I-Thou

Wow, the whole I-thou concept really resonated with where I am at in my life right now. As some of you may know, I am making plans to study in Cairo, Egypt fall of next year (provided all the paper work goes through). I feel as if God is preparing me to step into a place where I do not know the customs, the geography, the cultural norms, etc. When Andrew Rudd was talking about how we need to be hospitable and listen to why others do what they do, it really hit me. All of my life, for the most part (minus my liberal political views on a staunchly conservative campus) I have been in a position where my beliefs and likes and dislikes in media have not been too far outside of the realm of "normal." Thinking back on it, I might not have shown interest in why others enjoy what they do in media or anything else for that matter (I don't know if this is entirely true, I would like to think that at sometime before hearing Rudd's talk and becoming conscience of these ideas that I extended hospitality to others with different interests in media than myself, but I am not sure.) Now that I am preparing to go to Egypt, I am beginning to understand on a more real level that how important it is to extend that hospitality. I am hoping that the people in Egypt extend hospitality to me, but at the same time I am realizing the great importance of me extending that same hospitality to others. So that is my realization! PS: The connection and the image that I got in my mind during class was the hospitality Jesus showed the woman in Luke 7. This woman wept at Jesus's feet and washed his feet with her tears and her hair. While all of those around Jesus judged her, Jesus withheld judgment and explained her actions to those around him. I am not sure if this is the best example in scripture of this idea of withholding judgment and extending hospitality, but it was the image that immediately came to my mind when Andrew Rudd was talking.

The Second Wave of Feminism

Ann Douglas' argument about the romance novel being part of a backlash against the second wave of feminism makes so much sense to me. It seems as if the culture in general experienced a backlash against the second wave of feminism with the moral majority and Phyllis Schlafly who wanted to stop the ERA from being ratified. In the 80s all people seemed to want normalcy and no more hairy, bra burning women with signs. They wanted women to be what women had been in the 50s. So with that said it would make sense to me that the romance novel would come into being because the romance novel portrays women as dependent on men. This explanation can be tied to the payoff of media texts being both a production of the producers and the readers. The readers of the 80s was reacting against the second wave of feminism. The producers and the readers together created a text that was acceptable to the culture of that time. This is not to say that the Radway's thesis doesn't make sense, but I was much more ready to connect with Douglas' thesis. My question is how are readers and producers coming together today to write books for women. I guess I don't read a lot of fiction at all, so I don't know what type of books women are reading, but I hope they look like what I described back in my gender roles post.

More Films dealing with International Issues

This is my selfish plug for Christians creating films/books/music etc. that deal with international issues. So, I have noticed a trend in the American church: we have no idea what is going on outside of our borders. We might as well be wearing horse blinders! I would like to think that "Christian" texts are challenging us to think outside our little US bubble, but I fear they are not doing an adequate job of challenging us. It is up to the Christian to consider the world outside of the US. Christ calls Christians to have a more global mind set because his kingdom extends beyond geographic borders. Because Christ's kingdom is global, Christians must be global in their thinking. I would love to see Christians tackling issues like human trafficking, human rights abuses and genocide in the texts they create. I believe this could do worlds for the church if we showed genuine concern for people across the world in our media making choices. It is not enough to make wholesome movies/books/music whatever; we must wrestle with the big issues of the day (along with the smaller issues). So there it is!

