The Hero who helps Heroines

Does any person really remember the heroine or is it those who we Amy see only to enjoy them in the background of the heroes? Heroes mostly are in the background an example of this is Hawkeye the Disney plus show there are strong female characters such as Kate bishop and echo. These two show up as Kate is near the beginning while Echo is in the middle as the villain. these heroes are strong and semi confident for example Kate bishop is a great archer due to watching Hawkeye save New York from these massive aliens attacking so what does Kate do after seeing Hawkeye take these aliens down without powers? She gets a bow and starts to get better at archery herself. The example of hero’s may inspire heroines to join them in the future or being inspired to go off and on their own thing. However, with Kate it's still a building process she is not as accurate as an archer that she wants to be so what happens Hawkeye appears.

Hawkeye, now a bit older and losing his hearing, isn't great at knowing who is behind him and trouble seems to have followed him the five years his family was gone from the snap. The hardened edge of not having someone to hold you back from what you’re about to do or go over to the edge of anti-hero as Ronan. someone who took justice into his own hands by killing those who were left corrupting the world in their own ways. His past now following him and a Portege who is good but not good enough takes her under his wing to improve her skills. Heros to help heroin become who she needs to be.

In this case of feminism is the case of that Kate was good, but Hawkeye was just a little better doesn't put her down lets her know her mistakes and how to fix them. Most of the time hero’s put down the heroines by not making them feel adequate or making them feel they are less than the hero. Which leads to Echo and how she fits in as a hero though at the start seeing her as a villain for Hawkeye quickly changes to anti-hero as she faces king pin to realize the puppeteer of her the opposite of what Hawkeye does. King pin puts her down making her do all the dirty work instead of the encouraging, honest, and equal way he did with Kate. Leads to the mistrust of who she wanted to be all along later to be a hero for those in need. What needs to happen to see heroes support heroines instead of putting them down? How does this compare to other heroes?

The Fetishism of Commodities: Unveiling the Illusions of Capitalism

Karl Marx described commodity fetishism as one of the most profound ways capitalism obscures the true nature of labor and social relations. It’s not just an economic concept; it’s a lens through which we can understand the illusions that dominate our everyday lives. For some reason this module was difficult for me to grasp. So, please bear with me as I delve into this idea and its implications for how we view the world, using insights from Marx’s work and Neo-Marxist perspectives.
 
What Is Commodity Fetishism?

At its core, commodity fetishism is the process by which social relationships between people are masked as relationships between things. In a capitalist system, the value of a product is no longer tied to the labor that created it. Instead, it appears as if the product’s value is an inherent property of the object itself. This transformation gives commodities a mystical, almost supernatural quality.

For example, think about a diamond ring. It’s not just a piece of carbon cut into a shiny form, it’s a symbol of love, status, and wealth. Its true value lies in the labor that mined, transported, and crafted it, but this labor is hidden. Instead, the diamond’s value is perceived as inherent, as though its brilliance naturally commands a high price.

Marx argued that this fetishism conceals the exploitation inherent in capitalism. Workers’ labor creates value, but this is appropriated by capitalists as profit. The true relationships of production (between workers, capitalists, and society) are hidden.

Consider smartphones. Their sleek design and innovative features make it appear as though it embodies progress and innovation. Yet, hidden behind its glossy surface are the labor-intensive processes that brought it into being. The miners extracting rare earth metals, the factory workers assembling components, and the environmental degradation caused by its production. These realities are masked by the fetishism of the product.

Popular culture amplifies commodity fetishism. From advertisements to blockbuster movies, commodities are often enhanced with narratives that elevate them beyond their material reality.
Take luxury brands as an example. A Gucci handbag isn’t just a bag, it’s a symbol of prestige, taste, and exclusivity. Advertisements position it as a gateway to a better life, creating an emotional attachment that far outweighs its practical use. The fetishization of such commodities reinforces social hierarchies, perpetuating the illusion that owning these items equates to success or happiness. Admittedly, I’ve succumbed to Gucci in the form of their cologne, Gucci Guilty Black. For me, personally, it feels and smells classier than Adidas Moves or Axe Body Spray (both of which I’ve used in the past).

Understanding commodity fetishism requires us to see beyond the illusions capitalism creates. As Neo-Marxist scholars like Antonio Gramsci argued, the dominant ideology (what seems “natural” or “normal”) is often a tool of hegemony, maintaining the status quo by making alternative perspectives invisible or undesirable.

