I would say that I enjoyed the module more once we were separated into our three groups. Not that I didn't like the content of the first five lectures, but more because once in our smaller groups people were more interactive with each other and William. I can only comment on the group I was in, Violence & Hatred, but I saw some of the Jack the Ripper presentations and they too seemed to have enjoyed their group.
More positives of the module were that I was introduced to people whose names I had heard of in some of my other modules, but at the time had no background knowledge of. For example, I have taken a few film modules as electives and heard the name Baudrillard. I think the knowledge I acquired through the module will benefit my work elsewhere.
I also got the chance to take part in a presentation, and work on this weblog. As much as I like essays and tests, it is good to break up these with different forms of assessment and build on different skill sets.
The only negative I can think of is that some of the earlier lectures were a bit biased. I think it would be beneficial to present counter arguments as personally this would enhance my understanding of the concepts, and when only presented with one side I tend to automatically stand with the other! This is minor though and I would defiantly recommend PH2004 to fellow students.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Post-Presentation. Kimberley
We performed our presentation last Thursday. I say performed because there was a fair amount of acting involved and I think we were all Oscar worthy! Maybe not quite but I was really impressed with the rest of my group.
As detailed in the presentation progress posts, we acted out a talk show, in which Jean Baudrillard was the star guest and his controversial theories on terrorism was the subject. I think our choice of topic was successful as with the greatest respect to other groups, those who attempted to explain the Code, it often came across as too much information crammed into 15 minutes. After all it took me a whole lecture and weeks of reflection before I felt I understood the Code.
As the dialect in our presentation was meant to be a conversation amongst the guests, it was important we all knew our lines. Everyone knew their parts well and this meant everything flowed nicely. Michael also did a good job of making sure the PowerPoint presentation aligned with our speech.
The only hitch we had was that as we exited the 'stage', Meena believed our presentation was over and summoned the next group. However as we had a couple minutes left, she allowed us to conclude and so we got in everything we wanted. I can't say I kept track myself, but other members of the group commented that we stuck to the time limit well.
The 'audience' asked us lots of questions, which showed they were paying attention and hopefully enjoyed the presentation. William asked us a question that Michael had predicted, "Why is Amira a terrorist?"
I am really glad he asked as it gave me the opportunity to re-iterate our aim, that we had not intended to force upon people Baudrillard's theory, but to present it in a way that gave them an understanding of it. I believe the characters were pivotal to this as they showed how the theory could relate to individuals, making it more accessible.
Other groups incorporated elements such as YouTube clips and questionnaires, but I believe our presentation was sufficient without them.
I really enjoyed the presentation and would like to say thank you to everyone I shared a group with. Irene, who made the audience laugh and could easily have played all parts herself, complete with accents! Scott whose portrayal of Rumsfield, ex- Secretary of defence, was so good that the audience asking questions treated him like he actually was Rumsfield, and Michael who did such a good job as the host, and actually wore a suit as promised. It was a good end to an enjoyable module.
As detailed in the presentation progress posts, we acted out a talk show, in which Jean Baudrillard was the star guest and his controversial theories on terrorism was the subject. I think our choice of topic was successful as with the greatest respect to other groups, those who attempted to explain the Code, it often came across as too much information crammed into 15 minutes. After all it took me a whole lecture and weeks of reflection before I felt I understood the Code.
As the dialect in our presentation was meant to be a conversation amongst the guests, it was important we all knew our lines. Everyone knew their parts well and this meant everything flowed nicely. Michael also did a good job of making sure the PowerPoint presentation aligned with our speech.
The only hitch we had was that as we exited the 'stage', Meena believed our presentation was over and summoned the next group. However as we had a couple minutes left, she allowed us to conclude and so we got in everything we wanted. I can't say I kept track myself, but other members of the group commented that we stuck to the time limit well.
The 'audience' asked us lots of questions, which showed they were paying attention and hopefully enjoyed the presentation. William asked us a question that Michael had predicted, "Why is Amira a terrorist?"
I am really glad he asked as it gave me the opportunity to re-iterate our aim, that we had not intended to force upon people Baudrillard's theory, but to present it in a way that gave them an understanding of it. I believe the characters were pivotal to this as they showed how the theory could relate to individuals, making it more accessible.
Other groups incorporated elements such as YouTube clips and questionnaires, but I believe our presentation was sufficient without them.
I really enjoyed the presentation and would like to say thank you to everyone I shared a group with. Irene, who made the audience laugh and could easily have played all parts herself, complete with accents! Scott whose portrayal of Rumsfield, ex- Secretary of defence, was so good that the audience asking questions treated him like he actually was Rumsfield, and Michael who did such a good job as the host, and actually wore a suit as promised. It was a good end to an enjoyable module.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Reflection presentation (Irene)
Reflection on Baudrillards theory of terrorism presentation!
