Benjamin, Walter. “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Ed. R. Kearney. Continental Aesthetics Romanticism to Post Modernism: An Anthology. Ed. D. Rasmussen. Blackwell, 2001.
Friske, John. “Interpellation.” Cultural Studies: An Anthology. Ed. Michael Ryan. Wiley-Blackwell.2008. 311-15.
Hilley, Joe. Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader. Zondervan, 2008. <www.books.google.com>
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments.: Standford, UP, 2002.
Klein, Joe. “Sarah Palin’s Myth of America” Time Magazine: 1-3. TIME. 10 Sept. 2008. 21 May 2009 <www.time.com>.
Kress, G., and T. VanLeeuwen. “Modality: Designing Models of Reality.” Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 1996.
Kress, G., and T. VanLeeuwen. “Introduction: The Grammar of Visual Design.” Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 1996.
McCloud, Scott. “Chapter Two: The Vocabulary of Comics.” Understanding Comics. Harper Personal, 1993. 24-59.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. The Visual Culture Reader. What is Visual Culture? Rautledge. 1998
Warner, Michael. “Mass Public and the Mass Subject.” Publics and Counterpublics. New York City, NY: Zone Books, 2002.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 27, 2009 by andrieaa
I chose to base my final assignment on Sarah Palin because I am fascinated that an unknown woman from Alaska was able to become a vice presidential pick: a woman who has no experience, and as a result of her political accomplishments, has been brought to life as an icon. I view her as a politician who was brought to life in a Frankensteinesque fashion- the public has given her life in both positive and negative contexts based on their perceptions of her.
We’ve seen how her icon image is portrayed in the mass media in book form. For example, Joe Hilley’s Sarah Palin- A New Kind of Leader: Hilley’s book provides society with a look at how she is portrayed as a savior in society through relying on her personal life. Through analyzing his exist via visual culture, his purpose in creating Palin as a savior is to provide a positive perspective on the Republican Party, post Bush era, and in some ways, to save the party from becoming a minority in American politics. It’s hard to ignore how the past eight years has affected the public perspective of the Republican Party.
However, the creation of Palin’s image as a savior is successful- until Palin proposes herself as an unintelligent individual, as demonstrated through the videos I posted. These given videos show how her icon image also proposes her as a danger in her influence on women because of her gender and thus, being an outsider in a man’s world. Palin becomes a promoter of a false ideology of feminism- know nothing and be pretty: be an ideal woman. As a result, her positive persona can be viewed as a negative. Due to the negative results of modernity, public figures, such as Palin are able to manifest themselves into society’s insecurities and propose false ideas of identity.
With that in mind, I turned to the Grammar of Visual Design, to help me decode Palin’s presence in politics, in both contexts. I discussed how her image can provide dual meaning: good (savior) and bad (danger) through the interpretation and manipulation of the image. Therefore, a signified meaning of Palin emerges, since she is a concept of her proposed meanings but also a signifier, as she is distant from these abstracted meanings.
I started to understand Palin separate from her media portrayals, which drew me to McCloud’s article on icons for further analysis in order to distinguish how Palin is viewed as a positive signifier, and to discuss her role as an icon and her general acceptance in the world. I turned to John Friske Interpellation to explore how Palin as an icon is accepted: through social norms, icons are viewed as normal. But how is her presence as an icon possible? According to John Althusser, ideology creates public figures.
To further my analysis on Palin, I looked at the structure that embraced her: the culture industry (as discussed by Horkheimer and Adorno), the main tool used to create a relationship between Palin and the media, is manipulation via the industries filters. This detailed post was the hardest to complete. To relate Horkheimer and Adorno’s theories to media, I choose Time Magazine and Joe Klein’s Sarah Palin’s Myth of America. This article’s pro-Republican perspective created Palin as a savior who can be perceived as a danger. To further discuss how and why, I looked at the modality within the article, and how it plays a role with Palin’s public persona as it works as a filter within the culture industry and its manipulation.
After all this work, I believe it’s safe to conclude that Sarah Palin is a floating signifier and signified, as her public persona can be viewed in both negative and positive contexts. Therefore, she is both a savior and danger to the Republican party: both signifier and signified.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 22, 2009 by andrieaa
John Friske’s Interpellation concentrates on over-determination as the cause of ideology, as it allows the superstructure (three levels: the economy, politics and ideology) to thrive in society through its influence of the base and production of a ‘model’ relationship between ideology and culture. Therefore, the relationship allows social norms to exist: ideologically slanted in favour of a particular class or group of classes, but accepted as natural by other classes, even when the interests of those other classes are directly opposed by the ideology reproduced by living life according to those norms. From this understanding of ideology, let’s look at Modality: Designing Models of Reality and relate it to how Palin is presented as “real” and “reality,” as discussed in the previous post.
