lots of "this." sorry, i do that quote thing a lot; it's notation for me that i'm questioning a sol
id term.
i like to say the same things over and over in my notes. it feels like planting seeds in the dirt, and digging, and digging, just to. get used to the soil. roll marbles around with your tongue, in your mouth. like that.
so this is repetition! and s'for me.
critique article
.how grps negotiate, how one furthering political prog through comm with/to public/group/opposition ("enemies")
."alternative dialogic" approach
.agency of its actors
.gramsci, bakhtin, marx
.major: hegemony theory
.use exam? mediating power between grps
.argued against framing notion; others have approached social mvmts with analytic tool of framing; steinberg objects to it because too "rigid"; it says these actions/mvmts clear, that lang serves as neutral space, uncomplicated, equal lang struc diffs between diff grps--he says no
.so to address problems with framing: looks to 2 things, both he describes "dialogic;" use dialogic method, 2 sources: bakhtin, gramsci; stems from marx, the origin
.marx's theory on idelogy (base, superstructure)
[superstructure]
world of social relations and their manifestations (lang, institus, "culture," soci grps)
^^^^
(only flows this way, in terms of the action types being examined)
[base]
economic, material
.base determines (strong noexceptions term) what goes on in superstruc
(all about, who has $ controls the "ideology" of system)
.and what is ideology, dominant ideology (in Marxism, beyond "a set of beliefs"): inte of power, "$," history (tech determinism, triumphspeak, progressivspeak, benjamin's who tells the story and how so why)...are made to look natural, as if just natural or inevitable or conclusive and "right"
-in Marxism, which was just breaking through to this (acco to benjamin and my TA), one-way, determined street (in one sense, very static in terms of between level change)
now: gramsci's hegemony, marxism revised in a way
[superstructure]
world of social relations and their manifestations (lang, institus, "culture," soci grps)
~~~~
(the problem or struggle is here, action and negotiation takes place here)
[base]
economic, material
.language is space of discursive negotiation of practices
.so, not that clear, because ideology is defined through language and language is not a stable carrier of meaning, man's discursive practs and acts can be interpreted various ways by various stdpts and grps-->a struggle for, over meaning can happen
.semiotics...might consider acknowledging somehow, can definitely be incorporated to strengthen, flesh out this pt
so:
.framing too simple; dialogic (better) because describes this, acknowledges the malleable/mutable space in between these two blocky elements, and allows, notes some agency for people to interpret ideology. beyond early descripti of how power limits freedo of lang
.so lang constrains us but also may help us with our agency (both)
.bakhtin; initial, lang constrains (you don't own your own utterances, speaking always happens in a social web, every tongue you reside "in")
.gramsci; but lang allows for negotia, struggle over hegemonic structures, because lang here perceived as more complicated, and that's where base-->SS thing happens (gramsci's hegemony, criticize/answered marxism for being too simple)
(so, not as simple as the cash holders control absolutely and without room for fail in any way, all ideology, because lang not stable carrier of mng, people can and will interpret differently--framing too simple and assumes in a way the msg-receiver model of comm (transmit), need take in account the action, dynamics going on between bodies, channels as space for flux (nothing so certain as) -- interprets. (freeing, not just constraining)
in class
."harbingers of modernism," re: post-enlightenment with its assumptions of the ratl human. industrialism accounted for, too
.frami method seen as maki assums about ratl creature; steinberg also criticizes this specifically
."post-structuralist theory," again
ps. oh and--
.debord and awareness, the powerful choice to fuck shit up in terms of expression, to subvert--playing with the space in between, for power reasons--a new kind of manipula. and ads manipula, know the power of this space "in between" very well, in interpret (but only by knowing, debord...can you play too, actively. are people? new aims to keep grps "asleep," not able to play this game, back...what to do??)