I think we did quite fine! Group work was definitely their, everybody knew what to do and what to say and when. I think it showed that we did some practising’s and get togethers. The presentation was less than 20 minutes so we controlled the time perfectly, especially because we didn’t left things out. We even had time to do the conclusion, although it was a bit messy at the end, due to us leaving stage and Meena announcing the other group. But I think we managed.
I think the whole point of the presentation; Baudrillards theory from different perspectives was very clear for the audience, I think we picked the right kind of presentation type. People where laughing but during the question round it showed that people got the point! The audience was participating in the question round (which shows that they were paying attention) And we could all answer the questions well, in which we showed our understanding of the topic.
It was a very interesting and instructive topic, but difficult here and there, but due to our kind of presenting it made it more lightly and adjustable for the audience. It wasn’t hard to stay awake I think!
Every character played in the “show” new its points and ideas therefore the audience had a very clear overview of meanings and because of that they could make out their own, which was the main point of our presentation.
I think we did quite fine! Group work was definitely their, everybody knew what to do and what to say and when. I think it showed that we did some practising’s and get togethers. The presentation was less than 20 minutes so we controlled the time perfectly, especially because we didn’t left things out. We even had time to do the conclusion, although it was a bit messy at the end, due to us leaving stage and Meena announcing the other group. But I think we managed.
I think the whole point of the presentation; Baudrillards theory from different perspectives was very clear for the audience, I think we picked the right kind of presentation type. People where laughing but during the question round it showed that people got the point! The audience was participating in the question round (which shows that they were paying attention) And we could all answer the questions well, in which we showed our understanding of the topic.
It was a very interesting and instructive topic, but difficult here and there, but due to our kind of presenting it made it more lightly and adjustable for the audience. It wasn’t hard to stay awake I think!
Every character played in the “show” new its points and ideas therefore the audience had a very clear overview of meanings and because of that they could make out their own, which was the main point of our presentation.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Reminiscing (Michael)
Well.....the presentations were yesterday and ive had time to think about the positives, and equally the negatives, about our performance.
I think our group management overall was very good. We all knew our lines and times to speak with no real delay between one another making the argument/debate have a smooth flow to it, making seem more legitimate. The length of our presentation also lasted almost a perfect 20 minutes, adding to the good management of our group.
The main body of our presentation involved the talk show "The Today Show". Before we started i had a word with William and informed him that once the "show" had concluded we would re-appear to conclude the entire presentation, including pre-talkshow content. However once we had exited the presentation area Meena started to introduce the next group. With only William being aware of the presentation structure maybe informing all of the lecturers present might have been beneficial.
The Q&A part of the presentation proved that the subject of terrorism is one that has multiple opinions. Donald Rumsfeld aka Scott had many questions directed towards him regarding the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I think he handled the questions very well considering 10 minutes before the presentation his script wasn't even printed off for revision due to technical problems in the Learning centre.
A question we suspected may be asked "In what ways is Amira a terrorist?" was handled well by Kimberley and i think she gave a valid answer in that we werent suggesting either way if Baudrillard's theory is correct but more to make your own decision on whether "we are all terrorists".
Irene also had some questions directed towards Jean Baudrillard and answered them in a very Baudrillardish (i just made that term up) manner.
All in all i think our presentation was a success and i hope the lecturers marking it will have enjoyed it as much as we enjoyed performing it. I also hope they found it relevant to the module as it discussed a controversial issue in society based on a theory that had been established in lectures. The lecturers also would have saw that we had an in depth knowledge of the subject and our confidence in that knowledge came through in the handling of the questions.
I think our group management overall was very good. We all knew our lines and times to speak with no real delay between one another making the argument/debate have a smooth flow to it, making seem more legitimate. The length of our presentation also lasted almost a perfect 20 minutes, adding to the good management of our group.
The main body of our presentation involved the talk show "The Today Show". Before we started i had a word with William and informed him that once the "show" had concluded we would re-appear to conclude the entire presentation, including pre-talkshow content. However once we had exited the presentation area Meena started to introduce the next group. With only William being aware of the presentation structure maybe informing all of the lecturers present might have been beneficial.
The Q&A part of the presentation proved that the subject of terrorism is one that has multiple opinions. Donald Rumsfeld aka Scott had many questions directed towards him regarding the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I think he handled the questions very well considering 10 minutes before the presentation his script wasn't even printed off for revision due to technical problems in the Learning centre.
A question we suspected may be asked "In what ways is Amira a terrorist?" was handled well by Kimberley and i think she gave a valid answer in that we werent suggesting either way if Baudrillard's theory is correct but more to make your own decision on whether "we are all terrorists".
Irene also had some questions directed towards Jean Baudrillard and answered them in a very Baudrillardish (i just made that term up) manner.
All in all i think our presentation was a success and i hope the lecturers marking it will have enjoyed it as much as we enjoyed performing it. I also hope they found it relevant to the module as it discussed a controversial issue in society based on a theory that had been established in lectures. The lecturers also would have saw that we had an in depth knowledge of the subject and our confidence in that knowledge came through in the handling of the questions.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Cockfighting, Kimberley.
