Internet: A Democratic Technology or Disaster

Today we live in a world of technology or as Chris Barker refers to it, a “digital media culture” (346) where we seem to be living through our technological devices. Ask yourself this: Could I live without my cell phone, internet, television, Ipod, kindle, electronic planner, etc. for one day? or a week? Or maybe even a month? Most of us would like to believe we could do it for at least one day, but the reality is that when it comes down to it most of us couldn’t go even one hour without one of these things.  My next question is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? Are we being ruled by our technological devices and losing sight of reality, or are we just progressing and learning to live a more ‘democratic’ lifestyle? At the dawn of the internet some argued that it was the latter, that our digital world was allowing us to live more democratically without lines and “open to all people regardless of sex, gender, age, class or nationality” (Barker 348). Others have referred to it as a “utopian space ‘above and beyond’ the culture, history and problems of our time” (Barker 348). Today I see it differently. The internet and our new technology have only opened the doors to new cultures and new variations of the problems we already have along with creating new ones. Our social networks such as ‘myspace’ and ‘facebook’ have created a cyber world in which we all share our lives daily. These networks opened the doors to new kinds of bullies (cyber bullies) and allowed the concept of bullying to soar to new levels often unbearable for the victims. Countless suicides have resulted from this cyber bullying leaving us to wonder is the cyber world really is “free from body scrutiny” (Barker 348)? I don’t think that it is. If anything I believe that the internet and it’s openness has opened the doors to a more cruel world where sex, gender, age, class and nationality are scrutinized even more because people are able to speak more freely without the fear of consequences. Peers are able to harass their classmates without any penalty from the school and often times no penalty from their parents. The internet has become more a place filled with “lost souls in an unnavigable sea of information” (Barker 349) and freedom and resources making the skeptics of the earlier internet more clear as to the implications of this open and endless world. Although I don’t believe these were the consequences they had in mind it still led to some negative outcomes. This free space has made it easier for criminals to do their dirty work, psychos to carry out murderous plans, and perverts to defile their victims. Even though the internet has opened countless positive opportunities is it really worth the awful downside to what the internet has to offer? Maybe a less democratic approach would suit the internet better; an approach that called for more surveillance and censoring to save the youth of tomorrow and our future culture. Perhaps a more censored approach would allow us to still obtain all the wondrous information the internet has to offer while keeping the smut and terror and cruelties out. I know that we as Americans don’t like to be censored or told what we can and cannot see or obtain, but maybe it’s for the best; for the best for our children and ourselves and the future generations to come.

The Identity of James Bond

We are all familiar with the character James Bond and characters like him. Bond type characters are the men that every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with; or so they say and make it appear. But what about Bond and his counterparts make them so irresistible and interesting? Well it seems to me that it begins with his ‘social identity’ or the “expectations and opinions that others” (Barker 215) seem to hold for him and other men. Bond type characters mirror what society has come to expect out of the perfect man, he must be: strong, but gentle, confident, but not overly cocky, knowledgeable in as many areas as possible (the more a man knows the more attractive he becomes), “cultured” (in the pre-1960’s sense), “clever and resourceful” (as Goldfinger states in 007 Goldfinger), polite and charming, among many other things. We, meaning western society, have come to expect all our men to be the same masculine beings.  This would account for the many bond type characters, just to name a few: Bond himself, Jason Bourne, Frank Martin, Indiana Jones, etc. So how exactly did this “social identity” come to be? There are many theories, but the one that resonates with me is Stuart Hall’s process of “conceptualizing identity” (Barker 218) in which he believed that there were three ways of doing so. The one that makes the most sense with Bond is “the sociological subject” (Barker 219). Hall believed that the sociological subject “was not autonomous and self-sufficient, but was formed in relation to ‘significant’ others, who mediated to the subject the values, meanings, and symbols- the culture- of the worlds he/she inhabited” (Barker 220: Hall, 1992b: 275). In this case Bond and men like him are a complete figment of our imagination; a creation, unrealistic and impossible to believe that any man could/would be all the things that Bond and his counterparts portray. Which is where another one of Hall’s conceptualized identities comes into play; it is more likely that we are what he referred to as “postmodern subjects” (Barker 220) which states that we are made up of “different identities at different times” (Barker 220: Hall, 1992b:277). Bond portrays only part of what men really are, the sociological aspect, what we as social beings have tried to create; but the realistic man has multiple identities for different occasions. A man is never all of what Bond is at one given time. These created characters have been formed to entertain and to portray the “perfect” man, but we all know there is no such thing as perfect. As with anything, perfection is always followed or accompanied by some sort of flaw. Bond’s flaw is his womanizing, mans-man, playboy attitude; his affection for women is short lived, he speaks to the women around him as if they were inferior, and has no plans of commitment at any moment. These aspects alone would push most women away. Although we have formed this ‘ideal man’ it is impossible to have all of the previously mentioned characteristics without the latter. Therefore, I believe that the Bond type characters were created strictly for entertainment purposes and not as a realistic portrayal of what women really want. What do you think?

