we still do not have a perfect system and not all voices are heard, but marginalization is slowly being countered in a way it wasn't before. At the same time the symbolic economy allows for a lot of unknowables and a lot of uncertainty. I like the idea of the stability of durable goods, but at the same time I think that the way we are progressing as a country and the way technology is changing our culture, stability needs to be found in a different manner.
I do actually think that the symbolic economy and post-fordism has undermined our sense of national identity. However, I don't think that this is a bad thing. We don't live in the same world that we used to in the sense that technology has radically changed that way that we define culture. I agree with Paris that in terms of media content, the symbolic economy and post-fordism are actually good things because we aren't a nation with one voice and one culture. Like Paris said, "the United States (in comparison to the rest of the world) is filled with so many cultures and voices." America is a giant melting pot of different cultures. Fordism catered to the concept of the nuclear family. Back when television was a shared event, way before cell phones and computers and Internet, the idea of the perfect white nuclear family appeared in television shows like The Brady Bunch and Leave It To Beaver and The Munsters, to name a few. It was a black and white world where there wasn't much deviation in terms of general content because it was the era of the television sitcom. Today, culture has broken down what things like family means and television has a lot more to offer in terms of content and how we watch tv. There is less marginalization of certain cultures and cultural stereotypes and television caters to a wider audience.
Certain shows today garner a lot of media attention. With social media like Twitter and Facebook, many people can come together to discuss their favorite shows. Instead of television being a family experience, it is now a national experience in the sense that people can bond over their mutual love of tv shows. Big shows, like Game of Thrones, Pretty Little Liars, Breaking Bad, and Scandal are popular because people have made them popular on social media. Just because people can stream shows online doesn't mean that they can't still discuss them with other people. Technology has allowed television execs to gain a better understanding of what the viewers actually want to watch and can serve a wider demographic of people, which means that the symbolic economy and post-Fordism is actually a good thing.
On the one hand, I do not think that the symbolic economy undermines our shared sense of national community. In a weird way, I think that it allows us to come together to determine what is successful on the market and what is not. It gives us a sense of control over the economy even though it is the creators who have the control. However, I think what we all need to remember is that not everyone can afford or use the technology that is promoted in a symbolic economy. Money that could be devoted to a cell phone bill, for example, would instead be used for something like groceries, utilities, or rent for the month. People would feel left out because they could not have all the things that everyone else already has. In that sense I think that our sense of national community is undermined. Overall, though, I think that our national community should not be undermined by something so simple as who has the latest iPhone.
I do think that the symbolic economy and post Fordism fragments our sense of a national community, but by no means do I think this is a bad thing. America doesn’t have one singular voice—there are so many different cultures, traditions, lifestyles, etc. throughout the country, and I think media is starting to reflect that more realistically. As Paris said, I think this can actually serve to bring people together by exposing people to cultures different than their own, which can lead to people to become more compassionate to those with different lifestyles. While the diverse array of content may lead to a fragmentation of our national community, I think it is much more powerful for people to be able to find content that speaks to them, rather than solely to the majority.
I believe that the consequence of the trend of post Fordism affects our shared sense of national community, but I don’t think that it undermines it. Moreover, I believe that it has good effect to the nation. It is because people are already united and people can build more creative society with different unique ideas and sense.
Sense of national community and social cohesion was needed in the past generation in the Industrial Revolution and explosion of immigrants. We used to share our sense of national community and build social cohesion by using the same products or services like watching the same programs on TV. However, people in the United States got united because of the united standards and laws such as education by the government. It is problematic if Post Fordism leads to increase the illegal acts against moral, but I don’t think that it leads in that way because media industries have many censorship and schools teach people about morality. Thus, I don’t think that we don’t necessarily united more.
In next generation, we have many different kinds of products and services and consume in different ways by Post Fordism and we are trying to be different from others. I believe that it makes more competitive society that people try to come up with different ideas from others productively. For example, companies try to come up with products and services with different ideas in competitive market and it helps build intelligent nations and convenient society.
I don't think it has undermined our sense of national community at all. It's a good thing that we can break away from our preconceived notions of what should be on the TV and who should be represented. Media grows with us, so it only makes sense that there are more available options and variation in content. The many choices that we have are what unite us more than anything. I also agree with Michelle that with more advanced technology and social media, we can find our own community to interact with that can provide the collective experiences that we all crave. TV in particular could never go back to how it was because of the dynamic changes in our culture and how we live amongst all the new technology. By embracing the media how it is, we can create our own new version of a "national community."