I walked into this class to see the words 'Men and their Cocks' blazed across the whiteboard. This was a slide in William's lecture on the Balinese and their love of cockfighting.
Two cocks are pit against each other armed with sharp spurs. Without these spurs the cocks would not naturally be able to hurt each other. Bouts last 21 seconds each and the winner is the cock who lives the longest.
The Balinese men bet on the cocks, approximately five days wages. As the cocks are equally matched it is difficult to predicts winners and William told us nobody usually made any money from it. I questioned what their wives made of it all.
We were introduced to Clifford Geertz who studied the practice. The cockfighting is a way for the men to quench their thirst for blood and violence, so that they do not express it outside the fights. Whilst cockfighting is barbaric, violence never breaks out amongst the crowd, the referee is not heckled like in English football, and bets are paid without hesitation.
This links in with Baudrillard's theories as during the fights the men's identities are removed, and nobody is deemed a winner or a loser for more than a moment.
Most of my questions in the lecture focused on animal rights. William told us that cockfights still happen today, and my first thoughts were how have animal rights activists like PETA not campaigned against this like they have bear dancing . Many states have, and the American postal service is even planning an amendment to stop any mail relating to animal cruelty.
http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/the-usps-proposes-a-ban-on-cockfighting-publications/
However, in the lecture we were informed that cockfights still take place in numerous villages in France, and they are allowed to providing the community can 'demonstrate long-standing cultural or religious traditions.'
I don't believe that this should wash as cockfights have been de-ritualised and made into a 'sport' where the people involved are there for money making purposes. Surely this discredits the reason the cruel practice is allowed to continue?
Two cocks are pit against each other armed with sharp spurs. Without these spurs the cocks would not naturally be able to hurt each other. Bouts last 21 seconds each and the winner is the cock who lives the longest.
The Balinese men bet on the cocks, approximately five days wages. As the cocks are equally matched it is difficult to predicts winners and William told us nobody usually made any money from it. I questioned what their wives made of it all.
We were introduced to Clifford Geertz who studied the practice. The cockfighting is a way for the men to quench their thirst for blood and violence, so that they do not express it outside the fights. Whilst cockfighting is barbaric, violence never breaks out amongst the crowd, the referee is not heckled like in English football, and bets are paid without hesitation.
This links in with Baudrillard's theories as during the fights the men's identities are removed, and nobody is deemed a winner or a loser for more than a moment.
Most of my questions in the lecture focused on animal rights. William told us that cockfights still happen today, and my first thoughts were how have animal rights activists like PETA not campaigned against this like they have bear dancing . Many states have, and the American postal service is even planning an amendment to stop any mail relating to animal cruelty.
http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/the-usps-proposes-a-ban-on-cockfighting-publications/
However, in the lecture we were informed that cockfights still take place in numerous villages in France, and they are allowed to providing the community can 'demonstrate long-standing cultural or religious traditions.'
I don't believe that this should wash as cockfights have been de-ritualised and made into a 'sport' where the people involved are there for money making purposes. Surely this discredits the reason the cruel practice is allowed to continue?
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Presentation. Kimberley
We were given a list of suggested presentation topics but our group (Irene, Scott, Michael & I) decided to choose our own. The Code we deemed as too complex for just a 15 minute presentation , whereas cockfighting we thought was maybe too simple.
Eventually we decided on Baudrillard's views on terrorism and his highly controversial comments on 9/11.
It is a current issue and one that everybody seems to have an opinion on. It's also much more relatable than cockfighting as unfortunately we see images of terrorism attacks on the news quite often.
Rather than presenting pure theory we decided we wanted the audience to understand Baudrillard's theory but to come to their own conclusion as to whether they agreed or not. Much like William allowed us to do in his lectures. This was partly because amongst our group we varied in opinion as to how much we agreed with Baudrillard's theory.
In order to give the audience the opportunity to make their own minds up, we decided a straight forward presentation just wouldn't do. Eventually we settled on a talk show idea. This would make the presentation more interesting for the audience (hopefully!) and by each member taking on a 'role' with a different perspective, we could represent our varying opinions of our group. It is also intended to make Baudrillard's theory less 'out there' by showing how it relates to individuals.
The four roles are; Host- Michael, Baudrillard- Irene, Iraqi Civilian- Kimberley, and Donald Rumsfield (ex-Secretary of defence)- played by Scott.
To conclude our presentation we had planned in our first meeting to use red and green cards (as in red for no and green for yes) for the audience to hold up to vote as to whether they agreed with Baudrillard. This was later changed because green and red have good and bad connotations so could be biased. It was since changed to yes/no cards but we will probably use a more simple method of thumbs up or thumbs down!
I am looking forward to our presentation.
