Sunday, January 25, 2009

Yukun's Questions

1 In Page xix, the 3, 4 and 5 paragraphs, the authors discussed Fordism and Frankurt school’s “the end of individual”. However, I am wondering that some super star reporters are not under the organization of news media. Though they have some official titles such as reporter of XXX TV station or XXX newspaper, they have their fans and promote themselves through their articles and faces. In addition, with the development of new communication technologies, audiences are more divided. It is impossible for traditional media to occupy the whole market share by unified contents. Unlike 50 years ago, today some small media or even individual media workers have more chances to attract their own fans or build their own media business. Does Frankurt school touch this topic? What is its opinion about the communication technology?

2 Question about McLuhan’s Understanding Media
In page xxii, the authors indicated that “….media culture produced more fragmentary, nonrational, and aestheticized subject, ….” But at the end of the 4 paragraph the authors indicated McLuhan believed global culture and consciousness will overcome individualism and nationalism. As what I know, there are two features about globalization. One is integration, and the other is fragmentation. I am confused about McLuhan’s perspective. At least, I don’t agree with the notion that global culture will overcome individualism and nationalism. No matter in normative theories or empirical evidences, globalization will bring more conflicts and trigger more extremely nationalism or racism, though it indeed creates some forms of transnational culture.

3 Question about hegemony
In page 3, there are some discussions about hegemony. For me it seems that the relationship between up and low is a one-way direction. In addition, in page xxiv, at the end of the second paragraph, the authors indicated “hegemony” and “counter-hegemonic forces” from British cultural studies. I am wondering if there is any other theory using more dynamic relationships to explain hegemony. For example, “Hybrity” in postcolonialism theory.

4 Question about repressive state apparatus and ISAs
In page 80 Althusser mention “ the repressive state apparatus functions by violence”, Whereas ” the ISAs function by ideology”. In page81, “no class can hold state power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the state ideological apparatus.” I am just wondering what Althusser’s opinion is about EU, where repressive state apparatus is left in states but part of ISAs are transiting to an organization above states. Especially, Althusser is a French philosopher.

5 In page xxvi, section of political economy and globalization, at the end of the last second paragraph,” The system of production often determines what type of artifacts will be produce.” It reminders me Dr Joe’s book World Television from Global to Local. Even material networks or production systems are controlled by a hegemonic country or big transnational media groups, it doesn’t mean that the globalized content will be accept by local audiences. I am curious with the debates within the scholars of political economy. Do they all accept production decide content?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.