While I think many of the posted comments have a point in that the differentiation in segments has somewhat caused a drift from a "national community", I can't help but agree with Allison's point, too. So, I guess, like Lizzie, I am torn.
It is true that, previously, television was more of a shared experience because of the uniformity in what was offered. But, I think that was only fitting to the time because there wasn't as much diversity in our nation, or accepted diversity. Today, the amount of programming that is offered is more inclusive. I think that it could easily be viewed as segregating, but it is important to keep in mind who it brings in to the community of media.
i feel that the consequences of becoming a more isolated society can display a dystopian society in which we are consumed with our own world (our phones and computer screens). It can create a lack of connection and face to face communication about certain aspects of media and life. However, media does change with consumer habits and consumer demands. The shared experience and segmentation of media experience can be improved and increased by the availability and digitization of networks/media. I don't think our media experience and how it has changed, is undermining us because it seems to increase creativity, open opportunities and engage interests because of society's connection in media.
I agree with many of the above comments and believe that the symbolic economy has undermined our shared sense of community, but this doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. Having limited media choices during the Ford era allowed people to have shared interests that they could relate to each other with. In today’s society, most media is targeted towards niche audiences that give us infinite amounts of texts to choose from. Using the discussion that we had in class today, only a select few students in the class might watch the same TV show that you did. With the increase in streaming and VOD, it allows us to watch it at different times that makes it even more difficult to find someone that you can discuss with. Even though this is a pretty big disadvantage of the symbolic economy, the influence of technology and shift towards a service economy creates a different sense of community that has made a positive impact on our society. I like what Michelle discussed about the role that social media plays in media communities. Even though this type of community isn’t the same as sitting on the couch with your family to watch a show, it is a different kind of experience that makes it easier for people with similar interests to connect. Even though this wide variety of choices that comes with the symbolic economy creates smaller communities, I think that overall it benefits to the consumers needs more and can still create a shared sense of community.
Post-fordism and symbolic economy has affected our country. I do not think it is bad. It has allowed for different thoughts to be portrayed and different tastes be pleased. The cultural makeup, however, still is not reflective of what we see in the media. The culture and the lives that we live affect what we see long after it is aired on television and written into tv series.
With this comes a separation that can be dangerous by causing rifts between thoughts and cultures, but because we live in such a global world, people are instead becoming exposed to this instead of fearing it.
I don’t believe the differentiation of segments and media experiences undermines our shared sense of national community. In the history of the television industry the national community was formed by the three major stations: NBC, CBS, and ABC. They were the only options for people to watch so a majority of people watched the same programming; thus bringing a sense of national community. Although the symbolic economy and post-Fordism has brought an abundance of media content and providers for people to watch, there are still hit shows that serve as “water-cooler” content for people to commune around and discuss.
I do believe that the trend toward differntiation of segments and media experiences undermines our sense of national identity, but I do not think it is a bad thing.
Back in the day, choices were limited for content. We had the choice between one television show or another, one radio station or another, etc. Because of this, people were often listening to and watching the same types of content. This allowed them to connect on that level and have a sort of national identity. No matter what class they were or where they lived, they could connect on that level.
Now, with the Internet, there is an endless amount of content. And it isn't just a bunch of crap, either. There are more television shows with high ratings now than there ever have been. And even those without high ratings are able to find an audience somewhere.
Sure, this creates a bit of a discontent between the masses. There is less of an opportunity for people to be getting the same content as other people. But they are still connecting with some! They are connecting with other people within their niche markets, and in my opinion, it is a much stronger connection.
Also, there are still pieces of content that give us that feeling of a national identity. Casablanca, Fight Club, The Godfather, etc. Everyone can bond over these pieces of content.
I agree with what Paris and others have said about Post-Fordism and the symbolic economy fragmenting our sense of national community. America is one of the few countries that has a very diverse background. Post-Fordism does a much better job of reflecting the various backgrounds and cultures through the entire gamut of content. While the emphasis on durable goods is considerably lower it is symbolic of the changes the nation has undergone. The values from Fordism are not gone, rather diluted amongst the rest of society's values.
Post a Comment