Eventually we decided on Baudrillard's views on terrorism and his highly controversial comments on 9/11.
It is a current issue and one that everybody seems to have an opinion on. It's also much more relatable than cockfighting as unfortunately we see images of terrorism attacks on the news quite often.
Rather than presenting pure theory we decided we wanted the audience to understand Baudrillard's theory but to come to their own conclusion as to whether they agreed or not. Much like William allowed us to do in his lectures. This was partly because amongst our group we varied in opinion as to how much we agreed with Baudrillard's theory.
In order to give the audience the opportunity to make their own minds up, we decided a straight forward presentation just wouldn't do. Eventually we settled on a talk show idea. This would make the presentation more interesting for the audience (hopefully!) and by each member taking on a 'role' with a different perspective, we could represent our varying opinions of our group. It is also intended to make Baudrillard's theory less 'out there' by showing how it relates to individuals.
The four roles are; Host- Michael, Baudrillard- Irene, Iraqi Civilian- Kimberley, and Donald Rumsfield (ex-Secretary of defence)- played by Scott.
To conclude our presentation we had planned in our first meeting to use red and green cards (as in red for no and green for yes) for the audience to hold up to vote as to whether they agreed with Baudrillard. This was later changed because green and red have good and bad connotations so could be biased. It was since changed to yes/no cards but we will probably use a more simple method of thumbs up or thumbs down!
I am looking forward to our presentation.
Monday, 7 December 2009
3 days to go (Michael)
On Wednesday we are meeting for the final time before the actual presentation. The explanation regarding Baudrillard's controversial statement is still undecided but this should be cleared up come wednesday. Any last minute adjustments regarding the presentation should be tackled during our meeting including what we are to wear during the presentation. I have a rough idea about what i am going to wear. Being a host of a talk show is pretty straight forward so a suit should suffice. Baudrillard's attire may prove difficult as what does a dead, french philosopher wear?
The conclusion at the end of our powerpoint still needs some work however but im sure once we have our group back to full strength then we will come to a conclusion fairly easily.
My next blog will probably be my last blog and it will be post-presentation. My final thoughts on PH2004: It Should Not Be Allowed are that the module overall was very interesting and it involved many interesting topics and familiarised me with the likes of philosophers such as Jean Baudrillard and Georges Bataille, two theorists i have referenced in other assignments for my film degree. I think that cock fighting was an interesting subject and it was nice to learn about cultures that consider it a religious ceremony. I also enjoyed learning about Baudrillard's code, once i understood the concept. Had i not have joined the group i did i think i would have done a presentation on 'the code' as i had sufficient notes and a fairly good understanding of it. However given the chance i wouldn't change my wonderful group. :-)
The conclusion at the end of our powerpoint still needs some work however but im sure once we have our group back to full strength then we will come to a conclusion fairly easily.
My next blog will probably be my last blog and it will be post-presentation. My final thoughts on PH2004: It Should Not Be Allowed are that the module overall was very interesting and it involved many interesting topics and familiarised me with the likes of philosophers such as Jean Baudrillard and Georges Bataille, two theorists i have referenced in other assignments for my film degree. I think that cock fighting was an interesting subject and it was nice to learn about cultures that consider it a religious ceremony. I also enjoyed learning about Baudrillard's code, once i understood the concept. Had i not have joined the group i did i think i would have done a presentation on 'the code' as i had sufficient notes and a fairly good understanding of it. However given the chance i wouldn't change my wonderful group. :-)
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Explanation...(Michael)
Our presentation is dealing with Terrorism and what Baudrillard's thoughts on it are. We, as a group, have understood fairly clearly what Baudrillard means when he suggests that any individual, group of people, establishment or institution can be considered a terrorist, or more bluntly are terrorists. After looking at his books and essay's on terrorism there is one quote that stands out above all the others i feel, one that is extremely bold and deserves referencing in our presentation. It is the his thought that, regarding September 11th, "it is almost they who did it, but we asked for it".
With such an intriguing statement it is an obvious quotation to use in our presentation; However after much discussion followed by some more discussion we were struggling to create an explanation of what Baudrillard means by this. Obviously the statement is fairly straight forward, he is suggesting that terrorists caused terrorism, but the west were, non directly, asking for a terrorist attack.
I'm struggling to find a definitive explanation to this statement and the more i search for one the more i find that there may not actually be a definitive explanation but more that you have to read the quote and come to a subjective conclusion.
With only half of an explanation for Baudrillard's quote we must try and fully establish a meaning for it during our meeting on Wednesday. Once the quote is verified i think our presentation will definitely be ready for presenting and ready to earn the A grade it so thoroughly deserves (please).
With such an intriguing statement it is an obvious quotation to use in our presentation; However after much discussion followed by some more discussion we were struggling to create an explanation of what Baudrillard means by this. Obviously the statement is fairly straight forward, he is suggesting that terrorists caused terrorism, but the west were, non directly, asking for a terrorist attack.