Before I can discuss the notion of modality and its suggestive nature, I must define it. Therefore, modality is the method in which information is encoded into signs: this process encodes value into images and language. So, when decoding reality, modality plays a factor, as reality becomes defined by a set of factors, which in my opinion, are the same as the factors that control culture through a veil: manipulation. Through social norms, as discussed by Friske, realism through manipulation becomes “normal”. Lets look at Joe Klein’s Sarah Palin’s Myth of America again, specifically the quote about her looks, and deconstruct it for the manipulation of Palin’s image, and how the author’s bias is encoded into his perspective of her as an icon for all women. However, before I continue, it’s important to know that Klein is part of a larger ideological forces in the U.S. that want to present Palin in a certain fashion (Humpfreys, 2009). This is important to state as it will help us to understand his pro-Republican point of view: he wants to represent Palin as a savior.
Modality and the creation of reality is in the eyes of the beholder, and in this case, Klein‘s vision of Palin is his reality: “to start with the obvious, she’s attractive. Her husband is a hunk. They have a gorgeous family, made more touching and credible by the challenges their children face…her voice is more distinctive than her looks: that flat northern twang that screams I’m just like you! Actually, the real message is: I’m just like you want to be, a brilliantly spectacular…average American.” But for the eye which has critical thinking training, we can consider the function of Klein’s words: the manipulation of Palin’s danger image into a savior one. The relationship Palin’s public personae have with the filters of the cultural industry are evident in Klein’s message: the manipulation of her “reality” is presence while creating a positive image of her based on facts that have nothing to do with politics. His modality of her is therefore accepted through the social norms, discussed by Friske. Without them, his opinion would not have been viewed as real and would have not been published for a mass public to observe and to either agree with his viewpoint of realism or disagree.
This is why and how Palin is viewed as a danger: the ideas that are gathered about her create her as a great idol, an icon, based on superficial means- therefore, planting false images of reality into the public’s perception of what is real. The lack of reality leaves people living in an illusory perception of the world. Between the need for dependence on public figures because of modernity and illusions proposed in modality, society who “buys” into Palin as being a worthy candidate buy into her looks, and therefore, not into her politics. Of course, this is just my perception of modality, critiquing Palin as a sign, based on Klein’s words.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 22, 2009 by andrieaa
As discussed in the previous posts, Palin’s relationship with the media is made possible through many factors. While reading Joe Klein’s Sarah Palin’s Myth of America, I found the article served as a proof for how the media plays into Palin’s icon image in the positive context; in turn, we see the “spin doctors” put to work, which portrays the author’s political beliefs.
Immediately, the image of Palin as being dominant in society is evident to the readers: Sarah Palin has arrived in our midst with the force of a rocket-propelled grenade” (Klein,2008). The symbolism of Palin being as powerful as a grenade is interesting, but there are no reasons behind this reference, and Klein is aware of his bias: “we don’t really know Palin as a politician yet…our fascination with her…is driven by something more primal.” Klein’s statement makes it obvious to the reader that there must be something going on in society to make her become an icon, which is explored throughout this article through superficial means.
Such as: “to start with the obvious, she’s attractive. Her husband is a hunk. They have a gorgeous family, made more touching and credible by the challenges their children face.” So, is the primal factor that makes society’s fascination of Palin based on society’s perception of beauty? Is Klein creating Palin as a high value of modality through his perception of beauty? It sure seems like it; Klein is proposing Palin as a positive signifier of the American Dream, through her beauty, strength and charm: “her voice is more distinctive than her looks: that flat northern twang that screams “I’m just like you!” Actually, the real message is: I’m just like you want to be, a brilliantly spectacular…average American.” As previously discussed, the notion of the ideology accepted through social norms is evident only two paragraphs into this article, portrays his perspective of the perfect American woman: Sarah Palin.
But why is she considered perfection of not only womanhood, but the ideal way to obtain the American dream? Is it because Palin embraces small town values where her hold on the national imagination begins? Or maybe because Klein holds the bias opinion that women in America do not work: “Palin embodies the most basic American myth: mom works too”. Her blind perception of American women shows his lack of ability to see the real situation of society. Thus, Klien’s perception of the ideal woman is Palin: as he “can’t imagine a more powerful, or current, American dream”.
