Last Blog (sorry it's late)

I was actually a little disspointed that we didn't get into the topic of religion- though I know that it is a "touchy, touchy" subject that has to be discussed with care...

I grew up going to a non-denominational Christian church (my mother converted to Christianity from Catholicism in college before coming to the states) and although I have thought a lot about my personal faith since attending Columbia College, this class make me think even more about it.

I guess, even though I feel guilty about it, I sort of thought of Adorno's theory about how we're drones and accept whatever is put in front of us, without even questioning it or trying to fight it. Now, I would not say that my mother or other people from my church (which are some of best people I know) are brainwashed and that they need a reality check- because it works for them. For me- not so much. So I thought about how every single Sunday of my life since I was 3 years old, until I moved out after my senior year in highschool, Sunday School and church became a routine and how I never really questioned why I went willingly even though a lot of times I never even listened and just doodled until the closing song was sung.

Also it seems to me that Christianity HAS become a sort of Industry, just as Adorno believes in the "Culture Industry." I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Willow Creek church in the suburbs, or with the "church-chain" of Harvest Bible Chapel, but I mean come-on, a church with multiple chains? Especially because I grew up in a small church, it seems like these Wal-Marts of the Christian world are making Christianity less personable and that people are more concerned with the what "church brand" they are associated it- similar to the way industrilization and mass production was seen as cheapening or devalue-ing art.

Columbia Cultural Movement

Since I've been in Cultural Studies, I learned allot about culture. What shocked me about this class, is the observations we made, had not been what I expected. When I first came to take this course, it didn't occur to me how much we don't question. One of the main things thats stand out to me, is the difference between high culture and popular culture. I consider College a culture in itself, and there are numerous things included to make this statement true. A perfect example would be a school such as, UIC. This would be considered, by allot of our standards to be a normal college. When I think of its opposite, it would be a school like Columbia College. When I consider a school such as Columbia, it usually stands out to be popular. Everyone have there own type of artistic expression that gives a certain portrayal. It seems to be a big competition, to make themselves seem different than the other. Alot of the times, we don't acknowledge this, simply because this would place us in a particular category. One of the main cultures I've observed is Hip Hop, and it usually reflects in Columbia allot. Growing up in Chicago, I've witnessed allot of people who were truly a part of Hip Hop. It seems to be less authentic when every one seems to be part of it, and this is usually the case with popular culture. This observation may be another case, with someone trying to escape category.

Final Blog Question

Umm...we didn't study film theory very much. I don't know if the class has caused me to reconsider this but I have realized even more so lately, how films are mediums and vehicles. I've seen a lot of documentaries that are just blatant vehicles and they state the obvious but then I saw the Constant Gardener. It is a narrative film but really does well exploring social injustices and the like. This also happened when I saw Il Conformista, a brief synopsis from IMDB: "A weak-willed Italian man becomes a fascist flunky who goes abroad to arrange the assassination of his old teacher, now a political dissident." I thought that it conveyed reality very well even though I have never been in that situation and probably never will be. From what I know though, this film delivered a thorough glimpse into that particular situation very realistically. I had no doubts that the situation wouldn't be the way it was portrayed. I have started to appreciate heavy-hitting narratives more than ever now. I guess talking about space and time giving rise to this occasion would make the most sense. In the films that have really moved me that were trying to deliver a distinct message about something that is wrong with the world, the concepts of space and time were portrayed extremely accurately and to my knowledge were all completely true and not very exaggerated. I don't know if I understood this question at all or answered it correctly. =)

Last blog! It's been real!

hmmm, this is a toughy because we've covered so much in class but here goes nothing!
This might not nessecarily be something I believed at one time but it is something I wonder about: the organization of miniorites in the city.
Alright this goes perfectly with both a dicussion we had in Common Ground (the GLBT group on campus) and today's issue of the Red Eye, which is about (one of my favorite parts of the city) Boystown.
In Common Ground we brought up why do certain miniorites set up their own enclaves inside citys like Chinatowns, Gay Villages, Little Italies, etc. and the Red Eye pointed out this morning that Boystown was being "infiltrated" by others outside of the GLBT community and how some people were afraid it'd harm the neighborhood.
Granted, Boystown does kind of have a strange set up since it's right next to Wriglyville and-in my experince-homos and drunk sports fans don't mix, but whatever it seems to work.
My point is why do miniorites form communties in which they are both seperate (some would even say segregated) yet still part of the city as a whole? Someone in the meeting said it's to foster a sense of "togetherness" and commradary in a city that might otherwise be anything but.
And yeah, that sort of might be true, I can see why but there may be more to it then just that especially when you think about the suburbs, which has less ethic diversity and therefore more need of "togetherness", yet suburbs (for the most part) are more confroming or the communties are extremely confined.
I don't know. It most likely has something to do with space. I'd be intrested in learning more about it.