I'm struggling to find a definitive explanation to this statement and the more i search for one the more i find that there may not actually be a definitive explanation but more that you have to read the quote and come to a subjective conclusion.
With only half of an explanation for Baudrillard's quote we must try and fully establish a meaning for it during our meeting on Wednesday. Once the quote is verified i think our presentation will definitely be ready for presenting and ready to earn the A grade it so thoroughly deserves (please).
An Introduction to Violence & Hatred. Kimberley
During our first lesson with William in our new group, we were introduced to Jean Baudrillard and his 'Code.'
I can't say for sure but i sensed that the majority of the group were as confused as i was.
Although it wasn't the first time we had been introduced to Baudrillard (William took a lesson in week 3 in which we studied Violence, mostly concentrating on Bataille, a man Baudrillard was greatly influenced by, but briefly touching on Baudrillard's thoughts on 'binary oppositions') it was a great amount of information to take in all at once.
Like Irene I struggled to understand the Code as a whole, but understood some of the specifics of it. For example, 'the symbolic exchange of ambivalence'. William explained this in terms of gift giving and how the meaning of a gift is not determined by the gift itself but on if and how it is accepted, and how it is intended. Many group members came up with examples, such as photographs given to them by someone who later passed away, the photographs have little or no value in terms of money, but possess great sentimental value. The example I gave in class was when a man buys a female a drink, often without asking her first, the male often feels like the woman owes him something, whether it be a drink in return or more likely her time and attention.
Much of The Code focuses on a system that places each individual on a hierarchical scale. Baudrillard believes that in order to escape this, we must break out of binary oppositions and instead of being violent or non-violent, be both.
After the lesson I tried to find a solid definition of Baudrillard's code to help my understanding of it. I could not find anything that was any less complex than the notes we were handed in class one. Over the following weeks I have begun to comprehend it much more, perhaps because I am more used to Baudrillard's often 'shocking' ideas, so it seems less alien to me. After all the Code is much less controversial than stating that we (me, you, the whole world) wanted 9/11 to happen!
I can't say for sure but i sensed that the majority of the group were as confused as i was.
Although it wasn't the first time we had been introduced to Baudrillard (William took a lesson in week 3 in which we studied Violence, mostly concentrating on Bataille, a man Baudrillard was greatly influenced by, but briefly touching on Baudrillard's thoughts on 'binary oppositions') it was a great amount of information to take in all at once.
Like Irene I struggled to understand the Code as a whole, but understood some of the specifics of it. For example, 'the symbolic exchange of ambivalence'. William explained this in terms of gift giving and how the meaning of a gift is not determined by the gift itself but on if and how it is accepted, and how it is intended. Many group members came up with examples, such as photographs given to them by someone who later passed away, the photographs have little or no value in terms of money, but possess great sentimental value. The example I gave in class was when a man buys a female a drink, often without asking her first, the male often feels like the woman owes him something, whether it be a drink in return or more likely her time and attention.
Much of The Code focuses on a system that places each individual on a hierarchical scale. Baudrillard believes that in order to escape this, we must break out of binary oppositions and instead of being violent or non-violent, be both.
After the lesson I tried to find a solid definition of Baudrillard's code to help my understanding of it. I could not find anything that was any less complex than the notes we were handed in class one. Over the following weeks I have begun to comprehend it much more, perhaps because I am more used to Baudrillard's often 'shocking' ideas, so it seems less alien to me. After all the Code is much less controversial than stating that we (me, you, the whole world) wanted 9/11 to happen!
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Terrorims (Irene)
Baudrillard’s theory of Terrorism which we will use in our presentation is the theory wherein he calls everyone a terrorist. Terrorism is not only a group of people/ country bombing some other country. You can see terrorism in a smaller perspective as well. In everyday life people are being terrorised, by their employer, their family, friends, neighbours etc.
The 9/11 attack on America was indeed an act of terrorism but America’s reaction to this attack can also be called terrorism. They “defend” themselves by bombing, and making war with Iraq, but Iraqi civilians die because of it, you can’t deny that that is an act of terrorism. Which can be linked to Baudrillard’s “all governments are actually terrorists”. Because in this case not only the American but also the Iraq government are both guilty of terrorism towards each other.
According to “the spirit of terrorism” by J. Baudrillard, we all wished for 9/11 to happen. This is of course pretty vague, because why would an American want America to be attacked? People love watching the news, the love to see that’s going wrong in the world. They actually love to watch acts of terrorism but from their own chair at home. They don’t really want to be involved. The 9/11 attack has been showed over the world so many times, it was on every tv channel. People could not stop watching it, they like to see a terroristic attack. But loving to see what is on tv isn’t a reason to wish America to be attacked. Maybe the Americans wished for it because of finally having a good reason for attacking Iraq, for being able to show what kind of a great country they can be, even “in times like these” etc..
