Response to "Personal Paranoia: Fuelled by Law and Order or the media?"

Here is my response to Kathleen's post, which can be viewed here: http://lifeisbetterinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/2011/03/personal-paranoia-fuelled-by-law-order.html

Hey Kathleen! I'm probably not as avid in watching crime and investigation shows as you are, but we do share the same love for Criminal Minds. Some of the events that happen in that show are so realistic, like that episode about the serial killer who specifically targeted families or that other episode about the killer who would kidnap women and kill them in alleyways. Some of these episodes definitely made me more paranoid at night. Whenever I'm on my way home alone during nighttime, I would always sprint through the catwalk that leads to my neighbourhood...thank you, Criminal Minds.

Your question "...is my irrational fear of something happening to me rooted in my love for crime shows and overactive imagination? Or is it driven by the media's constant reporting on violent crimes?" is a good one since it signifies the differences between subjectivity and objectivity. More importantly, it denotes how influential mass media can be on an individual and ultimately, society as a whole. I think the media's constant broadcasts of violent crimes greatly attributes to the sudden attainment of paranoia. It signifies that violence is real and can happen to just about anyone. Most of the time, news reports explicitly focus on crimes, tragedies, and/or deaths, which further fuels personal paranoia.

In regards to television shows, particularly Criminal Minds, there are many episodes that depict violent crimes so extreme that most people dismiss it as unrealistic. For instance, that one episode where a killer would abduct women and bring them into an abandoned house, overdose them with drugs that causes them to pass out, and then mutilate them. Personally, I consider this an improbable event but in some cases, there are people who deem this event likely to happen. This illustrates the concept of perceived actuality, where "a viewer perceives media depicted portrayals of events, settings, and characters as existing, or being able to exist, in the real world." This concept is a significant factor in determining the influence of media violence.

So with all that said, I think paranoia is oftentimes attained subjectively. If an individual greatly believes that what they are watching on television will undoubtedly happen in real life, then they are more likely to become paranoid.

If you want to know more about the idea of perceived actuality and other concepts pertaining to media violence, here is the link: http://www.geneseo.edu/~kirsh/vita/AVB360.pdf

Violence in Christian Media: Is It Necessary?

There is no doubt that violence in contemporary television shows has always been a prominent feature. In Tuesday's lecture, Professor Harris mentioned popular crime and investigation shows, such as CSI and Criminal Minds. These shows are pervaded by explicit violent acts, including grisly murders, shootings, stabbings, and other wicked acts of violence. But in some way, there is a Christian undertone in these crime and investigation shows, where the protagonists' primary goal is to solve, and ultimately prevent, crimes from recurring, thus reinstating the good within society.

Another show that shares the same concept with said crime and investigation shows but contains more of a Christian-oriented theme is none other than Dog the Bounty Hunter. Duane "Dog" Chapman and his family of bounty hunters capture fugitives for a living, where they would receive monetary awards after each successful capture. The incorporation of violence is mostly attributed to the use of force when a fugitive resisted arrest. Although the portrayal of violence is more seldom in Dog the Bounty Hunter than in CSI or Criminal Minds, the idea is still the same: use violence to stop violence.

However, Christianity is more blatantly depicted in the show. Before they set out to capture a fugitive, Dog and his family would huddle together, hold hands, and pray for their safety and protection. Moreover, after a successful capture of a convicted felon, Dog would sit beside them and have a personal one-on-one talk, where oftentimes he would lecture them about their mistake of committing the crime and he would question them as to why they did it. However, he would always encourage the captured fugitive to become a better person and to change their ways for the better. This concept is quite similar to Criminal Minds; since the show focused more on the criminals rather than the crimes, the Behavioural Analysis Unit (BAU) would often go more into depth with the suspects' personality and personal history and how it may have instigated them to commit the crime. Ultimately, this signifies the important Christian characteristics of prudence, understanding, and compassion.

So if the utilization of violence is contradictory to Christian belief and practice, why is it often included and emphasized in contemporary television shows with Christian undertones? Thoughts?

Response to "Faith +1"

This is my response to Josh's post, which can be viewed here: http://buddychristsjesuspiece.blogspot.com/

Great post, Josh! Although my knowledge of Christian bands is not as limited, I can only think of...maybe four legitimate Christian bands/artists? That's just an estimate but I can assure you, it's not that many. With that said, I think you've raised a very important issue in your post: the obscurity of Christian bands, whether intentional or unintentional.

This idea of Christian music being more inconspicuous than any other genre in the music scene can be further elaborated by Brian Schill's article. He categorizes Christian music into three categories: separational, transformational, and integrational, where separational bands are the most anticultural of the three. Schill states that separational Christian musicians are "the original and largest group" and therefore, a majority of Christian bands seclude themselves from secular society and the mainstream. It is possible that this is the main reason as to why a lot of people are unaware of so many Christian bands.