The filter within the culture industry of manipulation is relevant in this article, as Klein is trying to push his perspective of Palin being the “ideal woman American.” For example, his portrayal of Palin is the “perfect representation of the American dream” because she is a representation of keeping society living on a myth that is more salable than living on a hope. He portrays this vision by creating a binary between Palin and Obama, thus idea vs. disgraceful: “[Obama] has no personal anecdotes to match Palin’s…[his bi-racial heritage] takes place in an America not yet mythologized, a country that is struggling to be born.” By spinning the story of Obama’s bi-racial heritage (“a vision that is not sellable right now to most Americans…where myths are more potent than the type of hope getting past the dour realities they face each day”), it gives his persona a life of negativity, and encourages Palin’s saviour persona.
There are two reasons why I chose this article. One, it illustrates how Palin is perceived as a savior, and how the media’s relationship with her helps manipulate readers into agreeing with their god-like vision of her. We now understand how this relationship controls her public persona. Also, it explains how her savior image is created and maintained, through the filter of the media: manipulation. However, through this upkeep, the negative perspective of Palin has material to work and to critique, strengthening their perspective of Palin.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 21, 2009 by andrieaa
Introduction:
Horkheimer and Adorno’s The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception explores the notion of culture through a filter: “the whole world is passed through the filter of the cultural industry” (8). In regards to Sarah Palin, her status as an icon is created not only from a relationship she has with the media, but through the cultural industry. She is categorized through the media as either a positive or negative force in society. In this post, with the help of Horkheimer and Adorno, I will be discussing how Palin’s icon image is created in society through the culture industry.
Culture Industry and its Filter: Manipulation:
As previously discussed, modernity causes society to be in a state of limbo identity, which forces people to depend on public figures for a representation of identity. Culture plays a role in modernity in how it proposes public figures as an “ideal” identity through its filters. Horkheimer and Adorno use art as an example: “each piece of work proposes a promise…created by truth of impressing its unique contours on the socially transmitted forms” (12). So, each piece of art proposes a sense of being, through its ideology; however, each piece of art can be regarded as “great” if it relied on its similarities to others. Therefore, the culture industry and its public figures, like art, is an imitation of others. This imitation is the filter in society. In regards to Sarah Palin, she is a Republican imitation of Hillary Clinton: a failed attempt at manipulating voters.
Manipulation As a Lack of Style: The Cultural Industry as Another Form of Control:
Horkheimer and Adorno criticize culture for its inflexibility; culture is another process of identifying, cataloging and classifying items into the world of administration- the rules of how to live in culture. Therefore, these rules create one culture: a mass culture. As a result, public figures, who are accepted due to the social norms created from modernity, play a part in categorizing within culture. Palin’s a copy of Clinton, and Palin categorizes as an ideal woman’s identity through her perception as ideal. So, a woman, according to Palin, cannot be liberal, casual, natural (example: no hair dye), and intelligent.
The manipulation is a threat to independent thought, as she has proven herself in interviews to be a puppet of the Republican party propaganda (re: see video post). She proposes the perception that women must do what others think or “die” (12) because she participates in that perception herself by proposing herself as a mindless public figure. Her interview with Katie Curic emphasizes this fact, as she is unable to answer anything she is asked. This is dangerous, because the feminist movement worked hard to break this once popular categorizing perception for women to be mindless puppets to men in power (re: McCain). And now, in 2009, society is proposed with this very idealism from the Republican party in their vice president “pick”.
Women in Society: A Critique on the Stereotypical Role According to Horkheimer and Adorno:
Gender is a hidden filter in society, according to Horkheimer and Adorno: “the female starlet is supposed to symbolize the secretary.” This stereotype has been broken down by famous women such as Janis Joplin, who created a place for women in rock, and Hillary Clinton, who is a positive signifier of women in politics as she breaks this filter of women as mindless individuals. However, the danger Palin proposes is she fulfills the ancient stereotype of women, which makes her a danger; because she is a public figure, she is seen as an “ideal” identity, which means more girls and women will strive to be mindless. As a result, a new era of mindless women will occur: “the identity of the species prohibits that of the individual cases” (23). In other words, Palin is a danger as she proposes the notion of death to the individual and independent thinking woman through her own stupidity as a failed copy of Clinton, pressured by the Republican party, and who is trying to overcome the past eight years of negative press from the Bush era.