Iraqi PR project

The US often touts freedom of the press as one of the defining factors in an effective democracy. Isn't it good to know that the US is paying millions of dollars to have a PR company in the United States translate favorable articles about the US occupation in Iraq and send them to Iraq? Not a big deal, right? Wrong because the latest evidence shows that the US has paid millions of dollars to get Iraqi newspapers to print these articles, and they have also paid Iraqi journalists to write favorable articles about the United States. The worst part is there is evidence that shows the US tried to cover up its actions--yes, for all those who are thinking it, this is unethical. (This story was broke by both the LA Times and NBC, so if you want to question the validity of my information, look on those websites). This is wrong--these newspapers, supposedly independent, are taking marching orders from the US government. This is not news; this is propaganda, PR. The US government is kept out of our press, or at least its supposed to be. Why is the US government manipulating the "free press" of a democracy it is trying to get off the ground. There are huge questions that must be asked in light of this information. One, why should we have to spin a war that is right?--the answer is if it were right, the US government shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars on PR to try to sell the war. It certainly shouldn't have to spend that much money to convince the people the war has supposedly helped. Two, why does the US get the benefit of a free press in its democracy and the Iraqis get a second rate "bought press?" Three, why does the US say one thing and do another? Four, how much should we be suspect of the information coming from our own press? Has the US bought off the NY Times? NBC? the Plain Dealer? This obviously frustrates me. I already had problems with our objectives in the war to begin with. I am not sold on the idea that the US should be promoting democracy around the world, but if the US is going to promote it, it should not try to undermine one of its major components. A free press is essential in a democracy. The public needs access to information. Now, to tie this to mass media and society. Hopefully it will be obvious, but the news is a major way that mass media affects society. If the news is not accurate, if it is not real, if it is not aware of its power, there are serious ramifications that can take place within a society. So there is my spiel for whatever its worth, I know it doesn't tie into what we are currently dealing with in class, but I believe it is still valuable and certainly blog worthy. The US government is being completely unethical and as Christians maybe we should voice our concerns and try to encourage the government to reform its unethical ways.

Gender Roles

I am very sensitive to the way women are portrayed in movies (maybe its because my mom read The Feminine Mystique back in the 70s and I still hear about gender role issues in my household), but it bothers me when film portrays women as the helpless, the tag-along, the dependent, the whore, or the over-the-top-opinionated-run-people-over-with-her-attitude witch with a capital "b." Can't we have more movies that portray women working along side of men, not running them over like they have something to prove or walking behind, but movies that show what one would hope the reality is? Unfortunately, I think most movies do a great disservice to women. I am not going to lie; I don't watch a great deal of movies, but Romanowski got me thinking about the movies I have watched. The common portrayal of women that bothers me the most is "the helpless woman." I believe superhero movies do the greatest disservice to women in this area. Superhero movies have a tendency to have a strong male figure who wants nothing more than to save a damsel in distress (helpless woman). Spiderman did not do a great job for the image of the woman; MaryJane always needed to be saved from some sort of evil force. Daredevil on the other hand, for all its faults, did a better job at portraying a strong woman (Jennifer Garner) who could hold her own. So those are my thoughts for better or for worse. As Christians I believe that we need to portray women who have ethics, strong character, who aren't run over by the male figures in their lives (unless showing how male dominance isn't necessarily positive). It would probably be very beneficial to show women and men working side by side to promote positive societal changes. This is not to say in some movies we shouldn't show reality, but we should show it and put a different spin on it.

Theological Frameworks

So I was really fascinated with the differences between dipensationalism and reform theology. I have heard professors (okay, mainly Dr.Waalkes) talk in general about reform theology. I have also heard different profs and students talk about dispensationalism, and I had sort of picked up on the differences, but having Andrew Rudd talk about it really cleared up a lot of my confussion. Then I realized I have no idea where my church came from because I see elements of both in our theology (this will be my new identity crisis). Either way, that is not my point. My point is it is amazing how our theological framework prevades even the most ordinary and mundane of each of our lives (or it least it has the potential to give people a way of looking at the mundane). This is a concept I had sort of always recognized, but it really came to light when reading this book. A seemingly mundane, ordinary activity like watching a movie or listening to music can (and should) be thought about through the lens of our faith. And it is also amazing that as Christians we can come to so many different conclusions about how media is supposed to be looked at. Two Christians who are coming from two slightly different theological frameworks can come to vastly different conclusions on an ordinary activity. It makes sense to me that these same two people would come to different conclusions about communion--which I would argue is not an activity that fits into the mundane category, but listening to music; it seems as if we should be on the same page with that one.
As I have been typing I am starting to question my original premise that watching a movie or listening to music fall in the category of ordinary. It is arguable that because it is possible to have an aesthetic experience when you watch movie it would hardly be considered ordinary. With this new thought, it seems more likely that one's theological framework could cause you to see this event differently than someone of the same faith who comes from a slightly different theological framework.

