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).