Frankfurt and Birmingham Schools Perspectives in The Office

     After airing in 2005, The Office (US version), quickly became one of the most popular sitcoms. Still today the show plays a huge role in our pop culture and according to World of Statistics, it has been determined to be the most popular sitcom in history. 

                            

Looking at the show from the perspectives of the Frankfurt school and the Birmingham school is very interesting. The Frankfurt school takes the perspective of pop culture having negative societal impacts, feeding into stereotypes and perpetuating ideas that normalize inequality and oppression. The Office is widely known to have very off hand jokes and comments. The main character, the boss of the office, Michael Scott, continually makes remarks that would be questionable if they were made in today's society, yet remains to be popular and loved by the masses. The Birmingham school takes a different perspective on the matter. The Birmingham school has a much more positive outlook on popular culture. They generated the idea that the people consuming popular culture are smart enough to be able to filter it. This means that people are able to look at different things and consume different things in pop culture and not allow it to change their perspective or way of life on things. This allows people to be able to consume more pop culture without it perpetuating things like stereotypes, oppression and inequality. The idea is that when people see things that are problematic or negatively impact certain people groups or other things as such in society, we can take the poor examples from pop culture and learn from it, allowing us to put forward messages that do the opposite. 

The popular TV show has seemed to grow out of date in its jokes and humor by reinforcing the idea that things like stereotypes and racism are normal or maybe even okay. Micheal Scott’s humor dips into areas of racism, homophobia, sexual harassment, and just plain bullying of his employees. The other characters are all recipients of his distasteful humor and actions. Some characters commonly seeming to be targeted are Stanley, who is African-American, Oscar, who is both Hispanic and gay, Kelly, who is a female Indian-American, and the many women of the office simply because they are women. 

Even as somebody who has continually been a fan of the show and rewatched it numerous times, I wonder how this show has gained so much popularity even today. Do you feel like this show has a negative impact on society and sort of “gives the green light”, so to speak, for things like stereotypes and oppression, or maybe does it allow us to be more aware and understanding of these issues in our society today? Similarly, with how big cancel culture has become, why do you think this show is still as popular as it is and is it offensive or simply just sitcom humor?

Fiske's Popular Discrimination: "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" Then and Now

The definition of Popular Discrimination, a term coined by John Fiske, is “interconnection between a text and the immediate social situations of its readers. It must be “socially and historically specific and will change as [it] moves through the social structure or through history.”

The Frankfurt Group was interested in viewing pop culture as an opiate for the working class with no other purpose than to numb its constituents with easily digestible spectacle. I understand the point and here is what I had to say about that. The Burmingham group, on the other hand, viewed pop culture as a possible vehicle for social reform. Stuart Hall stated, “cultural industries have the power to constantly rework and reshape what they represent."  I can think of no other cultural text that deals so powerfully with social reform as the 1975 movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" based on Ken Kesey's novel by the same title.

1962: Between the years of 1940 and 1950, approximately 40,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States. It was a quick and easy surgery that could be performed with no particular skill and was pushed on patients to treat any number of mental illnesses. Though dangerous, highly invasive, and life altering, it was casually praised as a treatment for depression, schizophrenia, homosexuality, feminine hysteria, and any number of other mental conditions.  In short, it was a guaranteed life changer and a quick money maker. There is no doubt that this practice to treat mental illness, as well as many others at the time, fueled the ideas behind Kesey’s novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Upon its initial release, critics praised Kesey's prose and the public received the book well. Kesey wrote, the public read, the public responded. They read of Nurse Ratched's callousness treatment toward the patients. They read about her punitive use of Electroconvulsive therapy and lobotomy. Because of the impact of this book alone, people began to question the common use of invasive “therapies” and the overabundance of lobotomy in the mental health field.

1975: The movie version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was released to enthusiastic critics and fans. Though the use of ECT and lobotomy had largely fallen out of fashion by that time, the message criticizing mental healthcare institutions reached the public in an even more accessible format than before and, the main character, McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson in an Oscar Winning performance) became a subversive, defiant hero. Crowds cheered as he helped his fellow patience escape and then take a boat out for a joyride. He is the exact definition of “valorizing” resistance (Williams.) Likewise, they booed as Nurse Ratched (played by Louise Fletcher) openly shamed an inmate for breaking mental ward rules.