            Another way to look at the Bond type character is to take into consideration the social construction of masculinity; or what it means to be masculine according to the culture one lives in. Our western society has “encompassed the values of strength, power, stoicism, actions, control, independence, self-sufficiency” (Barker 302) with ideal masculinity. All of these values fit our Bond characters, but do they fit all of our men? No, definitely not. So does this make our men any less of a man? I believe not. This cultural construction of what it is to be male has been detrimental to our male society; leading them to bare a heavy weight upon their shoulders if they do not meet the ‘masucline’ requirements. It is possible that these Bond type characters and the expectations they put forth for our men have caused more damage than good entertainment. “Terrence Real argues that 48 per cent of men in the USA are at some point in their lives implicated in depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and crime” (Barker 304). Are men just biologically prone to have these sorts of problems or do they derive from feeling lost because they cannot meet the ridiculous expectations western society has put upon them? Some argue that this is the case; men’s addictions and violent or criminal behavior are “narcotic-like ‘time-outs’ that blunt the pain and anxiety of other needs or longings that cannot be directly controlled” (Barker 305). Because our men are unable to meet these high and unreachable expectations they resort to violence, or drugs, or crime to make them feel better for a short period of time. Barke refers to these men as “damaged goods of industrial society”, so we as a culture have damaged our men with our Bond type characters and expectations. So how do we fix this? Do we do away with our Bond type characters and entertainment? Many would argue yes, but another suggestion is for men to “find new ways of being men” (Barker 306); maybe to look outside the social construct of masculinity and come into one’s own “male” identity. We as a society have to work together to re-vamp the socially constructed idea of what it is to be masculine. Instead we should construct different types of masculinities that fit a more vast range of men.

What is Identity?

What exactly is “identity”? Is it how we perceive ourselves? Is it how others perceive us? Or is it a combination of both? According to Stuart Hall by way of Chris Barker there are “three different ways of conceptualizing identity” (Barker 218) and those are: the enlightenment subject, the sociological subject, and the postmodern subject. Each of these “subjects” has a different way of looking at how we form what we call our “identity”. Honestly though, how many times have you looked in the mirror and asked ‘who am I’ or ‘how did I become this person’? I believe we all ask ourselves this question at least one time or another in our lives. I know I have. So here are the ways that Hall believed one may form an identity. If one is an enlightenment subject they believe that “I think, therefore I am” which is well known as the famous saying of Decartes. The way that I interpreted this was that the enlightenment subjects believed their identity to be their own, and one without influence and made up completely of reason and conscious actions and reactions; although, I have a hard time believing this to be possible. To me we as human beings naturally want to be accepted. I believe that our lives and personalities or “identities” begin being formed when we are born; by our parents, and then our peers, then our teachers, and then the workforce. This does not mean that I believe we have no free will to make our own decisions; we do, but those decisions we make have been influenced by the information and morals and values fed to us our entire lives. According to Hall’s conceptualization of identities I would guess that my way of thinking would fall somewhere between the sociological subject and the postmodern subject: the sociological subject being one who is completely formed by ones social surroundings and the postmodern subject being “composed not of one but several, sometimes contradictory, identities” (Barker 220). From my experience with people and myself it seems that we often times have one identity when with our family and those closest to us, another when we are in an academic environment, and another when in a new or uncomfortable social situation or employment situation. But I don’t believe that these different and sometimes contradictory “identities” are deceiving; instead I think that this is where the sociological part comes in. We are told from a young age and throughout our growing years that there is an appropriate way to act in different situations. When we are with family and those closest to us it is less important to censor one’s self but when we are in school or work we are expected to act polite, work hard, and put our best self forward. We all know the appropriate way to act and we know how we learned this “appropriate” way but we never consciously think well could I have changed this or made this different? This is why I don’t believe that the enlightenment subject is realistic, nor do I believe we can be held to just one strict way of forming an identity. Much of what we do is done subconsciously, and always through a different channel or avenue that we have be taught or picked up along this road of life. We only begin to consciously think about it when asked questions like “what is identity to you” and “how did you form this identity”. So what is identity to you?

Barker, Chris. Culturl Studies Theory & Practice. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, 2008.