The same goes for transformational and integrational Christian bands. Professor Harris talked about the band Switchfoot, who can be considered an integrational band. Even though they are considered a Christian band, they incoporate enough secular musical elements to make people forget or dismiss the idea altogether. Their lyrics are moral and Christian oriented but it's vague enough to be understood by anyone of a wholly secular background. They don't include biblical references or specific names of Christian figures in their lyrics and their sound is thoroughly generic - a lot of people can easily label them as another rock band, not a Christian band.

I actually didn't know Switchfoot was a Christian band until a year ago and I've known them for a couple of years now. I also didn't know that Underoath, Relient K, and Lifehouse are also crossover Christian bands  until...now? Just goes to show how obscure the Christian music genre can be.

Anyway, that's just my little take on Christian music. Again, great post Josh!

P.S. That South Park episode was pretty hilarious. I will never know how Cartman comes up with this stuff.

Biblical References in Music

Yesterday in lecture, Professor Harris discussed about the relationship between Christianity and music and how some songs are used to denote a Christian message. We also talked about (never thought I would say this) Justin Bieber and his song, "Pray". But I want to deviate from talking about Justin Bieber and focus more on the latter part of the class, where Professor Harris presented us with various bands that either included subtle biblical references in their songs or constructed entire songs from a biblical story. During lecture, we were shown the music video for U2's "Until the End of the World". Although no specific names were given, the song is widely recognized to be about Judas Iscariot and his conversation with Jesus Christ during The Last Supper.

There is a significant amount of biblical references in songs, both subtle and obvious. In some cases, the most unexpected songs can consist of biblical references. For instance, "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio consists of a biblical verse from Psalm 23:4, where he raps: "As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death". The inclusion of a biblical verse into a strictly secular song signifies a somewhat integrational move made by Coolio. However, the downfall for this is that this particular biblical lyric is bound to be overlooked by those who aren't devout Christians or familiar with the Bible.

A more obvious biblical reference found in a song is instated by one of the most popular artists in the music scene today, Nicki Minaj. Her song, "Moment 4 Life", is another song that seems unfit to be incorporating any Christian elements. However, she does so by comparing her current fame and status with the story of David and Goliath: "In this very moment I'm king / In this very moment I slayed Goliath with a sling". The biblical story of David and Goliath is found in the book of Samuel and is safe to say, a pretty common story even in the secular world; one doesn't need to be a Christian to know the story. As a result, the obvious use of this common biblical reference creates a more profound meaning to the song.

Like U2, some bands compose whole songs based on biblical stories. For instance, The Hush Sound, an indie band, wrote a song entitled "Wine Red". It was heavily based on the Garden of Eden and the idea of creation and the destruction of something beautiful. In an interview, Greta Salpeter, the pianist and one of the lead singers for The Hush Sound, explained the process of writing "Wine Red" and what the song is about:

"The song 'Wine Red' is about the destruction of something that seems to beautiful to exist, much like the Garden of Eden is said to be. There was a story at that time of a vicious murder or a young girl whom we had all met and that is what inspired the line 'the death of beauty'. Also, when I wrote the song, I had been reading Greek mythology as well as studying creation stories of many different faiths, mainly studying the Genesis stories of the Christian faith (out of curiosity rather than religion). Allusions to those stories are woven into the song." 

Greta mentions that they were studying the Genesis stories "out of curiosity rather than religion". It can be assumed that they are not Christians - they simply wrote a song about a Christian story. This signifies the influential magnitude that Christianity has on music and popular culture.

This ultimately raises the question: Why are artists and bands so enthusiastic in including biblical references or verses in their songs? Furthermore, why do artists and bands (Christians and non-Christians alike) construct entire songs on biblical stories? 

Thoughts?

Here are the links for the songs I've mentioned:

Gangsta's Paradise - Coolio feat. L.V.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFK6H_CcuX8 

Moment 4 Life - Nicki Minaj feat. Drake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks3_kuRAzHs

Wine Red - The Hush Sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6MFfMEziE

Response to "Advertising Within Shows"

This is my response to Jackie's blog post, which can be viewed here: http://jackiejesusblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advertising-within-shows.html

Hey Jackie! You make a great point about how irrelevant and insubstantial some advertisements are starting to become. I agree with your comment that "since commercials tend to have a lackluster effect on many people, advertisers have turned to television shows and movies to sell their products". You raise the important issue of insubstantial advertising and marketing - more and more companies depend on popular TV shows, music videos, celebrities, songs, and films to market their products instead of simply advertising the products themselves.

The commercials that you have mentioned, most especially the perfume commercials, wholly portray how companies are increasingly becoming more dependent on popular culture to market their products. The Gucci Perfume commercial (which can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHcqjjjnFY) features various models spontaneously breaking out in dance to Blondie's Heart of Glass. I couldn't exactly find a relevance between dancing models and the product itself. Like you said, "most perfume commercials have nothing to do with the scent of the product" and I could not agree more. This is just one of the few exemplary advertisements that illustrate the insubstantial relationship between the advertisement and the product.