Fun with Randall McMurphy

Nurse Ratched's manipulation and shaming of patients

[A text] must be “socially and historically specific and will change as [it] moves through the social structure or through history.” (Fiske)

Modern Day: Though a pivotal artifact and a catalyst for social change, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has, in some instances, become the bain of health care institutions. Research shows that “young adults who watched the film developed a negative attitude toward people with mental health issues and the institutions. . .meant to help them.” (NAMI) ECT, as shown below, can still be instrumental in treating patients with severe depression, but this depiction might make one think twice before agreeing to this therapy.

Question: Do you think “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has created a positive or negative social impact? What other popular texts have helped catalyze social reform?

Predictability Has Benefits

Perhaps most of us grew up hearing that the United States of America was a "melting pot" of cultures with the counterargument that it is (or should be) more like a tossed salad--each member retaining their individual culture, yet living in a common space. While I would like to think that the USA is a place friendly and accepting of differences, it often seems that we must all find a way to "fit in" with societal norms or be "othered." 

With media, it does seem to also be that way. We want to have cultural experiences by going to plays or concerts, but are we expanding beyond what is predictable? And is that necessarily a bad thing if we are not? 

With the chaos of life and the twist and turns it takes that are unpredictable, having media that is predictable can act as a comfort or at least a respite from our daily cares. So with the Frankfurt School's explanation of the culture industry is homogenous--mass culture being identical--and the predictability of knowing the eventual outcome, it may be helpful in allowing us to escape reality for a bit and perhaps set aside our stresses for a couple of hours while being entertained. 

Whenever I need to escape, I generally seek something familiar or "feel good" (probably more accurately, I listen to a lot of morbid podcasts, but sometimes I even need a break from that!). One of my favorite genres of movies are romantic comedies--lots of humor, some romance, a formulaic plot--all easy to follow and relate to. One that I always point to as memorable is The Proposal starring Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock. While the cast is pretty homogenous--mostly all white, affluent, etc.--I think some of those elements could have changed and the enjoyment of the movie would not be altered. An interesting element of the film is that Bullock's character is a Canadian immigrant with an expired visa, and thus a fake relationship between her and Reynold's character is constructed in order for her to keep her position at the top of the company (Reynolds being her assistant in the workplace is another issue we won't discuss here). 

Because we know the typical tropes of romantic comedy storylines, it's easy to predict that Bullock's and Reynolds's characters will eventually end up together despite disliking each other initially and even some conflict interrupting the start of their relationship. While the formula is the same, the specific elements are still unknown which gives us variety in romantic comedies and keeps us coming back for more. We add in humorous family dynamics, quirky side characters, funny one-liners, and while we can predict the outcome, it is still enjoyable to watch the story unfold. 

So yes, just as in the clip of Siskel and Ebert's movie cliches, media does keep portraying the same elements in stories, but I do not think it is all that bad. The predictability provides something in life we can rely on and provides us a mental break from regular, unpredictable life. Despite the ability to mass produce essentially the same main plot points with a different story and different characters, if it gives us some measure of entertainment and enjoyment, is it really that bad? Or is it really a benefit to society that we have something reliable to count on when we need a break? 

Do you think predictability in movies is a benefit? Or would it be more beneficial if movies more closely replicate real life and its ups and downs? 

Art Beyond the Canvas – Exploring the Synergy of Technology and Art

In the ever-evolving realm of art, technology has emerged as a powerful force, introducing new dimensions to our experience and interaction with artistic creations. A notable example in current popular culture is the traveling exhibit known as Beyond Monet: An Immersive Experience, which transcends traditional boundaries of viewing art, captivating audiences in unprecedented ways. This innovative exhibit takes Monet's paintings and reinterprets them through digital means, projecting the images to the scale of a room. While Benjamin may argue that this process diminishes the aura (the unique presence and authenticity that an original work of art possesses) of Monet's original works, he may also see it as positive in that it simultaneously introduces a new level of accessibility and engagement for a broader audience (Stein, 2024).