Sorry Corinne but your blog immediately made me think of this

When I was 13 I was a strict catholic. Before then, I really didn't give a shit about religion and all the required CCD sesssions and church masses that my mother made me attend. I hated going to Christmas Mass especially, because we had to go to my grandma's church which was in South Omaha...once known as Little Italy, but soon became "Little Mexico". The only reason I liked attending her church was because there were times when they would ask me play my violin during mass or sing with them, and also because I got to listen to the mass in spanish as well and made many friends with the hispanic choir. BUT, the reason I hated it was because it made the mass twice as long, and who enjoys sitting in those uncomfortable wooden pews for over 4 hours?
When I was 13 and suddenly my relationship with my grandmother began to blossom (after she stopped calling me Sarah..which was my 6 cousin who was 6 months older than me and attended a catholic school from kindergarden until she graduated highschool), you would find me more than 4 times a week in a church, whether it was the one I was confirmed from or my grandmothers....praying, or just talking with the priests....confessing my sins which were not much for 13 year old.
I continued to practice catholicism, maybe not as strictly as I was when I was 13...until about a week and a half before I turned 15. My grandmother died 11 days before my 15th birthday. And suddenly, my belief in God died with her.
I never really thought about why my sudden interest in Catholicism disapeared until lately. Now, I do not practice any religion. I feel that I do not know enough about one certain religion to subject myself to it. And, I know what you are thinking, I could study them, learn and get to know a religion better that suits my beliefs, and BAM, I'd be set. But, the truth is, I don't have time too. Not only that, I don't know if I really want too.

On page 83 in Theory Toolbox, it says "This constitutes the first definition of Ideology: something that is false or misleading because it's mystifying. Ideology in this sense is a discourse that always misrepresents concrete conditions and specific causes, trading concrete realities for murky, vague, metaphysical conditions."

Did I just fall into Catholicism to escape from what was happening in my life during my early teens? I had no real knowledge of the religion because I never paid attention during church, or CCD growing up. But, there was something special and powerful about it when I began to really believe. I saw my grandmother, so happy and powerful, in her late 80's and what was something that she had believed in her entire life?--God and Catholicism. I had no confused or hurt feelings when I suddenly quit attending church and believing. I did not feel guilt. I felt nothing. I do know, that when I was attending church, reading the bible, praying, and believing, some sort of positivity took over my life that made everything seem alright. It gave reason to everything wrong. Is this the mystifying part?

So, after discussing ideologies in class, is this a reason why I am far from interested in finding a religion or a belief that would suit me? Is it because I have learned that it is all just a false misleading mystified version of something that really does not matter in the end?

Last Blog :[

Well guys, this is it.

I'm a Christian, and I think the ideology that I thought about "requestioning," was the ideology of religions. I mean, don't get me wrong, requestioning it doesn't make me believe it any less, but it does bring up the question- is this right for me? I think it is healthy to question your religion, because it can either make you realize it isn't for you, or it can strengthen your relationship with it even more. This class made me think about the whole ideology aspect of it, and the possible reasons for having those ideologies in place. I mean, obviously it could be something that keeps people from doing bad things, but it also gives people comfort during life problems, and death. I can understand why people could view it only as that, but even as I thought about these things, I know why it is more than that for me. In the "ideological" sense, religions are right for some people, and wrong for others. I think that was the whole point of the ideology talk- at first I thought the book was saying that all ideologies were false, but then I came to understand that just ideologies aren't true for everyone. So, that is what I have taken away from that discussion, as well as the more specific religion topic that I have brought up now.

Page 195 #2

It seems like these ads try to provoke many levels of thought and of advertising itself. The first ad of the Vodka was the ad that interested me the most. Everyone knows that alcohol is bad for your body. We are taught from a very young age about the dangers related to drinking, and how it begins to affect your life, and even shape our relationships from a very young age. This substance is such an enigma to me, in the sense that it is hard for me to look at alcohol in only one way, because through ads like the common Absolut Vodka ads, and Budweiser ads, this and through so many other venues in life, alcohol/drinking is presented in a very different way. How can this seemingly dangerous substance, be so accepted in mainstream society. Who stands for that? I always wondered that. Alcohol seems like the drug that was just able to slip through. I think this is a sort of cultural phenomenon, and the ad, in my opinion does a very good job in helping put alcohol in its rightful place, because after all, it plays a role in the deaths of thousands of people every year. Using courtroom terms, in a murder case, alcohol could/would be an accessory before the fact, directly linking it assisting whatever murder was thereafter related. This ad brings a more blunt and honest side of the effects of alcohol back to the table. As Shakespeare says in the quote underneath the bottle, "The drink provokes the desire, but takes away the performance" I think we can all agree on this one. It is just harder for some rather than others to face this reality. How has the acceptability of drinking found its way in to our society. Why? It seems that there is no ending it now, considering the millions of alcoholics in this country, and just how pervasive and always present the effects of drinking, both seemingly positive and negative at the same time. This is a cultural phenomenon that I would be very eager to do some more research into.