You also mention advertising in popular television shows. At first, I noticed the subtle depictions of product placement in shows such as The Office, where office supplies are claimed by characters to have been bought from Staples. But nowadays, there are far more blatant depictions of product placement; some shows even focus whole episodes on certain brand labels. Shows like Modern Family built an entire episode on the Apple iPad as well as How I Met Your Mother, where Microsoft was the prevalent brand of one of the episodes. These blatant depictions of product placement signifies the advertising industry's growing dependency on popular culture to market their products. As a result, brand labels are starting to become more associated with their celebrity-studded advertisements instead of the actual products that they sell.

But like you said, despite the product placements and irrelevant advertising and marketing techniques, consumers should always be aware and practical when purchasing products. This is pretty much the most logical approach to avoid being sucked in by the advertisement agencies.

Christian Media: Television

In our recent lecture, Professor Harris talked about the significance of television within the study of religion and popular culture and how Christianity and religious elements are applied in secular TV shows. We were shown various examples of popular shows that depicted Christian-oriented themes and/or characters, which ultimately signifies the integral relationship between secularism and religion, or more specifically, popular culture and Christianity.

Most of the TV shows that Professor Harris presented to us were all Christian-related in some way but also included secular elements. Shows like Joan of Arcadia, Oz, and The West Wing all consist of religious themes and characters: Joan has the ability to communicate with God, Father Ray Mukada serves as the main religious authority of the show as the chaplain of Oz, and the depiction of President Josiah Bartlet as a realistic Christian. These shows were critically acclaimed and positively received by audiences and it is partly due to their incorporation of Christian characteristics.

Professor Harris also provided us with Nothing Sacred, a show that depicts the life of a Jesuit priest in the 1970s. Nothing Sacred, unlike the shows stated earlier, was generally void of any secular elements; it was a realistic and explicit portrayal of Catholic authoritative figures and followers. It is primarily this reason that The Catholic League for Religious Civil Rights decided to boycott the show and eventually, the show was canceled after its first season.

This got me thinking about the significant differences in boundaries and  restrictions between secular TV shows with Christian elements and shows that strictly depicted Christianity. It is clear that secular shows that merely incorporate Christian elements are more free to depict almost anything without severe consequences. Oz portrayed explicit material such as male rape, extreme violence, and male frontal nudity. However, the show still incorporated religious subplots through the character of Father Mukada. Oz managed to garner critical acclaim and aired for six seasons, which exemplifies the leniency of wholly secular shows depicting both explicit and religious material.

In contrast, Nothing Sacred was based solely on the life and experiences of a Jesuit priest; it was a show that centered around Catholicism and Catholic leaders and followers. As a result, it was absent of secularism and was generally regarded as show that strictly depicted Catholicism. This allowed the show to become more vulnerable to criticism and threats from conservative viewers. This certainly brings up the issue of rights and privileges on how religion is portrayed in secular TV shows and how they are portrayed in religious-oriented TV shows and ultimately, how it affects contemporary society.

Thoughts?

Response to "Do I Define the Labels, or Do the Labels Define Me?"

This is my response to Leah's post, which can be viewed here: http://popculturedisciple.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-i-define-labels-or-do-labels-define.html

Great post, Leah! I'm glad you touched upon the subject of brand loyalty. It's obvious that there's some kind of symbiotic relationship between a person's identity and what they wear, own, and buy. I completely agree with you when you say that "consumers have become more brand loyal to those things that are trendy, and the almost cult like loyalty begins to become part of their personal definition".

With that said, I think your post raises several important issues on how brand loyalty and personal identity can defy one another. Since consumers are more prone to become brand loyal to the things that are trendy, what happens when these trends start to garner unfavourable reviews? Will the consumer stay loyal to the brand, or abandon it just like any other trend? Furthermore, if the consumer chooses to revoke their loyalty from a brand, will they still have a personal identity?

Take Crocs footwear, for example. I don't even know if you can consider calling them a fashion trend in the first place, but I personally don't like Crocs so I'll try to restrain myself from being biased. But anyway, I remember seeing almost everyone donning Crocs a few years ago. It was the trend back then and some of my friends managed to get sucked into buying them. They even bought the same style in different highlighter colours (ugh). It was brand loyalty at its finest. But as the months went buy, I noticed less people were wearing them; my friends stopped wearing Crocs altogether. More and more hate reviews were given about Crocs and even a website dedicated to eliminating Crocs was created.

So going back to what I was saying earlier, do the consumers who were then loyal to Crocs but ended up abandoning the brand still have a personal identity? I think this is when the relationship between brand loyalty and personal identity become ambiguous. Possibly, people just moved on and substituted their brand loyalty to Crocs for something else...hopefully something more substantial.

All I know is, my friends never want to speak of it again. But of course, the occasional "Omg, do you remember when you used to wear Crocs??" comes up every now and then.