                                            Clip from Beyond Monet - The Immersive Experience

The immersive Monet exhibit stands as a testament to the transformation of art into a dynamic experience. Technology not only facilitates the reproduction of Monet's masterpieces but also allows for their reimagining in a manner that captivates and involves the audience. This digital transformation challenges the notion of the singular, authentic masterpiece, embracing what Benjamin would describe as an example of the democratization of art—a positive aspect of mechanical reproduction in that this mass production provides the general public with greater access to art that they may never have encountered otherwise.

Another instance of mechanical reproduction aligning with both sides of Benjamin's thoughts is found in the film Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986). Wildly part of pop culture during its time, it continues to be a beloved film, with quotes from the characters peppered in texts in current times. (For example, remember Professor Stein’s ending of the Module 3 Walkthrough imitating the famous last scene of the film? Hilarious!) 

                               Scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off - "You're still here? It's over. Go home."

While Benjamin may argue that mechanical reproduction of art, such as photography and film, leads to the loss of the aura of an artwork, for me, this led to a lifelong interest in art. In the film, Ferris and two friends skip school to embark on an adventure around Chicago, including a visit to an art museum. Set to a beautiful background melody, the museum scene from the film depicts Ferris and friends admiring renowned works of art, including Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. It was from this film scene that I developed a profound appreciation for the works of the impressionist artist Seurat at a young age. This newfound passion subsequently led me to explore impressionist art worldwide to experience these masterpieces in person, and I have continued my interest in impressionist art to this day.

                                                    Ferris Bueller's Day Off museum scene

The Monet exhibit and the art museum scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off collectively expose many to the beauty of art. While Benjamin might argue that art presented in this manner loses its aura, he may also acknowledge that these experiences are not necessarily detrimental, as they serve to broaden the reach of art to diverse audiences. And isn’t this what so many of these thought leaders argue is beneficial for society as a whole?

 

Are there any other examples of the mechanical reproduction of art that you believe is a benefit or detrimental to society? Anyone? Anyone?

‌"Anyone, anyone" teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off

The Goonies and the Rejection of Hegemony

Richard Donner’s The Goonies is a cult classic that tells the story of the Goonies, a group of kids living in the “Goon Docks” area of Astoria, Oregon, who attempt to prevent the foreclosure and destruction of their homes by finding the hidden treasure of the legendary One Eye Willie. As the main plot involves trying to stop the wealthy country club from overtaking the smaller suburban area, Marxist themes were clearly written into the story. One example of Marxist themes present within Goonies is the rejection of hegemony found within its main cast, and how this rejection supports an inflected oppositional reading.

Hegemony is defined by Sellnow as “the privileging of a dominant groups ideology over that of other groups” (117). In the case of 1980’s America, the dominant groups that hegemony largely privileged were those who were white, able-bodied, and upper class. Some members of the Goonies fit into these classifications, especially with lead character Brand (played by Josh Brolin). But some examples of rejecting the hegemony are present in other characters. For example, all of the characters come are middle to lower-middle class in terms of socioeconomic status, and are fighting against the richer upper class that seeks to take away their home and build a golf course in it’s place. Data (played by Ke Huy Quan) is not white, and Chunk (played by Jeff Cohen) is overweight, and Mikey (played by Sean Austin) is asthmatic and requires the use of an inhaler, all of which push against elements of the 1980’s hegemony.

But nowhere is this rejection of hegemony better exemplified than by the character of Sloth (played by John Matuszak). Sloth clearly comes from an economically disenfranchised family who have been forced to commit crime and live out of an abandoned restaurant in order to survive. Sloth is also physically deformed, most likely a result from his mother dropping him when he was young, and is presented as having some learning disabilities, acting like a small child despite his age and immense size. Despite these disabilities and deformities, Sloth plays an integral role in saving the Goonies at the end of the movie, being the one who stops the Fratelli Family from hurting the Goonies and holds the rock to let them escape. At the end of the film, Chunk adopts Sloth into his family out of love. These various elements that go against the hegemony clearly demonstrate an inflected oppositional reading of the film, supporting the idea that The Goonies has Marxist themes in it.