To break this spell, we must:

1. Recognize Labor: Acknowledge the human effort behind the products we consume.

1. Research Value: Question why certain commodities hold the value they do and whose interests this serves.

1. Embrace Critical Media Literacy: Analyze the narratives perpetuated by popular culture and their impact on our perceptions of value and success.

The fetishism of commodities is not just an abstract concept, it’s a pervasive force shaping our lives, from the products we buy to the media we consume. By uncovering the hidden labor and social relations behind commodities, we can begin to challenge the illusions of capitalism and envision a more equitable world. As Marx reminds us, the power to change society starts with understanding its contradictions. Once again, knowledge is half the battle!

Why Do So Many of Us Worship Our Oligarchs?

    Recently a health insurance CEO was slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan. Is this the beginning of the proletariat uprising Marx predicted? …I doubt it. And here’s why:

While it is true that some people are celebrating this murder, many others are condemning this celebration. What’s going on here?

To be clear, this is sad on all counts.

It is sad that this man was murdered.

It is sad that he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people by denying them the healthcare that THEY HAD PAID FOR through their insurance, and that he used this money to enrich himself.

It is sad that someone was so disgruntled, they felt they had to take this CEO out (and let’s face it, there are MANY in the United States currently feeling this frustration).

And it is sad that from a large swath of our country, there is full-throated support to the point of worship of the small but mighty ruling class, our oligarchs.

It would appear that there is some amount of brainwashing happening.

In the late-seventeen hundreds, the peasants in France rose up, aligned with the bourgeoisie, and overthrew the ruling class by force, beginning the dismantling of the feudal system. And thank goodness. As a result of revolutions like this, we live in a world with some level of mobility between the classes. There is a chance, however small, that one can be born poor but work their way out of poverty.

Today there is a tiny but mighty (and growing mightier by the day) group of oligarchs who would love to see the return to a feudal-like system, in which the poor stay poor and the rich grow richer. And I believe that if the French Revolution were to occur today, here, in the United States, it would be an upside-down revolution in which the poor fight amongst and kill themselves, rather than fighting the aristocrats who are holding them down. Actually, I don’t just believe that that is what would happen, I am seeing it happen presently.

There is a loud and vocal portion of the population in the U.S. who openly worship the folks who actively work to disenfranchise them. It’s wild. These people are championed as the “job creators,” when in reality, in many instances, they are exploiting the labor of many to enrich themselves.

In 1950 the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 20 to 1. Today it is over 300 to 1. Sounds pretty feudal (or futile?) to me.

So many in our country work several jobs to make ends meet, all while CEOs reap the fruits of this labor, hoarding it all for themselves, and paying $8 an hour while they buy multiple mansions and yachts.

And so many of us cheer them.

“They’ve worked hard,” we reason! "They shouldn’t be punished or scrutinized for their success!"

But WHY?

Why do so many of us protect and champion the people who should be scrutinized for exploiting their workers, and stealing the vaaaast majority of the profits generated by these workers?

In the case of this CEO, he took it one step further than merely enriching himself and hoarding wealth. Not only did he rake in a massive CEO salary (and bonuses, no doubt) while lower-level workers in his company (without whom the company could not exist and profit) were paid a pittance, but additionally, his practices allowed thousands of innocent people to die.

I think most of us can agree that murder is bad. But when you deny healthcare to millions of people to make millions in profit...you are also murdering people. Many people.

From any angle, murder is bad. And this CEO murdered a lot of people. I don't celebrate his death, but I understand the inclination to do so. And I certainly cannot wrap my head around the resounding APPLAUSE, admiration, and outright worship a large portion of our populace demonstrates for people like this CEO, like Bezos, like Musk.

This guy was the CEO. He made the rules. And the rules he made and played by extracted as much money out of people as possible for their “health insurance,” and then denied them the very thing for which they had paid so he could make a massive profit – resulting in their death or bankruptcy. Did he care about these people who died as a result of his work as CEO? Did he mourn their loss? Did he empathize with their financial struggles that he caused? It wouldn't appear so. He provided a lavish lifestyle for himself and his family by stealing from others and refusing to pay for the care they thought they had insured.

