Final Project: Technonormativity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=922Gh1dL8OM

Marlena Brown, Jake Doolin, Christopher Haygood, Samantha Holifield, Dawn McGough, and  Anson Shull 

Maybe Now You'll Understand Why We're Gamers

This commercial is probably one of the best commercials for a gaming console I've ever seen (even though I'm an Xbox kinda guy). The depiction of the characters as real explains why all of us that intensely play video games become consumed by the ideas of achievements, trophies, and personal gratification. Video games take the elements of film (a great script/plot, acting, cinematography) and completely immerse the consumer in a world that is nearly fully interactive. I wouldn't necessarily call it "escapism" because I, personally, don't want to ESCAPE the real world, I just want to interact with elements and characters that I would never get to interact with on a daily basis. Video games allow the user(s) to reach a common goal and feel good about it at the end because you have a whole squad or guild relying on what you can bring to the table in order to achieve that given goal.

Whenever you create a character on games such as Skyrim or World of Warcraft, you're not just giving those characters traits and clothing that defines the character, they're an extension of the creator. There are times when gaming does consume us, but responsible gamers know when to flip the proverbial switch and not play. Granted, we've all had those nights where we lose track of time and find ourselves getting three hours of sleep before class the next day, but we know that video games aren't "real life". I just thought that this video was not only well done, it gives a commentary on how we as gamers feel about the characters we play as in video games. They're extensions of us. For a brief moment in time we're in another world with a different set of rules, while still being grounded in reality. We use moral judgement to make a tough call in games like Fable. We work hard to save our whole squad because there is no man left behind. I may be 23 years old, but when I buy a new video game, there is a feeling of excitement when I peel off that plastic and know that I'm about to become immersed in a whole new, never-before-seen world for a few hours in the night.

Parenting Lessons from Momma June

As we discussed the "exploitation" of lower class citizens via a critical analysis of Honey Boo Boo, I was curious as to why this show is so popular. A couple of people in class compared the show (and other programs similar) to a train wreck. I could not agree more after watching clips from the show. Having said that, I began to also wonder "Is this really exploitation?". For some reason, middle America loves to see depictions of families like those on Duck Dynasty, Honey Boo Boo, and Porter Ridge because they are the polar opposite of what our day-to-day lives are really like. Should we really feel bad for Momma June and her family for being "exploited" by the capitalist mongers TLC? Granted, this family comes from a low-income background and, if anybody has grown up in an area like this (I can say I did and know families just like the one depicted) you probably know that this is how life is for some people. Momma June, however, is different. She puts all of the money earned from the show in trusts for her children. I wonder, though, does all of that $15,000-$20,000 an episode really ALL go to their children? Or is it used to supplement her children with Mountain Dew and "sgetti"? The point I am getting to is just because Momma June saves money for her children does not mean that she is a good parent. The families in the aforementioned shows are basically exploiting themselves for a paycheck. TLC, A&E, and Discovery did not force these families to sign contracts. The reason these shows are utilized by so many networks is because they are easily/cheaply produced and people continue to watch them.

 Any mother who not only gives into the "princess culture" we discussed earlier in the semester, but also gives their child a concoction of Red Bull and Mountain Dew to perform better at pageants isn't the archetype for parenting in my opinion. If these families want to stop being portrayed in this light, then they need to stop reinforcing the stereotypes that plague this demographic. I am not overgeneralizing and saying that all low-income families are like this. I am saying that if this family, or families like this one, want to stop being portrayed so negatively, then they should stop reinforcing the negative perception that they have created for themselves.

War Games (Games about War, that is)

After listening to the discussions we have had in class this past week, I began to think about the ethicality of merging media and war. Is it really that bad that companies are profiting off of war by making video games about it? Or is it terrible that "America's Army" is funded by the United States military in order to recruit young individuals? Let me start off by saying that I am neither pro-war or anti-war. If it weren't for those people that had/have the drive and loyalty to enter the armed forces, we would all be screwed. Having said that, it is a choice to play games like "Call of Duty" (because they're fun) and the average consumer doesn't think that they are paying into the exploitation of current conflicts. Personally, I believe game publishers go this route because it's relevant to our society, not because they want to become war profiteers. Unfortunately, as we discussed in class, our generation has not seen a decade without war, so it is something we are completely familiar with. Nearly every American boy growing up probably thinks about joining a branch of the armed forces at one point in their lives, whether it be because of monetary compensation, glory, or as part of a family legacy. Either way, we will all inevitably be exposed to the atrocities of war.

