Postmodern Plumber

“Writers from working-class backgrounds have argued that their experiences, their background, give them a particular standpoint, a perspective on culture. This is a ‘postmodern’ position. It refuses a universal truth about the value of different kinds of culture, but rather suggests that one’s experiences will play at least some part in how one makes sense of the public sphere …” (McKee 77).

This 'postmodern' view that McKee mentions can definitely be seen in the election this year. The example that immediately comes to mind is that of Joe the Plumber who disagreed with Obama's idea that the more money people make, the more they should be taxed. From Joe's perspective, he started out not making much money but expanded his business to where he is now above Obama's bracket. He does not want to pay more taxes than others possibly because he feels that he had a lower income at one point but pulled himself up by his bootstraps and is now successful. This issue points out Joe's experience of how he came into his money and how it is affecting his opinion on the subject of higher taxes. If, for example, Joe had not come up in his business but had gone into bankruptcy, he might think differently about the situation. It seems very natural now for people who are involved in the public sphere to take this 'postmodern' approach and relate their opinions to personal experiences.

Commercialization for Dummies

“…commercialization is a valuable part of the public sphere: ‘dumbing down’ is another term for ‘making accessible’: and the most trashy culture provides some of the most interesting thinking about the workings of the public sphere” (McKee 67).

I think I agree with the last portion of this quote from McKee rather than the first part. Popular culture, I believe, does provide a wide range of interests in the public sphere and gives insight as to what the working class sees as every-day issues that the public is dealing with. This seems to be the case because the working class can relate to issues or situations, possibly learning a lesson from the story or maybe even discovering something about themselves they didn't realize before. It also gives these people an example of what may be appropriate or accepted by others in their relationship to the culture. These can all be useful interpretations about how culture works in the public sphere. I feel that the 'dumbing down' part of this quote enters into another realm however. From my perspective, 'dumbing down' is trying to reach an audience that will believe anything you tell them; a gullible audience that can be easily persuaded. In today's society, some of the most uninformed people might be the more wealthy class (Paris Hilton), depending on the individual. When dealing with the political election of 2008, both of these perspectives apply. Some of the working class culture might get all their information from television commercials or billboards that really give no useful information to the voter. Or perhaps the citizen is not even registered to vote because they know so little about the situation. I believe this is the part of commercialization that is 'dumbing down'. It is not making information more accessible but telling people how to think or vote. But if the working class has the initiative, has been registered to vote, then they can read for themselves and think for themselves. Certain commercialization gives us positive information which can help mold our interpretation of the election while other commercialization tells us how to think.

Getting the Facts, Not the Favorite

The political ticker I have cited in a previous post has updated categories from both the left and right sides of the debate. Producers like Alexander Marquardt or Alexander Mooney seem to be trying to represent both sides of the legal debate. The background for this site is all white which seems to represent a neutral standing for CNN. They have articles and pictures from both sides and have even quoted both the Republican and Democratic parties going back on their words. I am impressed with the titles that some of these writers of the blogs hold and even more impressed that I can see both angles from the same twisted approach that they represent. Campaign funding, clean coal and Republicans supporting/not supporting Republicans are all over the board giving the CNN Political Ticker a broad range of information given to readers. Reporting on all aspects seems fair and possibly dependable for getting the facts, not the favorite.

Winning at the Wrong Things

Diving into the public sphere of politics is something very new for me. It is interesting to read the comments posted by citizens and easy to sink into the bickering between parties. In this election, I do not know exactly what McCain and Obama are endorsing on most subjects. My main concern for this country is not the current economical status, which will always be fluctuating, but the consistent decline of the environment. It seems like the topic of a struggling economy is acting as a temporary answer to the populations' needs. Who is going to make bills for alternative energy sources? The oil consumption in America has already hit a level plane and can only continue in a permanent state of decline. Sure we will produce for a while longer, but when it's gone, it's gone. I feel that candidates should be taking this topic more seriously as a long term goal for the well-fare of the public in the future. And yet these concerns are not a serious matter of the debate, as far as it seems. When I look at John McCain, all I can think about is Sarah Palin, When I think about her, I am reminded of her background, especially coming from Alaska. Alaska makes me think of oil rigs and then my thoughts divert right back to McCain. McCain sees our future in oil, but then who knows how much longer he will be alive anyhow. He doesn't seem to have long-term goals for the environment or the population. Re-reading the article mentioned in my last posting gives me a greater idea of what the debate is really about: winning.

Political Divide Should Be Put Aside!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/mccains-closing-argument-a-push-for-divided-government/

I visited the site above and feel that I am not politically educated enough to respond thouroughly to this blog, but I thought it carried an interesting topic of "divided government". From reading the blog, I was given the impression that the Republicans are afraid to lose the majority in congress as well as the presidency. Even though the last time Democrats had a "filibuster-proof majority" was thrity years ago, it seems that certain Republican party members are weary to give the other party a chance. Power sinks deep into the pockets of politicians and it is a hard thing to give up, but the idea of divide seems unhealthy for America. The Republican party being in majority for so many decades does seem a bit suspiscious in that this makes the party seem power/money hungry and fills them with fear in losing this position. Our system was created to give everyone who is eligible a voice. It does not mean that the voice will win but at least it is heard. Division is not the answer in these tough times. We must pull together and trust each other instead of dividing for gaining power. After being apart of this current ecomonic depression, I say, what's wrong with change?

Private vs. Public

Well, I'm still struggling with this whole group blog- here I am responding to myself again - but responding all the same. I would like to respond to Habermas' comment about the "private world" (McKee 54) being seperate from the public world and only when the private individual meets the public space, do their ideas become part of the ideal public sphere. I can understand this view point, but to some extent I disagree because I feel that it is part of human order to be accepted by others. Although we have individual desires in our private space, I think these desires are manipulated unconsciously by our desire to please others: to be accepted by the 'norm'. Of course there are exceptions to this theory but it seems quite difficult for most individuals to be excluded from a public atmosphere in one way or another. To agree with McKee, ...the public sphere isn't seperate from private issues of identity: it's a vital component of forming identity," (56). Private issues of the home might be soothed by an account from someone who is experiencing a similar situation thus uniting people who thought they were alone. Identity can be individual, but when bringing in culture, all of us have grown from something that has come before us and given us a specific road that we chose to follow in our own way. The fact that Habermas also leaves women out of his account in drawing these conclusions is also a major setback to his theories. When only considering half the population, Habermas might come a little closer in guessing the importance and benefits of the private space. For me, however slodarity does not necessarily seem like an escape, although I might like to escape from the constant commmercialization of today's world.

Does Writing Matter?

Writing is a form of expression that every individual should be entitled to. In pre-modern times, when literacy was not widely accepted, there were other forms of expression but these forms might be kept in private and only discussed among similar groups with similar ideals. To have a written statement of an opinion meant that anyone could view it at any time. It could evoke passion or anger and hopefully a reaction that might help to change something that a number of people saw as injust. Through Enlightenment concepts of, "equality, justice, freedom and comfort," writing opens a window of self expression that cannot be taken away from or silenced by the individual (McKee 15). One example of the importance of writing is shown through the feminist perspective where women no longer had to be silent about the mental or physical abuse they endured in the home. In writing about private issues, women in similar situations could pull together and eventually agree that they were being treated unfairly and make movements to try and overcome something that evolved into a common problem. Writing has many purposes but without it, expression of the individual is limited.