"Culture is Ordinary"

     The word culture is one of those universal words that can have so many different meanings to humankind. Each individual relates to a specific culture in a special way (perhaps) following his/her family traditions and has the ability to relate to other cultures as well, as he/she is more exposed to different surroundings. In this text, "Culture is Ordinary" by Raymond Williams, the author exemplifies what this word meant or means in Marxism and goes on to say that he does not agree with this view on culture: "...culture must be finally interpreted in relation to its underlying system of production..." Williams states that we cannot create culture because it is made on a daily basis, "we cannot know in advance" what will shape culture and it is made by living. So for this reason, it is "ordinary in every society and every mind." All in all, I have to agree with Williams and his view on culture. It is what unites us to traditions but at the same time something that has the ability to change with time, it has no "system of production" like the Marxists view states in this text, and that is what makes it ordinary. Through culture, we find a way of life and decide how we want to live it, thus creating our own cultural experiences. One of the most intriguing and interesting parts of this text (for me) was when Williams states the we don't have to travel to find our culture because it is simply ordinary. This part automatically reminded me of a short story I just read by Alejo Carpentier where his character is in search of his identity and feels the need to travel from Latin America (Mexico) to Europe (Spain and Italy) to find himself. In the end, he realizes that although he has European blood, he is indeed Latin American, that is where his cultural ties belong and where he feels "home". Therefore, he travelled expecting to find this cultural identity and experience yet his identity was always with him in his personal culture and if anything, his bond grew deeper with this travel and all he wanted to do in the end was go back home. So even though I give an example of a person/character travelling to find culture, I think this is a perfect example of the notion that one does not need to travel to find culture (or at least one's culture) because it isn't created with travel and it is changing all the time through different methods, such as art and learning.

Deus ex Machina

                While reading “Deus ex Machina” I realized that I have to agree with this whole concept of the machine having a pre-determined role. This machine can basically be anywhere, in a larger society, within a home setting, in a different time period, etc; the point here is that regardless of the location, the machine is made for a specific reason. Now, this machine could also really be anything, like the time machine presented in this reading or the water pipe as the loud speaker. However, in order for the machine to function there has to be someone or something receiving the action and vice versa (sending it). In Physical Machines what I found most interesting was the first synopsis given to the reader, which is that of the water pipe machine I have just mentioned. The role of the machine here is to cause an allusion of something that in reality is impossible. Yet the daughter feeds in to her mother’s allusion by becoming the trigger for the voice in the water pipe. This reminds me of a game “telephone” where one person says a phrase to someone and the information gets passed down a whole line of people and in the end the last person needs to repeat this phrase and for the most part it’s always distorted. This is what happens with this machine too, the daughter’s voice is distorted to that of the son’s and therefore, this is what the mother hears. ..or, could it be that the voice is never really distorted and the mother simply hears a male’s voice because that is what she wants? Moving on to Magical and Mixed Machines…the definition of the magic machine is as follows: “Magic machines often combine the properties of physical, social and linguistic machines…” (59). Therefore, the action of this machine (or the purpose) will be to deliver some type of physical, social or linguistic aspect to its user and in this case since flying carpets and drugs that cause spells, etc. are used,  it may also be to its viewer (or the reader). Overall, it all leads to the universal plot machine which is created with a structure and purpose already in mind and for this reason, and probably the most important part of my blog, is that I agree that the writer should not have to resort to any type of machine to write, hence it would take away from the creativity of the work. Yet this makes me think of Barthes’ text “Death of the author” and how the author writes what he sees and knows based on society or whatever issue he/she is focusing on. Therefore, the machine is present regardless, right? So the plot was always planned out with a specific purpose, just like the machine. Wow, now I’m not too sure whether I can agree with Aristotle or not, funny the ideas that pop up while blogging…

Barthes and "Toys"

Even though the section on "Toys" in Roland Barthes' Mythologies was really short, I really enjoyed this mini text. Perhaps because in a way, I agree with him and the fact that he tries to exemplify that this whole "French toys" movement is associated or connected to a social norm. He writes: "...medicine (miniature instrument-cases...) the air force (parachutists)..." and expresses that these toys are set up for children to look up to in a way. For example, a child who plays with the medicine case will aspire to become a doctor one day and this is the same concept for all the other toy comparisons he makes. The most concrete comparison, however, is that of the child (girl) who plays with her doll that urinates, associating her with motherhood. All these connections are very pertinent even to modern times...society has a way of "conditioning" people at a young age, children in this instance, to be "users, not creators". Therefore, the social norm was also created for this child and all he/she has to do is fit the shoe, so to speak, and become that certain individual that society is looking for. Reading “Toys” reminded me of my childhood and made me think of what kind of roles my brother, my sister and I were conditioned to. My brother always had the toy cars and the army men/toys and Nintendo, etc. My sister and I had the barbies and whatever pertained to them. I always wanted one of the water babies Barthes is referring to but I never got one but I did get a doctor case, which automatically came into my thoughts when I read this short text. I remember clearly carrying this case around with me wherever I went and telling people I wanted to be a doctor...as in medicine and what not...but in reality, I don’t think I could ever do that. So according to Barthes, this was society conditioning me to think a certain way, it doesn’t always become a reality, but this “case” was my way of knowing that I needed an education to get somewhere. My parents never had the same educational experience I’ve had so the fact that at a young age I was able to recognize that I did want an education, without really knowing what this meant, just reinforces Barthes vision. In conclusion, society will always have a role for humanity and maybe it’s up to us to be the creators and not the users? I’m not so sure now…