Conclusion!

In the conclusion Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos discusses the realms of acceptable discourse, giving the example of Andrew Meyer, the student who was tased at a Kerry rally at the University of Florida. He explains how this shows the limits of discourse, in that Meyer wasn’t attacked because he was threatening, but because he was acting outside the “correct” modes as deemed by society. What I found most interesting about this conclusion was the section where the link between media and discourse was discussed. Gournelos states (referring to Eliasoph’s study) that most people feel uncomfortable speaking about broad topics because they don’t feel they have the expertise or knowledge to discuss something that lies outside their experience. Access to shared media creates a communal space in which people can engage in “symbiotic[ally] [engaged] conflict rather than consensus” (250), allowing a wider discussion of a topic. Gournelos discusses the role of the media as a way for people to talk to one another, to relate to each other, and as an indicator of what is “acceptable” to discuss in public. This idea made me think a lot about South Park, and other shows that discuss pressing social issues (albeit in a very different way), like Battlestar Galactica, which touches on highly debated political issues (like abortion, capital punishment, religion in politics) in an extreme, but still relatable setting. These shows present an idea to their viewers and into the public sphere, making it more acceptable to discuss these topics outside of a private setting. Gournelos also states that a show can gain cultural capital based on its oppositionality, such is obviously the case with shows like South Park, who turn their dissent and “rejection of political correctness” into humor.

Conclusion

In Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos starts out with discussing his prior argument made about Andrew Meyer’s ability to demonstrate “the limits of the public sphere in the contemporary political landscape (247).” He talks about what is “acceptable discourse” and how he acted outside the norm of what the university and police sought out to be “correct.” I thought it was interesting how Gournelos mentions that it is not Andrew Meyer who defined the event, but it was the media who circulated his story, films, and videos. Gournelos then talks about South Park in being similar to the Andrew Meyer event in that it “demonstrates the implications of a convergence culture (247).”

The next few pages discuss the three oppositional tactics: the allusive, the responsive, and the disruptive. Allusive ontology’s being seen to spread the foreground for aesthetic modes of production. Responsive being drawn from the news and reintroduce a level of complexity by “engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events (248).” Disruptive ontology’s are seen to try to create room for silences or social constraints that were untouched by the responsive. It exposes frictions in contemporary society.

Gournelos then speaks about Nina Eliasophs study of apathy. Eliasoph argues “apathy is produced, not inherent, in communities, and that even activist groups are limited by what they deem is acceptable speech (249).” Gournelos brings about an important point that Eliasoph neglects to discuss the media. I found it interesting the way that Gournelos analyzes the use of media. “Communities, discussions, and relationships are formed daily on the basis of a shared knowledge of or access to the media (250).” This is very true and then he goes to mention that people connect to the media. They connect to films through memories and to discussions through memories of films. Media serves as a way to broaden terms of debate.

We Need Conflict

In the conclusion the idea that society revolves around conflict is taken for granted and I agree with that idea. Some people may say that society looks to resolve conflict and is uncomfortable with tension, however, I think that society is built on conflict. While society does frown upon people who create conflict simply for entertainment purposes and while it does try to end conflict that has turned into physical violence; conflict is necessary for growth. If no one ever questioned the status-quo, nothing would ever change, and it is obvious that our society changes all the time.

It isn't necessary for people to be tasered like Andrew Meyer or for people to act violently or radically. Conflict can be small, it can be meaningful. I think the discussion that happens in our class is conflict because it is disrupting the way we look at the media, society, and ourselves.

I'm posting the video of Andrew Meyer - I had never seen it and here it is in case you haven't!