What is crazy and perplexing about this is that so many of us gleefully and full-throatedly support monsters like this.

I can only believe this is due to the massive amount of disinformation at our fingertips, and to the wealth of mass media (no pun intended) that upholds the current power structure, glorifying billionaires as models, and everyone else as anti-models, despite the current wealth disparity in the United States, and the slow collapse of the middle class. This has declined by about 11% in the last 50 years.

From shows like “Ozark” that prioritize wealth and power above all else, even above the lives of family members, to movies like “Crazy Rich Asians,” (which admittedly is also an obstructed preferred reading, because it is counter to hegemonic norms, as the group with power in wealth is Asians, as the title implies, and not whites), much of our mainstream media idolizes wealth and power.

So I suppose it should be no surprise that we worship our oligarchs. Even when they are killing us.

Modern Example of Hegemony: Kim Kardashian

 

When discussing hegemony in the media, Kim Kardashian stands out as a great example for today. Kim has been around celebrities and celebrity culture her whole life. Her father Robert Kardashian was the defense attorney in the OJ Simpson trial, and her stepfather was an olympic gold medalist. She was a friend and stylist of Paris Hilton in 2003 and rose to fame with the rise of her family’s reality TV show “Keeping up with the Kardashians” in 2007. This show still remains on air today, streaming on Hulu as “The Kardashians”

During the instagram and social media boom from 2009 - 2012, Kim became a cultural phenomenon, shaping beauty standards and redefining what is considered “ideal” for millions around the world. Through her massive social media presence, reality tv, and business like SKIMS, Kim’s image has become the blueprint for a specific body ideal: the exaggerated hourglass figure characterized by a small waist, wide hips, and enhanced facial features.

Her social media posts which showed off her sculpted surgical body, flawless skin, and glamorous lifestyle quickly attracted millions of followers. These images became aspirational to some, and soon not only fans were copying her look but the entire beauty industry began reshaping itself to cater to the “Kardashian aesthetic.” From cosmetic surgeries like Brazilian Butt Lifts (BBLs) to contouring makeup techniques, the “Kim effect” has left an indelible mark on beauty culture. 

What makes Kim Kardashian a powerful example of hegemony is the way her image dominates media and advertising. This repetition creates a cycle where Kim’s image is seen so frequently that it begins to feel like the “norm.” Fashion and beauty brands frequently collaborate with her, reinforcing her influence. Media outlets constantly feature her in headlines, and influencers imitate her look, further enforcing her aesthetic as the standard.

While Kim’s influence is undeniable, it is important to recognize and challenge the hegemonic forces at play. Her rise as a modern media icon is a testament to the power of hegemony in shaping societal norms.Her influence, while remarkable, underscores the need to critically examine the cultural narratives we consume and promote. Encouraging representation of diverse body types, ethnicities, and beauty standards in media can help break down the dominance of any one narrative. By questioning and expanding our definition of beauty, society can move toward a more inclusive culture.

Marxist Concepts in Media

Neo-Marxist Concepts In The Rings of Power

The series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power available on Amazon Prime could be an example of the Neo-Marxist perspective discussed by Sellnow (2010) where the wealth and power of white leaders (almost exclusively white male elves) are more important than the poor, weak, working class of “men” or other races. The lower class of men and elves are considered dispensable. 

In Sellnow’s “Marxist Perspective” he discusses how Neo-Marxist or “critical rhetoric” in popular culture reinforces the status quo.  This is depicted in the fact that there are basically only two heroines in the story, Elfan warrior Galadriel who is the Commander of the Northern Armies and Miriel who is Queen Regent of a city of men.  Miriel becomes blind when fighting in a war and Galadriel is cast off for being obsessed with finding traces of Sauron, her brother's killer and later returns to keep seeking him.  Both are often portrayed as inept, gullible, too trusting, and unsuccessful in their charges and are either sent off or dethroned and replaced by more conniving male figures.  To be seen as influential, they have to practically reject the natural feminine, nurturing ways of womanhood and take on the typical male qualities of warrior, killer, fighter, mountain tracker, commander, etc.  Even when doing this, neither woman seems able to achieve their desired results and are unsuccessful or bring out some type of destruction on their kingdoms, while ruthless male figures replace or take advantage of their so-called incompetence.  Any gentleness is seen as a sign of weakness rather than valor.  