Palin as a Copy: No Thoughts of Her Own: A Filter in the Culture Realm: “Society is made up of the desperate and thus falls prey to rackets” (30). This is the reason behind the creation of Palin. She is a copy of the image of powerful women, such as Hilary Clinton- the suits, the walk, the attempt at Clinton’s rhetoric etc… her copy is to “prey” on the desperate and hopeless Americans who, after the past eight years of horror, are yearning for change. Through this manipulation, Palin is mocking herself; she proposes an image of being the new face of feminism, yet contradicts that perception accepted by social norms. So, what is the message behind the promotion of being a copy in society? The individual cannot survive in the cultural industry, as the manipulation filter is a powerful force that kills the individual thinker, as seen through Obama’s win over Clinton, through the manipulation of Oprah and her money.
The Death of the Individual: Culture’s Filter as the Murder:
“The individual trait is reduced to the ability of the universal so completely to mod[ify] the accidental so that it can be recognized as accidental” (32). Let’s look at the Democrats Presidential Election between Clinton and Obama, who was not a likely candidate without Oprah’s manipulation through her public image and of course, her mass donations to his campaign (during which I will argue that she bought votes through her power in the cultural industry). The outcome is clear, however: Clinton, a hard working woman, lost as a result of Oprah’s use of the culture industry’s filter: manipulation. Clinton, an individual, was only tolerated until Obama’s mania took over (31). Obama became a copy of Oprah, in regards to how he addresses his voters, as a higher power.
How does this relate to Palin? She thrives as a copy and by-product of McCain and the Republican propaganda. She is aware that the unit of individualism has been recognized as an illusion, due to the filter of manipulation within the culture industry. Through this filter, society becomes a repletion, thus a copy of a copy, and in politics that is the only way to survive. It is how Palin has stayed alive in the political game. This is possible because the culture industry suppresses those who are independent, such as Hilary Clinton, and praises those who give in to its pressures for fame. If you want to play the game, you must buy into the rules, or you will fall behind in the game and finally go under (27).
The Main Tool of Manipulation: Proposing a Lack of Identity through Ideology:
Palin has become an abstraction from herself, and ironically has found a public identity in it, as being a copy and controlled by the Republican party. Therefore, she becomes a by-product of ideology: a social practice in constant process and in constant reproduction (Friske, 312). As previously discussed in the post titled Palin: Frankenstein? public figures strive in society and are accepted because of the creation of social norms. Therefore, Palin has been accepted as an abstraction from herself because of the social norms who accept her.
But how is their abstraction possible? Since “abstractions are identified as public devices, ideologies become [a] systematic [formal system] of what is” (Horkheimer, 25). With Palin, therefore, through the acceptance of social norms, her ideology has been viewed as “normal.” So, society has created a perception of Palin, both positive and negative, and through the culture industry it has been promoted as a norm.
Conclusion:
Through the culture industry, Palin’s manipulative relationship with the industry’s filter is possible, as it works with her to promote an icon image of herself as “normal”. The death of the individual plays a part in creating the Palin normalcy, as there are no alternative viewpoints to challenge what is the “norm”. As a result, society is presented with a mindless woman, named Sarah Palin, and society is supposed to accept her as a norm, especially women, because she has accepted the tools of the industry and worked with them to benefit her image. Therefore, by analyzing Horkheimer and Adorno’s The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, there is some “light” shed in understanding how and why Sarah Palin is accepted in society and the limitations individuals have to stop and question her position as the new face of feminism.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 20, 2009 by andrieaa
Scott McCloud defines an icon as any image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea (McCloud, 27). In regards to public figures such as Sarah Palin, society gives her life in a Frankenstein form by defining her through our perception of who she should be, as encouraged through the media (McCloud, 37). In order to understand how she is viewed as a negative signifier of danger to the world, the Republican party, and of course, Russia, we must understand McCloud’s theory on how Palin’s famous picture became an extension of herself: she absorbs a sense of identity (McCloud, 38) , therefore becoming the picture and all of its manifestations.
McCloud states that “our identities and awareness are invested in many inanimate objects everyday. Our clothes, for example, can trigger numerous transformations in the way others see us and the way we see ourselves” (38). However, can one’s identity be invested in someone else’s image, such as Palin?
YES!
