Stepford Wives

In the beginning of Thomas Franks article, “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” he discusses the system of conformity and what it means to descend for example in the 1950’s. I immediately pictured the movie Stepford Wives where a suburban neighborhood is filled with women who creepily conform to being a “housewife”. They completely go about their lives cleaning, doing laundry and cooking gourmet meals until we eventually realize that the real women have been replaced with robots. Franks indicates that, “The Establishment demands homogeneity; we revolt by embracing diverse, individual lifestyles.” To revolt against this rigidness in the 1950’s was much easier to do then than today, all you had to do at that time is listen to rock n’ roll and break rules. Present day is less conformed so to revolt is to attempt to go against everything that society is made up of, it’s more extreme as it’s difficult not to get caught up in some form of consumerism or another. This is why I find the Stepford Wives as a good metaphor for dissent because they are the depiction of “conformity” yet they are in actuality robots and a level of “perfection” that is impossible to achieve.

The Role of the Internet in Globalization

I feel as though sometimes we don't really count the internet as a means of globalization, and Kahn and Kellner's essay brings this issue to the forefront. Although their essay focuses on Internet politics and the effect that the Internet has on increase in political involvement, to be honest I really couldn't get past the fact that the underlying message Kahn and Kellner were trying to get across was the undeniable effect the Internet has had on globalization. Below is a clip from the movie The Social Network, based on a true series of events surrounding the formation of the extremely popular website facebook.com. Facebook has about 500 million viewers worldwide, which results to about 1 in 14 people on Earth has a Facebook page. To say that Facebook has impacted globalization is definetly an understatement.

Internet activism

The article by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner discusses the Internet and the politics surrounding it. I found the article to be informative, although it was slightly confusing at some points and I was turned off by the obvious presence of bias. When discussing Internet Activism the authors seemed to make it an opportunity to use democratic ideals as positive examples. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with using the Internet in democratic politics, In Fact I think it has done a lot of good, but I would have liked to see some points from the other side of the political spectrum. There was also a lot of “Bush Hate” going on in the article. I’m not saying that I like Bush (I don’t, by the way), I just think that they could have left some of their resentful opinions out and still be able to criticize the Bush administration in a more credible way, But that’s just my opinion about the article. On a lighter note, I found the authors’ arguments about Internet Activism to be refreshing. I agree that the Internet has provided the opportunity, for those who have not been able to in the past, to get involved with issues. I found a video clip that illustrates Internet activism. It is one of those Google search stories. It tells the store about how one person can get involved with politics through the Internet.

Pride or Dissent?

After the reading "Why Johnny can't Dissent," there where several instances that came to mind about dissent that goes on today within society. From the fight against conformity, anti- corporate power, oppression.. the list goes on.
One instance that stuck out for me is the use of the Confederate flag is seen as dissent. Although to many in the south it is used of a symbol of southern pride, for many African American's this same symbol can be a shameful reminder of slavery and segregation. The Confederate battle flag has also been appropriated by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist hate groups. For this reason the use of the confederate flag is very often frowned upon. An example of this is in North Carolina and the fact that they still fly the flag proudly, no matter how many NCAA games don't get played there! The NCAA continues to enforce its boycott of the entire Palmetto State due to their adorable insistence on flying the Confederate flag on the grounds of the state capitol.That raises the question as to whether those who wish to fly the flag are now the ones that are oppressed in not being able to show their supposed southern pride, as this is one of the main reasons why people carry out dissent.

Nerdiest Blog Post Ever

When reading Thomas Frank’s article about consumerism, the nerd in me kind of came out. I immediately correlated Storm Troopers to “It is a stiff, militaristic order that seeks to suppress instinct, to forbid sex and pleasure, to deny basic human impulses and individuality, to enforce through a rigid uniformity a meaningless plastic consumerism.” The only thing I felt like was different was that Storm Troopers live to serve Galatic Empire, while Frank’s drones serve the empire of the monopolized media-based consumerism. When Frank said “The Establishment demands homogeneity; we revolt by embracing diverse, individual lifestyles,” I immediately thought “Jedi.” The Jedi were people that chose to use the forces of good instead of evil for the sake of the “free world” or the New Republic. Storm Troopers and the rest of the Galactic Alliance cannot love. An example would be how Padme dies after Anakin Skywalker becomes evil.

Ultimately, it turns out that this article had nothing to do with Star Wars because Frank says “As existential rebellion has become a more or less official style of Information Age capitalism, so has the counterculture notion of a static, repressive Establishment grown hopelessly obsolete. Princess Leia sent a message saying “Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope,” showing that there was no way to embrace the surrounding culture and turn it into a counterculture full of options.

The very end of the article is what struck me most as ironic and unfortunate. Even though as a social group one may be trying to revolt, there is still big business cheering you on. THey have to because if they are cheering you on they they are obviously not "big business." However once they start supporting, the movement becomes null an void. It doesn't matter what you do, big business is backing you and that makes you fight yourself. It is a lot like the "More" video by MArk Osbourne. Once the main character invents his googles to make everything better, to get out of his big business environment where he churns out products at a mundane job, he becomes what he was fighting. All of his inner light is gone.

I read "Why Johnny Can't Dissent" by Thomas Frank right after I finished my paper on masculinity in advertisements. I found that what Thomas Frank wrote about was very similar to some of the point I make in my paper (using masculinity to promote a product). My first paper was on the Viagra ad above. I argued that this ad persuaded a man who had Erectile Dysfunction that he had lost his masculinity, and Viagra was his only answer to restoring his masculinity. This would make a man feel like he has also regained his power and dominance, putting him in a different category from the men who have not restored their masculinity. This is very similar to some of Thomas Franks’ arguments. An ad that tells people to “break the rules” or “resist the usual” can make them feel powerful and better than everyone else; therefore they are going to be the ones leading the new conformist group. I believe that there are conformist waves. People see the newest and greatest product and buy it because they will be “cool” and “different,” and they will lead the new conformist wave. As soon as a new product comes out though, it is a race to see who can be the new “first.”