Fighting Fire with Fire

The conclusion begins by discussing Andrew Meyer, as he demonstrates the limits of the public sphere and acceptable discourse. South Park is discussed, as in chapter 6, as a show that demonstrates the implications of convergence culture. Gournelos argues that by focusing on conflict rather than consensus, one should turn to dissonant popular culture, because it manifests the tensions of political instability. He charts popular culture’s negotiations of the political through the allusive, responsive, and disruptive—three oppositional tactics. Responsive onologies “reintroduce a large level of complexity by engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events” (Gournelos, 248). Additionally, treating concerns as surface-level issues implies the incapability to truly convey the depth of the political. Popular culture products that rely on the news react, as they cannot reinvent the structures of power themselves. Disruptive ontologies expand dominant discourse to provide possible alternatives to a dominant “ideology.” Sociologist Nina Eliasoph (shown below) concludes that apathy is produced in communities (rather than inherent), and that activists groups are limited by what they perceive to be acceptable speech. She claims the public sphere is an active process and suggests that people feel uncomfortable speaking their opinions about broad topics. She also emphasizes network communication and focuses her understanding on conflict rather than consensus, although she neglects the media as an important aspect of her topic. Media is important because it negotiates with the “common sense” understandings of what is acceptable to discuss. Media also is forced to acknowledge discourse outside the range of traditional or conservative politics, as it fights for audiences. Cultural productions like South Park see that communities are formed through a desire for opposition. Gournelos also argues that dissonant visual culture should be considered in relation to engagements with larger cultural politics, as people see politics in terms of which mode of cultural production might liberally counter banal politics. The conclusion ends with a call to those intrigued by progressive politics to “try to find ways to break the hold apathetic political formations have on contemporary U.S. social systems, and fight the fire of reactionary institutions with the fire of an evolving opposition” (Gournelos, 252).

Playing with Fire MWAHAHAH

Andrew Meyer demonstrates the limits of what is acceptable within the realms of protest, play and transgression. Also, demonstrates the act to question and discuss the limits of correctness he violates. South Park demonstrates "convergence culture" that combines different fields within cultural studies. Allusive ontologies are dependent on the techniques of evaluation along with the aesthetic. Responsive ontologies talks about issues that are "as the were" surface level interactions. South Park is not a very politically based show so it cannot fully get critical of the politics; they react rather than recreate. Disruptive attempts to create social restrictions untouched by the responsive to be apart of the political struggle; things are self-aware. In South Park audiences interpret it as a sitcom and not as a critique of politics; it's just viewed as funny. Episode interpretations can take shape of "something different," or the form of rejection of "political correctness" to be taken as "humor," but become popular so it can keep high culture capital.

A South Park Parade after 9/11

What I took away from the article was that South Park can sometimes be allusive and/or responsive to political activism that disrupts the discourse of America. South Park can be looked at deeper in a radically progressive and critically teaching texts. Baudrillard suggests that being witty is breaking a law of discourse and instead works through instant gratification that deconstructs of the dominant code. South Park does this by making lots of jokes that are racists and out of line to make a point about a dominant message or category in the show. South Park portrays the U.S. as white, which could be misleading dominant influence of cultural production. South Park focus is media and portrayal of reality but limits the conclusion of those realities. The events of the show are understood and the subjects become interrupted to become critiques. Once 9/11 happened the show was not in season, but once it was it was able to avoid gain of emotional distance and critical events. The South Park 9/11 episodes were not always narrated to talk about the issue. They would show images or have one-line quotes to make a point. The show relies on humor to mask fear and make jokes that are exchanged quickly back and forth about 9/11's "war on terror." The episode does not advocate the war on terror it just offers a different look about 9/11. For example, the Muslims did not hate the U.S., but once they invaded and started bombing Iraq that is when it became a problem for the Muslims. "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants," goes through the allusive and responsive politics that disrupt the dominant around 9/11 in order to suggest a ontology. "A Ladder to Heaven," puts blast on responsive techniques of 9/11 and it reacts to the power that has made and guided interpretations. "I'm a Little Bit Country," does not discuss the war on terror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzf2G2iHYY8

i think you're gonn ahave to copy and paste the link cause it took too long to upload it. I think it's a good commentary on why they did the episode.

South Park

“A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post-9/11 Politics” was interesting to me because it discusses the irony and use of humor in the media about a situation which certainly was not humorous, such as 9/11. This chapter looks at the media, and especially South Park and how humor and irony is used maybe not to mock and current issue, but to inform society in a different way.

“However, it does not come to terms with humor’s potential to bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes, nor does it allow for humor, satire, parody, and irony to be mobilized as tools through which individuals or communities differentiate themselves from or negotiate the politics of the dominant (200).”

The chapter looks how humor can bind society together, along with other somewhat similar shows such as The Daily Show where they make very real problems in society into humor. I think it is important for shows like these to use humor to “bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes.” Although the show could be deemed controversial, it points out issues in society in a different way and through a different light from the media. In episodes regarding 9/11, although South parks humor could be interpreted in different ways, they inform the public about the issues at hand. South Parks humor could certainly interpreted in different ways, but overall South Park is able to use extreme irony and humor to poke fun at the issues and possibly bridge gaps in society.