What other examples of rejecting hegemony are present within Goonies? Are there other Marxist themes present in Richard Donner’s cult classic film?

Commodity Fetishism in Sneaker Culture: How Our Obsession with Shoes Became a Symbol of Power

Last week, I walked into my daughter’s basketball game sporting my matching Nike sneakers, and a fellow parent joked that I must have bought them just to match their green jerseys. Little did they know, my love for sneakers runs deep – and it's not just any sneaker, but the rarest of the rare, the ones that require a special app or an exclusive raffle to get your hands on. My office space is a shrine to my shoes, with custom shelves and LED lighting illuminating my coveted Nike SBs and Jordans. It may seem excessive, but as Karl Marx once said, "A commodity appears…a very trivial thing, and easily understood." But is it really that simple?

Marx went on to describe commodity fetishism as the process of giving "magic qualities" to an object, where the human labor required to make it is lost once it becomes associated with monetary value. Under capitalism, once an object becomes a commodity, it is fetishized, and consumers come to believe that the object has value in and of itself, separate from the labor that produced it. In other words, we ignore or remain unaware of the conditions under which our precious commodities are made.

I've read articles and watched documentaries exposing the atrocious conditions under which my beloved kicks are manufactured, but it hasn't influenced me to seek out more conscientiously made shoes. Instead, I'm willing to pay $120 for a pair of shoes that likely cost $20 to manufacture. Why do I do it? Maybe Marx can help me understand: "There is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things." If I think about my relationship with shoes and what influenced me to become a collector, was it my love for basketball, hip-hop culture, music, or the cultural icons attached to the Nike brand? Yes, to all. 

However, for me, the most poignant influence that impacted my love of sneakers goes back to my childhood, when new Nike shoes equaled power and popularity. As a kid, my beat-up Adidas high tops from a neighbor's yard sale made me feel poor and excluded. The materialism of having new Nike shoes empowered the kids in my class while simultaneously disempowering me. As Sellnow states, "Hegemony…supports the interests of those in power, and it also privileges the interpretations of artifacts, objects, events, and practices that maintain the existing power."

Nike shoes equaled power to me and even though I know better now and should spend my money on needed items, there’s a feeling attached to the shoes, a feeling of power, and power feels good in every color. 

Do you have a commodity that you collect that makes you feel empowered? Is there something that gives you that magical connection Marx wrote about?

Memes: Pop Cultures Universal Language

 

Memes are quite possibly one of the best things in pop culture. if you're on Twitter, Instagram or even Facebook, chances are you will see a good number of memes on your feed throughout the day. Memes can have a trending photo/message, like Kurt Angle in December 2023, individuals can also create a personalize meme or just use older memes that was once popular and trending. Memes are usually pictures with limited text, where it can have a underlying message or have the literal meaning on the meme. I send and get sent so many memes throughout the day, it is once counted that over 1 million memes were getting shared daily in 2021, which doubled from the 500,000 in 2020. 

Memes can be shared and understood by variety of people. Regions, ethnically, culturally can all be different, but experiences can be shared in similar ways. Whether it is related to work, home or other personal situations like school and gym. There are always "stereotypes" in these kind of enviornments.

Sellnow would describe and fit Memes as an 'artifact,' "a sign or a series of sign that is socially grounded. Meaning it widely shared by some identifiable community or cultural group." Again, these groups or communities can be a variety of things like avid gym goers, there is an understanding across the board with a lot of different things such as language, mannerisms, unspoken rules and so forth. This leads to "ideology," where Sellnow defines as "cultural group's perception about the things are and assumptions about the way they ought to be. Again, it was also shared that "culture," can feel or even be elitist and those feelings can very much exist with those groups and communities

What makes memes special and hilarious are the relatability and stereotypes to those communities. It can serve as comic relief to the individuals or community. There is a saying that states, "behind every joke has a little bit of truth to it." With the explosion of social media, the accessibility of information and internet, how often do we get or see memes throughout the day that we identify with, especially among different communities we associate with. 

Understanding Memes, do memes just reinforce stereotypes or cultures throughout society? Can perceptions or even the culture of those certain communities change?