This is the danger of the distance created within the modern world from ourselves and what we consume: we lack identity and depend on public figures to define themselves and ourselves through society’s enforcement of their public image.
Palin has been proposed as a strong woman due to the information the media has presented about her. Weak women everywhere, who are victims of the distance in modernity, depend on the semiotics of Palin, as it flows outward to include her as a part of their extended identity (McCloud, 39). By being an icon, she is brought to life in a Frankenstein fashion because of the concentration on her icon image and the upkeep of it since her “birth” in politics in order to keep her name in the public – therefore, she is playing a power game. How? By manipulating people based on the distance in modernity, she is portraying an identity, and people are buying it: an elaborate scam for votes? She has mentioned her dream to become the President of the United States of America. The dependency on Palin is successful; as McCloud states (by citing McCluhan), people do not want goals as much as they want roles, which is proposed through the visual iconography theory (McCloud, 59).
Therefore, how does semiotics work in creating Palin? After all, she is known more for her inability to answer tough questions such as “what do you think of the bailout?” (re: Curic interview) and her out of wedlock grandson than her politics. So, how is the relationship between Palin’s ideology and culture thrive in a modern world? To answer these burning questions, lets look at Interpellation by John Friske, whose article proposes the answers to the foundation of Palin as a Frankenstein icon, a representation of danger, rather than an icon of strength.
Since our identities belong permanently to the conceptual world, they cannot be seen, touched, heard, etc, as they are simply ideas (McCloud, 40). We attach ourselves to meanings proposed through semiotics, and the semiotics of Sarah Palin are no exception. Her relationship with the theory started through over-determination, which allows the superstructure (as described by Althusser as the economy, politics and ideology) to influence the base, but also produces a model of the relationship between ideology and culture that is not determined solely by economic relations (Friske, 311).
As a result of Palin’s relationship, supported and created by society, her image as an icon presents her as a danger to the Republican party through the media’s portrayal of her as a “monster” and a tool (see videos in previous post). However, this image is accepted since she has been created as a social norm: ideologically slanted in favour of a particular class or group of classes, but are accepted as natural by other classes, even when the interests of those other classes are directly opposed to the ideology reproduced by living life according to those norms (Friske, 311). However, through the social norms that allow society to accept Palin in all her glory, it is the relationship that gives society the tool to recognize public figures through signs, made possible through the mass media.
Hailing works with the process of interpellation by being a larger process. It allows language to construct social relations (re: semiotics). This works in one’s interpretation of Palin because when we first meet people, or are exposed to them (through the media) we “hail” them: we recognize them, which comes from signs, carried in our language. Therefore, one will create a public figure as what they want them to be: creating Palin as a danger, as she can be created to fit someone’s desire which will have a negative impact. Their identity building from this will be temporary, creating Palin as a Frankenstein, because after the novelty wears off, the individual will be back in a state of limbo identity.
McCloud’s theory explains how Palin’s picture became an extension of herself, resulting in the birth of her Frankenstein life in politics. Previously, I discussed Luis Althusser’s Ideology, in which he proposes the notion of ideology and how it works in society: giving breathing ground for public figures to grow and manifest in our lives. We know now that McCloud’s theory on icons relates to Palin and her negative portrayal in society, as through the theory of icons, it explains her manifestation from the negative media propaganda. To conclude this argument, I discussed John Friske and his theories on semiotics to build social norms, which allows society to accept Palin through their representation in society.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 19, 2009 by andrieaa
First and foremost, ideology glosses over the real conditions of existence (Humpfreys, 2009).
Warner’s Publics and Counterpublics discusses the notion of the mass public and mass subject and their roles within our media-filled lives. Briefly, the mass media and mass subject construct figures of publicity, through the “advancement” of modernity, which created a distance between us and the objects we buy. What do I mean by “distance”?
Through modernity, modern society loses the knowledge of how to fix things, and consequentially, the ability to take pride in our work. Therefore, society has no knowledge of how things work, and therefore becomes mindless, looking for another thing to buy.
So, how does distance from what we buy and make have to do with our identity? The lack of knowledge of how things are built creates a mindlessness in society. When society is unaware of how and why their computers work, they are unable to fix their computers when they break down; they get frustrated and have no understanding about what is going on with their machine. However, when someone knows how to fix it, they become powerful and build an identity based on that knowledge.