What do you think? I agree on Baudrillard’s “the government is a terrorist” for the logical explanation of every government suppressing its population, all in, maybe, other ways. Suppression doesn’t make people happy, and making people unhappy is, in my eyes, an act of terrorism.
The 9/11 attack on America was indeed an act of terrorism but America’s reaction to this attack can also be called terrorism. They “defend” themselves by bombing, and making war with Iraq, but Iraqi civilians die because of it, you can’t deny that that is an act of terrorism. Which can be linked to Baudrillard’s “all governments are actually terrorists”. Because in this case not only the American but also the Iraq government are both guilty of terrorism towards each other.
According to “the spirit of terrorism” by J. Baudrillard, we all wished for 9/11 to happen. This is of course pretty vague, because why would an American want America to be attacked? People love watching the news, the love to see that’s going wrong in the world. They actually love to watch acts of terrorism but from their own chair at home. They don’t really want to be involved. The 9/11 attack has been showed over the world so many times, it was on every tv channel. People could not stop watching it, they like to see a terroristic attack. But loving to see what is on tv isn’t a reason to wish America to be attacked. Maybe the Americans wished for it because of finally having a good reason for attacking Iraq, for being able to show what kind of a great country they can be, even “in times like these” etc..
What do you think? I agree on Baudrillard’s “the government is a terrorist” for the logical explanation of every government suppressing its population, all in, maybe, other ways. Suppression doesn’t make people happy, and making people unhappy is, in my eyes, an act of terrorism.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
One Week Left (Michael)
With the presentation date fast approaching i think we have a solid structure to work around. Tomorrow we are meeting in the Learning centre again and will hopefully leave the session with a clear idea of what slides we will have in our powerpoint presentation and the dialogue we will need for our "Question Time" styled debate. Our roles in the debate have been specified and are as follows:
Me: Presenter. Deals with introductions and opens the 'show' with audience interaction.
Irene: Jean Baudrillard. Acts as Baudrillard and argues his theory in the debate on terrorism
Scott: Donald Rumsfeld. Argues that the U.S.A are in Iraq to defend their country against terrorist attacks.
Kimberley: Iraqi Citizen. Suggests the American soldiers aswell as her own Government terrorise the Iraqi public.
I think our idea is unique and will be a nice change for the people watching, and marking, because it transgresses the expectactions of what a presentation should be and im eager to show the class what we have come up with.
Me: Presenter. Deals with introductions and opens the 'show' with audience interaction.
Irene: Jean Baudrillard. Acts as Baudrillard and argues his theory in the debate on terrorism
Scott: Donald Rumsfeld. Argues that the U.S.A are in Iraq to defend their country against terrorist attacks.
Kimberley: Iraqi Citizen. Suggests the American soldiers aswell as her own Government terrorise the Iraqi public.
I think our idea is unique and will be a nice change for the people watching, and marking, because it transgresses the expectactions of what a presentation should be and im eager to show the class what we have come up with.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Presentation (irene)
Today during the lecture, William gave a brief summary about all topics discussed. Just to clear up soms problems. After that we had more information what needs to be in the presenation, we must not forget to ask the audiance. So Scott and I came up with some more idea's.
We'll ask the audiance to vote but we can't do it with red/ green colour because that's wrong and right so we have to choose different colours. After asking the audiance for a vote Baudrillard will stand up and explain that even if they have a vote their vote doesn't count. Baudrillard is agains voting etc.
During the discussion the civilian will say to Baudrillard; you are terrorising us with your thoughts about terrorism (because he is changing the idea of terrorism in peoples minds). With this Baudrillard is attact with his own theory and is named a terrorist himself like he is calling others a terrorist.
Michael (presenter of show) will, at the end of the discussion, realise that he is a terrorist because he is exploiting Iraq's pain for a tv show.. While he is realising it he explains why and what ( like mentioned before). With this the audiance is been given an example of Baudrillards idee of BBC is a terroristic organisation because of its exploiting of other peoples pain.
By adopting these things we'll put B's theory into the deeper part of the presentation and not only on the servey.
William gave us a litte "helping hand" today, he mentioned to put the state terrorism into the introduction and not only the child/ boyfriend idea, but personally i think the state terrorism idea will be clear after the explanation of B's theory by himself.
After we finished the discussion the presenter will be shocked because of him realising he's a terrorist, and will let the audiance ask questions (we have to include the audiance accoring the the module guide) the Guests will answer these questions and than we'lll do the vote after wich B says it doesn't count or have any influence anyway. (still have to find out why...)
During the presentation we will use a powerpoint presentation which will be blank during the discussion or else it would be to much information on "stage" at one time and people just can's look at both. After it we'll show quotes with references on it using different colour to show who said what..
Other things we can include but don't have time for ( we think.. maybe you have an other oppinion) are: during the discussion have an terrorist attact on stage (William's idea), mock/ terrorise the audiance.. (don't know how and it may not be a nice thing to do: also williams idea..)