Why do I use media

I totally use media for surveillance purposes. Somewhere deep inside of my lives what Andrew Rudd described as a gypsy. As much as I would like things to stay the same, the actions I take(or plan to take) would suggest otherwise--ie studying in the Middle East for a semester. Because that little voice inside of me is always screaming "move on!" I tend to keep watch on the areas that I want to move on to or at least visit for a short while. Thus, my media diet is pretty much international news or international documentaries. I like to keep my eye on what is going on with our global brothers and sisters. At one point in time I believe I used media solely for entertainment purposes, but somewhere around high school I forgot about media for entertainment, but now I believe I am in some ways back to media as entertainment/ritual. When I read the daily newspaper not only do I get to survey what is going on in the world, but U am also taking part in a morning ritual, and I am being entertained by the words in front of me. I think in some ways I also still use the media to find out about myself. When I read or watch about other countries happenings I learn how their situation, culture, etc. affects me. I find out a great deal about myself by seeing what stories turn my stomach, what stories move me to tears or what stories bring me great joy. Whereas I would say surveillance is my primary reason for media use, I believe also that I can make a case for other reasons I might use the media.

Opinion Leaders

I would love to say that I am an opinion leader, but the sad truth is I am totally a follower leaching off the media experiences of others. While sitting in class trying to determine which category I fell into (follower or leader), I did a quick run through of my media intake for the last few months or so. I could not think of a single original media idea I had, and then it occurred to me that I am in a very large group. Where did the people that recommended the media to me get their idea to take in that particular text? Professors maybe, pastors, friends, coworkers--who knows? But where did those people get the idea--television? Internet blogs? I would venture a guess that 90% of us are merely followers. This is not to say that some of us aren't higher up on the media intake chain, but we are still followers. If this is true, then those people at the top of the chain are incredibly powerful. Media shapes our opinion about relationships, politics, normalcy and all sorts of other topics and the people who get to chose what we read and view about such topics have the potential to exercise great influence over society.

John Edwards, my close buddy

Like your average 20-something girl I have a parasocial relationship with a 52-year-old politician, John Edwards. That's normal, right? Probably not, but like I believe I have mentioned before, my upbringing wasn't exactly average--there was a high emphasis placed on political figures (in second grade I remember defending Bill Clinton to my Republican teachers). I believe I first became aware of my parasocial relationship with John, former senator from South Carolina and Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, when I began reading everything I could get my hands on about him in the Dispatch. The obsession leaked into stopping to listen to him speak every time I saw him on TV. I knew I was in real trouble when I could recite large portions of his stump speech. (FYI- Tony Campolo used a piece of his stump speech in his chapel talk) What made my parasocial relationship really blossom was being around other Edwards supporters. When Edwards finally bowed out of the primaries and joined John Kerry in the race for the White House I felt betrayed. I felt John E. was the man for the job, and I was upset with the American Democrats for not believing the way I did. It took a while for me to warm up to the man who stole Edward's dream, but I finally came to the conclusion that is what John Edwards would want me to do. I then started to read up on Kerry and watch him, and that is when parasocial relationship #2 started. So what is the point? I believe this parasocial relationship was healthy. John Edwards brought me hope for a bright future in the midst of a bleak time in my life. He and his story allowed me to embrace great possibilities. (His story very well could fit the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" myth, but at the same time his politics does not buy into this myth.) He directed my attention to the greater needs of society with his "two Americas" image. I don't think any of this is bad or unhealthy...so that is my take on my own parasocial relationship.