In the following clip, Halbrand, a man who pretended to be someone he was not, has hoodwinked Commander Galadriel and reveals his true self, calling out her inherent gullibility as the cause of why she was so easy to manipulate and turns the blame on her for his infiltration and deception. Depicting the hegemonic ideology that women are ignorant and blind while men see everything and will ultimately put them in their place.

In the next clip, the deceiver Halbrand asks Celebrimbor to make rings for men and seeks to expand the “status quo” of the movie to spread the power to the “less than” rather than letting elves be the only ones with power. However, Celbrimbor expresses the dominant narrative that men are considered weak, coveters, and less than, while Halbrand (Sauron).  (Note: Halbrand has caused the Drafts hardship to ensure he can gain control of their resources, although elitist behavior.)  He predicts the fall of all civilizations claiming his solution is the only thing that will work… without revealing that his solution is what causes the downfall of middle earth and the world. 

Halbrand transforms in front of Annatar to “look more like the status quo”.  His hair is made blonde, his ears spiked like the influential Elvan rulers around him, even his clothing is transformed to depict wealth and status. The proFlattery, praise, feeding into Celebrimbor’s desire to be influential and revered.   The producers even go to the point of making Sauron (aka Annatar aka Halbran) look like what is depicted in Christianity as the coming of Christ, as if mocking Christianity - which seems to encompass the typical Marxist ideology.  The transformed Sauron pretends to be so humble but it’s all to weasel into the heart of Celebrimbor to get him to do his bidding and gain control over him.

 

In this clip, showing the distinction of classes between “us” and “them” and how “their own kind” should be providing for them, plays into the Neo-Marxist view that the wealthy and powerful don’t care about the lower class and those in need. Annatar acts as if he cares about men, but what he cares about is gaining control over the world and having them under the power and influence of his own power which poisons the rings. 

 

What other depictions of Neo-Marxist ideology can you identify in The Rings of Power? Can you find examples in text and media where women can be both powerful and influential while retaining soft, graceful, and feminine qualities rather than adopting violent, controlling, and manipulative characteristics historically attributed to males?

References:

Menace Boy. (2022, October 15). Menace Boy Sauron reveal | Halbrand is Sauron | The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power episode 8 ending [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nem9U_cB8ho

Prime Video. (2024, September 18). Annatar will make the nine himself | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hx70ETwFLk

Prime Video. (2024, September 5). Celebrimbor sides with Annatar | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y19PbUky0AI

Prime Video. (2024, September 5). Halbrand reveals his plans to Celebrimbor | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power | Prime Video [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SQTeVRvweM

Sellnow, D. (2010). The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture: Considering Mediated Texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hegemony in Media: Loudermilk

To some level all marketing, social media, and news services are spreading hegemony. Hegemony is defined by Pomerance and Sakeris as “the privileging of a dominant group's ideology over that of other groups” (Pomerance, Sakeris, 2003, p. 20). There are many examples of scenarios where there is an ideal social norm and people being shamed or looked down upon for not meeting them. An example of this is in the tv drama series Loudermilk where the main character Sam Loudermilk is a recovering alcoholic who leads a substance abuse group as a counselor. This show demonstrates hegemony with the way they portray people who suffer from addiction. 

Generally speaking, the hegemony view of people who are addicted to substances is as less than or as a lost cause. The show Loudermilk follows the story of a man named Sam who is struggling to resist the urge to drink continually as he goes through his everyday life. Everyday challenges that we face (for the most part) do not have the same life-changing impacts that someone who struggles with addiction does. Whether hanging out with a friend who uses substances or walking past the local drop stop, there are constant reminders of the mistakes you have made in the past. The show early on portrays Sam as a man who is trying his best but seems to be a lost cause.

In the show, Sam has a roommate who is supposed to be a success story. They show that his roommate who “has it all figured out” actually never recovered from alcoholism and has been secretly drinking the whole time. The main character Sam finds out later in the second season that this man who has been his idol, coach, and mentor is not a success story. There is then a downward spiral which is in line with the hegemony view that he is a lost cause. Do you feel that addicts can truly recover and reintegrate to play a positive role society?