I think that's about it for today. Please comment on this with your idea's!!
We all desided to meet next week, wednesday same place, same time. If everybody would look at " oppinions" of their caracters we'll write the discussion together.
We'll ask the audiance to vote but we can't do it with red/ green colour because that's wrong and right so we have to choose different colours. After asking the audiance for a vote Baudrillard will stand up and explain that even if they have a vote their vote doesn't count. Baudrillard is agains voting etc.
During the discussion the civilian will say to Baudrillard; you are terrorising us with your thoughts about terrorism (because he is changing the idea of terrorism in peoples minds). With this Baudrillard is attact with his own theory and is named a terrorist himself like he is calling others a terrorist.
Michael (presenter of show) will, at the end of the discussion, realise that he is a terrorist because he is exploiting Iraq's pain for a tv show.. While he is realising it he explains why and what ( like mentioned before). With this the audiance is been given an example of Baudrillards idee of BBC is a terroristic organisation because of its exploiting of other peoples pain.
By adopting these things we'll put B's theory into the deeper part of the presentation and not only on the servey.
William gave us a litte "helping hand" today, he mentioned to put the state terrorism into the introduction and not only the child/ boyfriend idea, but personally i think the state terrorism idea will be clear after the explanation of B's theory by himself.
After we finished the discussion the presenter will be shocked because of him realising he's a terrorist, and will let the audiance ask questions (we have to include the audiance accoring the the module guide) the Guests will answer these questions and than we'lll do the vote after wich B says it doesn't count or have any influence anyway. (still have to find out why...)
During the presentation we will use a powerpoint presentation which will be blank during the discussion or else it would be to much information on "stage" at one time and people just can's look at both. After it we'll show quotes with references on it using different colour to show who said what..
Other things we can include but don't have time for ( we think.. maybe you have an other oppinion) are: during the discussion have an terrorist attact on stage (William's idea), mock/ terrorise the audiance.. (don't know how and it may not be a nice thing to do: also williams idea..)
I think that's about it for today. Please comment on this with your idea's!!
We all desided to meet next week, wednesday same place, same time. If everybody would look at " oppinions" of their caracters we'll write the discussion together.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Presentation (Michael)
We all met up this afternoon to get a clearer idea on a presentation topic. After looking at the suggested topics we decided that we were all clear and comfortable with talking about Baudrillard's views on terrorism. Although it isn't one of the topics suggested in class we all had sufficient notes and interesting ideas surrounding terrorism and thought it would result in a more interesting presentation. We struggled for a while deciding on a specific terrrorist event that we were going to debate but the current "War on Terror" seemed a popular decision. We have a solid foundation on which to work and we will continue this developmental stage during tomorrow's lecture.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Lecture 1 (irene)
After going through my notes I remembered what lecture 1 was about. It's been a while..
Baudrillard's code.. mmm What to say about that. It's an interesting thought but I don't really agree with him. Groups (like women after the feminism waves) can be adopted in the code, but nowadays almost all groups are adopted which makes the code this modern society in my believe. The social control, which in Baudrillard's believes is a bad thing, can be seen as something confrotable for people. You know what is expected and you know what you can and can't do. ofcourse you always have a group of individuals who don't agree or don't like the social controle. Well according to Baudrillard you can break out of the Code. But the only way of breaking out is violence. So you need violence to became what you want? Isn't there another way of accomplishing what you want but without violence? I don't say that all people have to be satisfied with their lives and that they have to take what they want for granted but violence doesn't have to be the main option. I tried to look up a short summary of what Baudrillard's code is but I can't really find one which is useful. It is so much and so complicated that it's hard to say in a couple of words what it is. Therefore I think it's really hard to give comments on it, just because i'm not really sure what it is, I only understand the main idea.
I do see a point in the idea of forgetting the desh (between black/ whit, old/ young etc.) By forgetting the desh words will became less structured. Because what for one old is is for someone els young. Some people do this in small steps, forgetting about an age difference in relationships (friendship or lovers) They don't care about age, coulor or race but about the peron itself. But the distingtion between a dark person or a white person will be made anyway. Just because for a white person a darker person is "black" aswell as the other way around. Or the distingtion between a totler and a grandfather.. The bigger the difference the less we can leave out the desh. Small differences can be blured.
If we can leave out the desh completely there will be no more discrimination or racism. Because than everybody is black as well as white.
Don't let me start about the death but alive part, I think that's something people can't imagion. Just as I can't. I simpely just can see a living person as a bit death already.. Yes we are going to die and some very sick people are living on the edge but that doesn't mean that they are not alive anymore.. The memorie of a death person doens't make him/her more alive, a memorie reminds us of the life someone had lived before his/her death, it is not like that life still continuous.
Please give me your comments on this, because i have no clue whether this is good or not..