Alright, this is an extreme example. A simpler one would be coffee. I had a cup today, but I have no idea where this coffee comes from or if it’s even fair trade. I do not have an understanding of where my drink (this delicious drink which I have consumed) came from – and therefore I do not have respect for the object of desire. I do not have a connection with the coffee, or use it as a “status symbol,” creating an identity from it rather than trying to understand its origins. Therefore, the distance between us and the objects we consume causes us to use items. In reality, when we buy items, we buy an image, an identity. For example: the MAC vs. PC “war” currently going on in the mass media:
MAC is trying to peruse the views of society to present its product as a means for the consumer to obtain a “cooler” identity. The MAC guy is a thin, cute, white male, whereas the PC is fat, conservatively dressed (a suit: representation of ‘old fashioned, traditional’) and therefore, a thing in the past: outdated, out of fashion. So, do you want to be cool or uncool? It’s clear in this commercial where the pressure is: the pressure to gain an identity based on materialism. (Funny fact, I am typing this on a PC because it’s what my technology bursary covers!) Therefore, we have no self-built identity and are in a state of limbo. People’s inability to develop an identity through soul searching results in an attempt to “purchase” them in the capitalist market; the advertisers at MAC are aware of this fact, and exploit it through their ads.
The moneymaker question: how are people supposed to develop their identities in a world which, due to globalization, is increasingly capitalist?
THROUGH PUBLIC FIGURES!!!
PUBLIC FIGURES such as Palin are able to strive in society to manifest within both genders’ identities. As a result, her public persona has been brought to life, in a Frankenstein-esque fashion. Before I can start to describe this, let’s look at Ideology by Luis Althusser – how the notion of idols is able to rob society of common sense, causing them to depend on idols for identity. For the purpose of this post, I will discuss Palin’s ideology in a positive context, a signifier: that is, her ideology in the positive context – the “saviour” of the Republican Party.
Before I can discuss her positive ideology, I first have to define it: forms of social consciousness (Althusser, 304). So Sarah Palin representation as a ‘saviour’ is made possible through the media’s presentation of her as a ‘saviour’:
This picture presents Palin as a strong, independent woman who can take on a career in politics while having a hectic personal life: with a teenage daughter who is a single, unwed mother, an infant down syndrome son, etc… How? Through the media attaching meaning through this picture! This is not the only image that provides this perspective: through the media, through our unconscious, we attach meaning to PICTURES which allows PALIN TO MANIFEST AS A POSITIVE SIGNIFIER!
But how did a woman become a positive signifier of feminism? More importantly, how does ideology work in society?
Althusser explains ideology’s control as a representative of an objective reality which is independent of the subjectivity of the individuals who are subjected to it (Althusser, 304). Her representation of emotions, and of course, maverick (a side note, my thanks to the folks at SNL who turned that word into a wonderful drinking game…), would have not been possible unless society had accepted it.
But, how is Sarah Palin’s acceptance as a signifier of a ‘saviour’ in society possible? Through IDEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY: sustained by voluntary or involuntary conscious or unconscious devotion to ensemble representations and believes, which creates a level of ideology (Althusser, 304). This manifestation into society’s identity is accomplished through the lack of identity that society holds as a result from modernism.
Society, with a lack of identity, will either support the positive signifier of Palin or destroy it, and recreate her as a danger towards the Republican Party. Nonetheless, Palin’s image and representation as a “heroine” is evident through attaching meaning to her image, therefore, creating Palin as a signifier: distant from its conceptual meaning (Baldick, 237). Specifically, let’s discuss how her image posted below emphasizes her ‘saviour image”:
Look at her. She is using the physical reference to “strength,” which is an emotion that has been attached to her image and ideology. Therefore, Palin ideology appears as a “representation of women in the world,” as she is creating a “representation of a woman’s ideal image in the world”- strong, independent, and epic. But, how is this even possible to create in society? Simple: according to Althusser, “in a class society [as the one we live in] ideology serves not only to help people build their own conditions of existence, to perform their assigned tasks, but also to ‘bear’ their conditions [through the illusions of reality, accomplished through the acceptance of ideology]” (Althusser, 306). So, she is embraced through social structures of ideology through her creation from visual culture; as a result, she is comprised of representations such as feminism, as well as other emotions and signs (re: semiotics).