New Girl: Breaking and Reinforcing Stereotypes

    New Girl is a TV show that came out in 2011 and ran until 2018. Starring Zoey Deschanel, as a fun and quirky teacher living in a loft apartment with three men she met on the internet. This show is honestly one of my favorite TV shows ever, but when I was reading this week about Marxism and hegemony, and how TV shows can push social norms onto the viewer I immediately thought of this show. I do think that New Girl in some ways doesn't always have storylines that follow the “status quo.” But other storylines follow exact gender norms and other living expectations that a viewer would expect to be pushed.

    For example, some things that happen in the show are the fact that they have Jess, Zoey Deschanel, a young woman living in a loft apartment with three men she had never met before. This is one of the things that makes this show interesting. Because yes, Jess does live with three men, which is not traditional. But when she starts living there it is very obvious that the traditional gender norms come into play with her being there. Jess is very feminine, and girly and this is never really challenged in the show. With the other men living there, some of them being more “ladies men”, and some of them being portrayed as a slob or messy frequently. All five main characters are heterosexual and go in and out of those traditional male and female relationships for the whole seven seasons.

    Other aspects of the show push a more traditional living situation. All five main characters have seemingly normal jobs, for example, a teacher, a bartender, marketing, a police officer, and the least traditional a model. These are all portrayed as very middle class, but almost never talked about struggling basic needs for money. They do make fun of the bartender quite often, but he is never really portrayed as struggling for money, like making rent. Another aspect about this show that is super interesting to me is it has the same friendship and community of the TV show Friends. Which might be why I like it so much. New Girl portrays this friend group as the “nuclear family” of the show, and then there are many secondary characters that come in and out and some stay the whole show. These characters add to the friend group, but there is always an overarching “family” with the five main characters. The show promotes the idea that life fulfillment comes from close friends, who support each other through everything. They are all very supportive of each other, and not typically tearing one another down.

 

How Marxism was Represented in Talladega Nights

One of my favorite movies is Talladega Nights, released in 2006 with Will Ferrell and John Reilly as the main characters. The movie portrays accession and how a quick climb to fame can affect one’s perception of themselves. What I mean by that is people who make a fast accession to fame can be unaware of their power and what it will do to their egos. Early in the movie, we see a young Ricky Bobby at school for career day when his drunk father, a failed professional racer, drives onto the school's grass and starts talking about an explicit and rockstar-esque lifestyle in an elementary school classroom. After being escorted out by school officials, Ricky’s father tells him to remember, “If you ain’t first, your last!” Which is a motto that he had lived by for quite some time. 

The movie advances to his early 20s, where he is a pit crew member for a NASCAR team. After coming in multiple laps down, the driver essentially forfeits the race, enabling Ricky to finish the race that he finished third in after overcoming a multiple-lap deficit to the cars on the lead lap; this begins Ricky’s accession to stardom. 

This star lifestyle was carried over to his two sons, whom we were first introduced to at the family dinner table afterward. Early on, you can tell they are pampered and given whatever they want as they talk about their day. His youngest son starts talking about pranks he pulled on his teacher and the vulgar, followed by Ricky’s oldest son talking about cruel pranks on his grandfather and neighbors. Once the grandfather responds, the entire family targets him for being upset, and Ricky says they can talk to him and do whatever they want because they are his sons. 

I mention his sons because they go through significant character development, as well as Ricky’s character development after getting in a bad wreck that had him out of races for quite some time. This led to him moving back into his mom’s house with the boys, where they could see structure, be punished, and go to church because their grandma would not deal with delinquents. This leads me to a scene where their grandmother drops “granny law.”  

Later in the movie, the boys are seen in the church choir and many other positive activities compared to what they were doing before the “granny law” scene. We can see the boys descend from money, which creates more structure and less freedom because they need it tremendously. However, this helped them morally and ethically to become upstanding young men. This is a prime example of Marxist themes as Ricky and his boys could see each social class's good, bad, and ugly.

Neo-Marxism and the Class Structure

 One of my favorite TV shows of all time, if not my favorite of all time is called Turn: Washington's Spies. The show is about the first ever American spy ring during the Revolutionary war. When looking at the show through a neo-Marxist perspective, the show reinforces the ideology of class structure. 

Sellnow states that "A neo-Marxist perspective helps expose how material conditions and economic practices shape dominant ideology regarding taken-for-granted assumptions about who '' ought to be'' and "ought not to be" empowered." The show follows several different people, all of which are in different classes. The main character is a poor farmer, his father is a wealthy judge, other main characters are soldiers, and the final main character works in a pub. My question I would like to pose is, Do people today still treat people differently based on their class?