Many people in our country think it's completely wrong for companies like Activision (or Treyarch, depending on your preference) to release games that expose war for what it really is; bloody and violent. Yet, we do not question when Anderson Cooper is reporting from a war-torn Iraq as it is about to undergo the process of "Shock and Awe". It is seen as ground-breaking when reporters risk their lives for ratings, which will ultimately make the station more money. Human beings are innately attracted to violence and it has been evident for thousands of years. What I'm trying to say, is that people are going to tune into war coverage regardless if its ethical or not. People are going to continue playing video games that deal with war because they're entertaining. Movies are going to continue to be made because people pay to see the "reality" of war without becoming active members of it. America was founded upon capitalism, and that is what these companies are doing; making money. Like I said earlier, I am not a proponent of war or invading other peoples' countries for a capitalistic agenda. Should we really blame video games though? These guys are just making games that are relevant to a demographic they are looking to target. In terms of games like "America's Army", if these young males are persuaded to join the military by playing a video game, then so be it. They will soon learn that entering a war-zone and shooting an M16 is nothing like "Call of Duty", but I will be appreciative that they are serving their country, even if they were persuaded by a digital depiction of something that was meant to be entertainment.

Free from Facebook

Everybody needs friends. But do we need 1,000+ friends? Does that even count as being friends? Facebook/social media has nearly transformed the definition of friend from "a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations" to "add someone to a list of contacts associated with a social networking website". Technology has basically given us the illusion of friendship without being in direct contact with one another. Most of us can remember when we had to call each others' houses to see if one another were home, which meant talking to each others' parents or possibly getting an answering machine on the receiving end of a phone call. Now, that contact is just a couple of clicks away and requires no real human interaction (except for an untimely response). That is why I have detached myself from Facebook. Personally, I have found that not being on Facebook has allowed me to catch up with friends on a more personal level. I have to call or text my friends that have graduated and are now spread throughout the country if I want to know what is going on in their lives. I don't feel that social media really increases loneliness, but I also don't think it is very beneficial in maintaining relationships either. Social media allows us to be noticed without having to interact with one another on a personal level. However, our bonds are created not on Facebook, but in person. One cannot truly know another person through Facebook. Sure, I can see that you like the show "True Blood" and that you're into rock climbing, but I can never know the type of person you are through a website. We can't see how one another actually treat individuals because everyone is so connected digitally, not personally. After reading the articles on Facebook and loneliness, it made me realize what Facebook is; an exaggerated depiction of what our lives really are and what we want our lives to be. Before you know it, family photos will be taken on an iPhone with every member of the nuclear family sporting a classic "duck face" pose. Technology and social media is a blessing and a curse. It would be nice for all of us to find that balance so we can all go back to being interconnected on a more intimate level, and that will never happen of we keep relying on technology to do our bidding.

Convenient Activism

Whilst going through the reading for Friday about activism and social media, I began thinking more and more about Malcolm Gladwell's piece "Small Change". The majority of what he wrote are all points I agreed with. First off, I am not highly active on social media. I have a Twitter account that I occasionally use to express entertaining thoughts throughout the day (I think they're entertaining). Anyway, when reading this article I came to the conclusion that social activism has lost its meaning as technology becomes more prevalent in our daily lives. The "Save Darfur" campaign on Facebook, for instance, has allowed users and proponents of this group to believe they are making a change by simply joining a group. Do most of these users know that these atrocities have been occurring in Darfur since the early 2000's? Or did they feel compelled to join this group because George Clooney and Radiohead supported the efforts in Darfur? Either way, I think Gladwell was spot-on when saying the days of activism such as the 1960 Woolworth's sit-in have unfortunately been forgotten and downplayed. Networks such as Facebook and Twitter have little to no organization, making them ineffective. Granted, "networks" can amass a following quickly, there are virtually no "priorities" in these networks; that's to say, as soon as people hit the "logout" icon on their accounts, they have completely forgotten about the "cause"they hold so dearly. Ultimately, social media is a great way of communicating and letting people know how you feel and what you are thinking. However, I personally do not think that it actually breeds a climate for change. Social media allows people to believe they are "proactive", when, in reality, they are not going to the lengths that Martin Luther King Jr. and the proprietors of the Civil Rights Movement went, as well as possessing the dedication for change. Unfortunately, priorities lie in retrieving a lost cell phone for a "Wall Streeter" as Gladwell stated at the end of "Small Change".