The structure of semiotics in society determines Palin’s position as a positive signifier, but also as a negative signifier (Althusser, 306). Palin’s pubic persona has been created through media, which created a dual perspective [re: signifier argument]. Palin is able to thrive in society as a signifier through the distance in modern society, as described through Warner’s Mass Public and Mass Subject: the lack fidelity in society depends on public figures to “sell” themselves to society to pick and choose which identity to “become”. As a result of the consequences created out of the modern world, society relies on public figures such as Sarah Palin, who was created to fit the “ideal mother” profile (as discussed in an earlier post, Casey Anthony is the un-ideal mother, everything the Republican party wants to avoid: more controversy after Bush).
Palin’s public life has therefore taken on a Frankenstein resemblance because of the lack of identity in society, she has been depended on to save society from a limbo identity. Thus, her presence in society determines the popular viewpoint of her being a signified of danger to society and the Republican party. To understand her role as a signified, we must look at John Fiske’s Interpellation, how semiotics create the notion of the social norm which allows society to accept Palin as both a signifier of positive identity and a signified of negative identity (re: an upcoming post) with a side order of Scott McCloud.
Kress et al. describes this theory as a way to depict people, places and things combined in visual “statements” of greater of lesser complexity and extensions. So, the images of Sarah Palin portray a level of complexity and extension of meaning which plays out through how the public perceives her.
Sarah Palin’s literal image is therefore a portrayal of meanings, both positive and negative: “[when] metaphors carry the day and pass into the semiotic system as ‘natural,’ neutral classifications is then governed by social relations” (7) that develops through public persona. For example:
This image of Palin is her “official” governor image, which presents her as a savior to the Republican party. However, it is one of the dominant images that provide many layers of meaning, given how the media has portrayed her by protraying her public and private as one. Her image appears confident, and dominant in her pose, her hair is neat and so is her makeup; overall Palin looks well put together: “what exist…is therefore more crucial for understanding representation and communication are the resources available to real people in real social context” (8). Therefore, Palin’s image becomes tied to a sea of words, creating a meaning attached to her image that allows ways which the said image decoded. Our reading habits value how we perceive images – important to how visuals are represented to us. However, this image would be viewed differently if we had negative associations attached. For example:
Unlike the previous photo, Palin has negative words attached to this picture, that provide a “definition” of her. Instead of Palin presenting a “well-put-together” and confident persona, she is unintentionally agreeing with the statements that propose her as a danger to the Republican party. This image and its language provides a meaning, and it becomes attached to Palin.
So, visual grammar will describe how to decode visual culture and its many statements. This photograph – the same as the one above, but with negative words attached, therefore creating a negative perspective of Sarah Palin. Previously, her image provoked positive emotions, but this version provokes an opposite perception of Palin. The visual communication proposed here “has developed more freely than language, but nevertheless there is a dominant language, ‘spoken’ and developed in centers of high culture, alongside less highly valued regional and social variants” (4). So, when Palin is viewed as ‘high culture’ (re: part of the upper class society), her image is attached with positive seas of language, but when she is viewed in an alternative perspective, she is viewed with negative language. However, images without text provide the viewpoints of Palin as both a savior and a danger. Therefore, Sarah Palin’s image, like the Mona Lisa, has been mass produced; as a result, satirical images are created and the original purpose of her image becomes lost in their mockery. Therefore, the meanings her image presents creates Palin as a conceptual component of a sign [the signified] (Balick, 236) and also she can be a perceptible sign distant from its conceptual meaning [the signifier] (Balick, 236). Her true self (whatever that may be) is abstracted from her media image, which mixes the spheres of her public and personal life to create a public persona that is either worshiped or hated.
The next post: Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and Sarah Palin: Signifier or Signified? is slowly in the works, and will be discussing more in depth the notion of signifier and signified, stay tuned!
After re-reading Mirozeff’s article, my confusion regarding visual culture has been cured. He defined the theory clearly: “Visual culture is concerned with the visual events in which information, meaning or pleasure, is sought by the consumer in an interface with visual technology. By visual technology, I mean any form of apparatus designed either to be looked at or to enhance natural vision, from oil painting to television and the internet” (3).
So, when applying this definition to the image of Sarah Palin that is being proposed (using the one by Joe Hilley in his book Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader), readers get a clear image of what Sarah Palin was created to do: set a new image for the Republican party.
New style of leadership: During the campaign, there has been no defining moment of her “leadership” skills. Rather, this claim appears to be based on the image of leadership: but more so an image of female leadership in a Republican party, where women are not considered leaders, but are reduced to being only wives. Therefore, Sarah Palin is a visual image of a new meaning of the Republican party: one that was created to save them post-Bush.