Throughout the show we can see the neo-Marxist ideology that reinforces the class structure. The main character is usually treated below everyone because of his profession and his poor wealth. However, he is also treated differently when with his father who is treated with more respect and has more influence over people because of his wealth and his political profession. The soldiers who are lower ranks are treated differently than those with higher ranks, and usually those with higher ranks talk down to the soldiers that have lower ranks. 

In todays world, there is still a class structure, and we can see it. There is the upper class, middle upper class, middle class, and lower class. Just as in the show and following the ideology of class structure, the people in these classes are treated differently based on what class they are in, their profession, what they wear, what they drive, etc... There are many different things that people look at and based on that they could place you into a class structure and based on that, you could be treated differently. So does the class structure today still have that trickle down effect?

Marxism in This is England and why Shaun wants Doc Martens

While there are many examples of Marxism in pop-culture, I recently re-watched This Is England, directed by Shane Meadows, and thought it would be a great example to analyze through this lens. 

This British classic takes place in (you guessed it) England in 1983. During this time, Margaret Thatcher reigned in England and her ideology “Thatcherism” was on the rise. The country was facing economic hardships which meant unemployment was rising, industries were collapsing, and the entire country was being affected by Thatcher’s conservative policies. 

The film illustrates the struggles of the working class through the lens of a 12 year-old boy named Shaun. As if growing up in a broken society wasn’t bad enough, Shaun is also navigating life after the loss of his father in the Falkland War. This tragedy forces Shaun and his mother into the lower class and leads Shaun to feelings of alienation.

The reality of growing up in this community is harsh, and the film vividly captures the economic realities facing the working class at the time. Because of his social class, Shaun is constantly picked on at school for his baggy trousers and beat-up shoes. 

One of the Marxist theories present in the film is the role of consumerism in shaping the lives of the characters, especially Shaun. As he is struggling for a place to belong, he is befriended by a group of young adults who influence him into joining their skinhead gang. Skinheads were popular in England during this time because of their anti-authoritarian beliefs and working class pride (but let's be honest, the iconic fashion too).

Though the film primarily focuses on the social and political climate, the influence of material culture and the commodities of youth identity is evident. The fashion, shaved heads, and Doc Martens for instance, become much more than what they seem. They symbolize group membership, and act as a commodity in itself:

In Popular Culture: A Reader (edited by Omayra Zaragoza Cruz and Raiford Guins), Karl Marx’s Idea of commodity fetishism is explored and analyzed with a modern approach. These material items are not just bought because of their purpose, but for the cultural weight and status they represent. Shaun doesn’t just want Doc Martens because they’re durable– he wants them because they symbolize a social power and identity. 

I will be honest, watching this movie in high school influenced me into begging my parents for Doc Martens too… What was the last thing you purchased because of its commodity?

Marxism in this Three-Dimensional Animated Film

 

We have seen films that we easily spot Marxism on some of its scenes. We watched many cartoon films before, and seen three-dimensional (3D) animated films. Do you think Disney and DreamWorks cartoons and 3D animated films are just for fun to watch films? Well understand that there are cartoon films and 3D animated films from Disney and DreamWorks that may have scenes and storylines that are clearly associated with Marxism.

Shrek (2001) movie poster (IMDb, 2001).

Shrek (2001), by DreamWorks, is one of my favorite 3D animated movies that I have seen before. I chose this three-dimensional animated film for my analysis because this film is a best example of a film where some scenes are clearly associated with Marxism.

Sellnow (2010) describes Marxist perspectives focus on oppression and empowerment based on ethnicity, gender, and economic practices. I watched the scene where the Lord Farquaad’s army employs human villagers (which I see them as the lower class in the film) captures fairytale characters so they can get paid with coins.

Flying talking donkey scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

This scene above defines Marxism because human characters believe fairytale characters are bad characters. I clarify that their belief towards fairytale characters associate with hegemony.

Lord Farquaad and gingerbread man scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

This scene above where Lord Farquaad torturing gingerbread man. According to Sellnow (2010), hegemony is “privileging of a dominant cultural group’s ideology over that of other groups (p. 117). On the video above, Lord Farquaad says that gingerbread man is a trash to his surroundings. Just because gingerbread man is a fairytale mean a bad creature? Farquaad would say yes, however, I definitely say no. 