Baudrillard's code.. mmm What to say about that. It's an interesting thought but I don't really agree with him. Groups (like women after the feminism waves) can be adopted in the code, but nowadays almost all groups are adopted which makes the code this modern society in my believe. The social control, which in Baudrillard's believes is a bad thing, can be seen as something confrotable for people. You know what is expected and you know what you can and can't do. ofcourse you always have a group of individuals who don't agree or don't like the social controle. Well according to Baudrillard you can break out of the Code. But the only way of breaking out is violence. So you need violence to became what you want? Isn't there another way of accomplishing what you want but without violence? I don't say that all people have to be satisfied with their lives and that they have to take what they want for granted but violence doesn't have to be the main option. I tried to look up a short summary of what Baudrillard's code is but I can't really find one which is useful. It is so much and so complicated that it's hard to say in a couple of words what it is. Therefore I think it's really hard to give comments on it, just because i'm not really sure what it is, I only understand the main idea.
I do see a point in the idea of forgetting the desh (between black/ whit, old/ young etc.) By forgetting the desh words will became less structured. Because what for one old is is for someone els young. Some people do this in small steps, forgetting about an age difference in relationships (friendship or lovers) They don't care about age, coulor or race but about the peron itself. But the distingtion between a dark person or a white person will be made anyway. Just because for a white person a darker person is "black" aswell as the other way around. Or the distingtion between a totler and a grandfather.. The bigger the difference the less we can leave out the desh. Small differences can be blured.
If we can leave out the desh completely there will be no more discrimination or racism. Because than everybody is black as well as white.
Don't let me start about the death but alive part, I think that's something people can't imagion. Just as I can't. I simpely just can see a living person as a bit death already.. Yes we are going to die and some very sick people are living on the edge but that doesn't mean that they are not alive anymore.. The memorie of a death person doens't make him/her more alive, a memorie reminds us of the life someone had lived before his/her death, it is not like that life still continuous.
Please give me your comments on this, because i have no clue whether this is good or not..
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Lecture 2 (irene)
I liked the way Baudrillards theory was showned by an event.. It makes it clear what Baudrillard means. By looking at violence the way "normal" people do cock fighting shouldn't be allowed bacause it's bad for the cocks ( most of the time they day during of after the fight) and it's a form of fighting which is violent! But if you look at it in Baudrillards way; ( rethinking of violence) the violence of the cocks isn't bad because it prevents men from fighting each other, it also symbolises more than just a fight with animals. The fighting cocks stands for the men who are not fighting but it's still their pride they will loose if their cock dies/ looses.
By looking at cockfighting like that it should be allowed. Why? Well if they can't let their cocks fight they might ( big change) start fighting themselves, and kill each other.
Personally I do think it's very cruel for the animals, but on the other hand the animal is been taken well care of for two years before the fight. They don't treat their "normal" non-fighting cock that well. So the cock has a good life, better than others but it dies during a fight..
I really liked the "dubbel" meaning of cockfighting. The cocks symbolises man fighting part, the population actually think animals are discusting but on the other hand take good care of their fighingcock and compair themselves with the cock. So they discust it and love it (men love and hate themselves).. A big contradiction.
As long as the cock fighting is for a religious purposes ( a blood offer) I would say it is allowed, but if they would only let the cocks fight and die for economical purposes I would say it's not. Tourists love these "traditional" things if they go on a holiday trip to some "stange" country with their "strange" customs. They are willing to pay money ( and ofcourse, because they are tourists they would been charged tripple) just to show the pictures to their family and friends at home.. "We've seen this! o my, it's so terrible what they do with those cocks.. it really is a third world country. "
By the way, I loved the sentence; "at any moment; you will never be so young but you have never been so old" It is so true.. Can't add anything!
By looking at cockfighting like that it should be allowed. Why? Well if they can't let their cocks fight they might ( big change) start fighting themselves, and kill each other.
Personally I do think it's very cruel for the animals, but on the other hand the animal is been taken well care of for two years before the fight. They don't treat their "normal" non-fighting cock that well. So the cock has a good life, better than others but it dies during a fight..
I really liked the "dubbel" meaning of cockfighting. The cocks symbolises man fighting part, the population actually think animals are discusting but on the other hand take good care of their fighingcock and compair themselves with the cock. So they discust it and love it (men love and hate themselves).. A big contradiction.
As long as the cock fighting is for a religious purposes ( a blood offer) I would say it is allowed, but if they would only let the cocks fight and die for economical purposes I would say it's not. Tourists love these "traditional" things if they go on a holiday trip to some "stange" country with their "strange" customs. They are willing to pay money ( and ofcourse, because they are tourists they would been charged tripple) just to show the pictures to their family and friends at home.. "We've seen this! o my, it's so terrible what they do with those cocks.. it really is a third world country. "
By the way, I loved the sentence; "at any moment; you will never be so young but you have never been so old" It is so true.. Can't add anything!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)