.it's just one more form of currency in a way
--so still very tricky threat, in fact is emphasized--how be aware of those movements? opponents, in your discourse, can trap you so well, maneuvering
--... (must handle this more, mb)
i like to say the same things over and over in my notes. it feels like planting seeds in the dirt, and digging, and digging, just to. get used to the soil. roll marbles around with your tongue, in your mouth. like that.
so this is repetition! and s'for me.
critique article
.how grps negotiate, how one furthering political prog through comm with/to public/group/opposition ("enemies")
."alternative dialogic" approach
.agency of its actors
.gramsci, bakhtin, marx
.major: hegemony theory
.use exam? mediating power between grps
.argued against framing notion; others have approached social mvmts with analytic tool of framing; steinberg objects to it because too "rigid"; it says these actions/mvmts clear, that lang serves as neutral space, uncomplicated, equal lang struc diffs between diff grps--he says no
.so to address problems with framing: looks to 2 things, both he describes "dialogic;" use dialogic method, 2 sources: bakhtin, gramsci; stems from marx, the origin
.marx's theory on idelogy (base, superstructure)
world of social relations and their manifestations (lang, institus, "culture," soci grps)
^^^^
(only flows this way, in terms of the action types being examined)
[base]
economic, material
.base determines (strong noexceptions term) what goes on in superstruc
(all about, who has $ controls the "ideology" of system)
.and what is ideology, dominant ideology (in Marxism, beyond "a set of beliefs"): inte of power, "$," history (tech determinism, triumphspeak, progressivspeak, benjamin's who tells the story and how so why)...are made to look natural, as if just natural or inevitable or conclusive and "right"
-in Marxism, which was just breaking through to this (acco to benjamin and my TA), one-way, determined street (in one sense, very static in terms of between level change)
now: gramsci's hegemony, marxism revised in a way
world of social relations and their manifestations (lang, institus, "culture," soci grps)
~~~~
(the problem or struggle is here, action and negotiation takes place here)
[base]
economic, material
.language is space of discursive negotiation of practices
.so, not that clear, because ideology is defined through language and language is not a stable carrier of meaning, man's discursive practs and acts can be interpreted various ways by various stdpts and grps-->a struggle for, over meaning can happen
.semiotics...might consider acknowledging somehow, can definitely be incorporated to strengthen, flesh out this pt
so:
.framing too simple; dialogic (better) because describes this, acknowledges the malleable/mutable space in between these two blocky elements, and allows, notes some agency for people to interpret ideology. beyond early descripti of how power limits freedo of lang
.so lang constrains us but also may help us with our agency (both)
.bakhtin; initial, lang constrains (you don't own your own utterances, speaking always happens in a social web, every tongue you reside "in")
.gramsci; but lang allows for negotia, struggle over hegemonic structures, because lang here perceived as more complicated, and that's where base-->SS thing happens (gramsci's hegemony, criticize/answered marxism for being too simple)
(so, not as simple as the cash holders control absolutely and without room for fail in any way, all ideology, because lang not stable carrier of mng, people can and will interpret differently--framing too simple and assumes in a way the msg-receiver model of comm (transmit), need take in account the action, dynamics going on between bodies, channels as space for flux (nothing so certain as) -- interprets. (freeing, not just constraining)
in class
."harbingers of modernism," re: post-enlightenment with its assumptions of the ratl human. industrialism accounted for, too
.frami method seen as maki assums about ratl creature; steinberg also criticizes this specifically
."post-structuralist theory," again
ps. oh and--
.debord and awareness, the powerful choice to fuck shit up in terms of expression, to subvert--playing with the space in between, for power reasons--a new kind of manipula. and ads manipula, know the power of this space "in between" very well, in interpret (but only by knowing, debord...can you play too, actively. are people? new aims to keep grps "asleep," not able to play this game, back...what to do??)
.it's just one more form of currency in a way
--so still very tricky threat, in fact is emphasized--how be aware of those movements? opponents, in your discourse, can trap you so well, maneuvering
--... (must handle this more, mb)