Sellnow (2010) defines that preferred reading “reinforces the status quo ideology about empowerment by proposing taken-for-granted assumptions as common sense” (p. 119). I noticed that the human characters in the movie believe that fairytale characters including Shrek, are not the same class and powerful as them. Another example is the video below showing Princess Fiona telling Shrek he is not powerful as the King.

 

Shrek forest scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

Princess Fiona believes Shrek is not powerful as Farquaad? Oppositional reading would explain Shrek is powerful. Oppositional reading focuses on challenging the dominant ideology with regards to beliefs that are taken-for-granted about empowerment (Sellnow, 2010). Oppositional reading helped me learn that certain movie characters are misjudged because the one group of characters assume that the lower-class character means weaker character. However, oppositional reading clarifies that lower-class characters can be a hero on the movie. Shrek is the best example.

Overall, my analysis of Marxism in Shrek (2001) reveals that characters judge other characters based on their class, ethnicity, and gender.

Questions:

1.       If you have watched Shrek (2001) movie, what are the Marxism scenes you noticed that I did not discussed in this blog?

2.       What other cartoons and 3D animated films that you watched that have Marxism scenes similar to Shrek (2001) movie?

---

References:

Adamson, A. & Jenson, V. (Directors). (2001). Shrek [Film]. Dreamworks Pictures.

IMDb. (2001, May 18). Shrek. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023, July 24). Shrek (2001) Flying Talking Donkey Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hanVpkY5u0

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023b, October 13). Shrek (2001) Forest Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7IS_3UY-a4

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023a, July 7). Shrek (2001) Meet Lord Farquaad Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dzeg-2Wa0c

Sellnow, D. (2010). The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture: Considering Mediated Texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marxism is Alive and Well in The Walking Dead

Premiering in 2010, The Walking Dead became a cultural phenomenon and massive commercial success, sparking a host of spin-off series that continue to captivate audiences today. Set against the backdrop of a zombie apocalypse, the franchise features a cast of charismatic characters struggling to survive in a world where modern civilization has collapsed into chaos. The critically acclaimed series attracted millions of viewers and its compelling themes caused viewers to reflect on human nature and the power dynamics that can exist within society.

So why did this series become so popular, and why do apocalyptic zombie shows hold such widespread appeal? Through a Marxist lens, we may find some of these answers. In nearly every one of these stories, a catastrophic event leads to the collapse of society, and the survivors are almost always ordinary, working-class people. The degeneration of society can be seen as a metaphor for the downfall of capitalist structures, where those in power are transformed into mindless, flesh-eating monsters. Ironically, these creatures continue to prey upon the living, representing the relentless consumption inherent in capitalist exploitation. In doing so, they impede the survivors from rising above their lowly circumstances, which symbolizes the barriers the working-class face in overcoming oppression.

Survival for most humans in these shows hinges on the formation of relationships and the sharing of resources and commodities. Some small utopian communities form, providing shelter and safety as people learn to rely on one another. However, these communities are either overrun by the capitalist zombies, or even worse, other groups of humans seeking to expand their power and control. Many of these competing communities are marred by authoritarianism and classism, revealing that when left unchecked, humans often revert to a materialistic society, exploiting each other in the same way the capitalist system fosters inequality. 

Although some characters die and are consumed along the way, the everyday human heroes (the proletarians) often rise above adversity, triumphing over both the “walkers” (common name for zombies), and the oppressive humans (the bourgeoisie). In this way, the survivors become “dependent beings,” at least until the next episode.

The mass appeal of these apocalyptic shows may lie in the oppressed minds of the viewers who subconsciously yearn for the downfall of society as we know it, or in other words, the demise of those empowered by privilege and wealth. Of course, in a zombie apocalypse, few viewers imagine themselves as capitalist zombies, but rather as survivors fighting against the dominant forces that threaten to consume them. Is our world really all that different?  

Marxism in "Saltburn"

 There have been movies coming out in recent years that I have automatically assumed would be progressive (or in Marxist terms, oppositional, I suppose) simply because of the way that they were casted or because of subject matter I believed would be covered. I continue to make these assumptions even though the only thing remotely “progressive” about them is the surprising increase in male nudity. I thought this about “Challengers” because I thought it would involve LGBT themes (it did not) and I thought the same about “Saltburn.”