Her familiarity with a broad range of issues and her strong moral center are just two of the leadership traits that have allowed Palin to organize and focus her efforts in elected office: Palin’s inability to debate, (which was clear during the only Vice President debate, ironically on the same day as the English Prime Minister debate) shows the purpose behind her role in the Republican party. Her inability to expand on any of her “credentials” proves the purpose behind her image. Her inability to propose her own ideas, and rather just proposing the ideas that are being fed to her by the McCain party is evident in her interviews, especially the one with Katie Couric:
Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt, and whether Palin supports it.
Palin: I’m all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson’s proposal, really I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They’re not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind’s blowing? They’re waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson’s proposal.
Couric: Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?
Palin: He’s got the track record of the leadership qualities and the pragmatism that’s needed at a crisis time like this.
Palin’s rhetoric is weak, as she describes McCain‘s leadership: “will be able.” The lack of confidence shines through this interview. The constant insulting of NOW President Obama shows her childish nature. She has been “designed to be looked at or to enhance natural vision” (3). The fact is, Palin has been designed, dressed and manipulated to be the new face of the Republican party. However, through her human faults, she failed.
Couric, like many Americans and citizens of other countries was not pleased with her inability to answer questions. She gave a review the next day on the Early Show in a nice manner: did she have any other choice? Political feuds= low ratings and during a recession, NO ONE wants to lose their job, hence her comment : “cool, calm, and collected under very difficult circumstances”
I find this funny for two reasons. One, I have a weird sense of humor, and two: Couric gave the interview, and was not pleased with it. Some interesting quotes from the Early Show from Couric are the following:
“[We talked about] issues she is not as familiar with as governor.”
“Not always responsive when asked questions.”
And my favorite, (see 4:34)
“[I asked her to] compare and contrast the challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are quite different…[she] responded in very general terms.”
Having an interviewer give such praise to a Vice President nominee, not only makes them look “great,” but firmly plants the seed of doubt in voters’ minds. However, this seed has been around for a while, and the more Palin speaks, the more she makes a fool of herself. Also, it shows how her mass produced image is contradictory. Her inability to live up to these expectations shows she is a fraud. This will be discussed in the upcoming post about the binaries and images: how images fall and crumble through human faults.
Images are created to provide a seed of hope next to the seed of doubt, in the hopes of overcoming the negative seed and winning. An image such as her life as a hockey mom: shows once again, the creation of Palin through “world face” (in other worlds, a common face, a global image) in order to ensure a comfort gained by the American people, but more importantly the American voters. “Mothers” in society are portrayed as loving and caring women. However, not all mothers are:
Casey Anthony, who is awaiting trial for the murder of her two year old daughter, Caylee Anthony, does not represent what the Republican party yearns for, which instead created Palin to be the image for all women to look up to. This is therefore a direct manipulation of female voters. As a result, Sarah Palin represents a new face of feminism in America within the Republican party’s version of what feminism is in 2009.
(Side Note: I am aware she is innocent until proven guilty, however, the image of a mother is that she does not murder her baby. Anthony, innocent or guilty, does not represent the traditional image of mothers in America.)
So, in terms of binaries (knowing what we are based on what we are not), there is one between Anthony and Palin. Casey Anthony is an image the Republican Party would like to stay away from (they had a hard eight years…), as she presents a negative image of a mother, the anti-mother. The image the party is trying to create to appeal to American wholesome women through Sarah Palin, is that of a “regular” mother. Therefore, such negative images of mothers in American culture provide the Republican party with “how to create Sarah Palin in an opposite light.” So, a mother who does not murder is a good start. A post will be completed on this topic, using an article from Times Magazine discussing her image in relation to how the Republican Party does not want Palin to be perceived. Stay Tuned!
Christian faith: In order for Palin to truly represent freedom for all, especially for women in America, her faith would have to be on the back burner. For example, according to www.huffingtonpost.com Palin’s position on abortion is: “I’d oppose even if my own daughter was raped.” Part of the feminist movement was to legalize abortion, giving the woman the right to choose. Palin is therefore contradicting herself when she refuses women’s right to choose based on her faith, a faith which is not shared by rest of the country. America was founded on the separation between church and state. In forcing her religious views onto laws, she contradicts her creation and therefore her image. As a politician, you must consider for the benefit for all, not solely the benefit for your personal beliefs. It is a part of the power game which is politics.
The leadership principles that have catapulted her into the national spotlight and explains how she models a fresh paradigm of leadership that will guide our nation through the 21st century