I cannot say that I would recommend “Saltburn” to anyone, and I might even consider it unethical to do so. That being said, after I did all the readings for this week, it came to mind as containing Marxist themes. Upon more thought, I have decided “Saltburn” counts as a preferred reading in terms of social class. This blog post is intended to be spoiler-free, if that concerns anyone.

The film begins with the main character, Oliver, being viewed as an outcast because of his lower-class status. He meets another kid in the same boat, and this kid spews anti-upper class rhetoric, possibly leading viewers to believe that the film will actually take an oppositional stance. Soon, though, it becomes apparent that Oliver is determined to work his way up, and his ascent narrative begins (as discussed in the fourth reading). Oliver meets Felix and uses him as a vehicle for his economic rise.

At this point, there isn’t really a “bad guy” in the story, apart from nameless characters that tease Oliver for not being rich. Felix is part of a wealthy family, but is kind and understanding to Oliver from the beginning. Viewers can see a genuine friendship between the two. Felix brings Oliver to his family’s estate, the titular Saltburn, and Oliver begins to learn what it's like to have money. Slowly, Oliver does whatever it takes to stay in the lifestyle until viewers start questioning why they decided to watch this movie. He takes very drastic measures until he is ultimately the sole inheritor of the Saltburn property and all of its wealth.

Despite having a rather dark storyline, the film pretty much shows that an upper-class lifestyle is most desirable, because money brings in both power and happiness, first for Felix and his family and then for Oliver. The movie is so strange that it is unexpected for it to contain Marxist themes or for any philosophical thought to have gone into it, but it certainly does. It also contains themes about race, but significantly less than those about class.

Have you encountered any modern films that have strayed from your expectations in a similar way?

Will Taylor Swift Ever Be "The Man"?

    Taylor Swift’s song "The Man" (Swift, 2020) provides a relatable critique of gender inequality by highlighting how gender norms shape society’s ideas about power and success. By looking at it closer through a neo-Marxist lens, the song shows how materialism and wealth can reinforce dominant ideologies favoring men, questioning taken-for-granted assumptions about who "ought to be" empowered (Sellnow, 2010, p. 115).

If you haven’t heard this song before, I recommend listening to at least a snippet to get some context:

    The lyric “They wouldn’t shake their heads and question how much of this I deserve” reflects how our culture perpetuates patriarchal hegemony by naturalizing men’s success while questioning women’s achievements. Swift challenges this ideology by showing how the same behaviors, whether they be ambition, assertiveness, or financial success, are celebrated in men but scrutinized in women. With Taylor Swift being a cultural focal point, it could be assumed that she holds this perspective due to her experience. However, a neo-Marxist analysis recognizes this as more than individual bias: it stems from broader trends of wealth and power being disproportionately held by men, shaping the way women are perceived when they receive the same privilege.

    Swift also criticizes the commodification of women’s behavior. The line “What I was wearing, if I was rude / Could all be separated from my good ideas and power moves?” reveals how economic and cultural practices treat women’s appearance as a product for judgment. Let me illustrate this for you with one simple question: how many times are male celebrities asked about what they’re wearing compared to their female counterparts? 

    The treatment of achieving wealth is also mentioned: “If I was out flashing my dollars / I’d be a bitch, not a baller”. This lyric sheds light on how material success is coded by gender: male displays of wealth signify status, while women with similar financial independence are labeled negatively. Swift’s critique extends to the cultural acceptance of men’s privilege, through the reference to “Leo in Saint-Tropez” (see picture). This imagery symbolizes how male wealth is glamorized within our current society, reinforcing hegemonic values about who deserves it.

    Ultimately, Swift’s frustration with “running as fast as I can” highlights the barriers women face. The neo-Marxist perspective emphasizes how these barriers are not just ideological but deeply tied to material conditions that favor men’s upward mobility over women. What differences have you noticed in the portrayal of successful men vs women? What perpetuates these ideologies?

References: 

Sellnow, D. (2010). The rhetorical power of popular culture: Considering mediated texts (p. 115). Sage.

Swift, T. (2020). The man. On Lover. Republic Records.