Wookies vs. Trekkers

5.1

Recently I re-watched two of the most iconic movies in the Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Fantasy genres:  “Star Wars: Episode IV, The New Hope”, and “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”.  Both of these movies are parts of franchises that have enormous groups of loyal followers.  The interesting part is that while these two movies are similar in many ways these groups of followers seldom overlap.  In fact, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, as to which you are a fan, has become a way in which people in the science fiction genre sometimes type themselves.

The beliefs are similar in both movies.  Good will triumph over evil and working together will bring victory.  In “Star Wars”, our heroes must rise from adversity, or from humble beginnings to find their greatness.  In “Star Trek”, the crew who has proven their worth is called on to save the day.  An added element to “Wars” is the magic and mystery of “The Force” which Luke must learn—again pitting good vs. evil, and the element of surprise in “Trek” is the “Singularity”, or how a machine reacts to its coming of consciousness.

Formulas in both movies follow some similar and some different paths.  The general fantasy structure is seen in both, with elements we must stretch our minds to accept, and characters that are foreign to our known world.  Action/Adventure and the fight to save the world and the damsel are parts of both films.  Certainly the space settings qualify both in the science fiction realm.  Both have a coming of age focus, though the two are very different in the subject of this.  I find that they differ and that “Wars” is more of a romantic saga, and “Trek” follows the formula of a buddy movie.

Even though they are both set in space and presumed in the future, “Wars” gritty, and dismal view makes me feel it relates closer to the past.  Tatooine, and its dusty farms, where young Luke dreams of something greater, is reminiscent of Dorothy’s Kansas in Wizard of Oz.  “Trek’s” slick and orderly earth, with a diverse set of human and alien working together, seems to be more desirable of the future.  With this in mind one can envision a change in the formula of Coming of Age over the years.  In the “Wars” past version, Luke lives a simple life but dreams of greatness until an event, the arrival of the droids and the murder of his aunt and uncle, propels him in to action.  A mentor, Kenobi, guides him toward a goal, and then leaves him to discover his courage and save the day.  The coming of age in “Trek’s” future version is about Spock’s acceptance of feelings, with Kirk to help him learn, and the machine V’Ger’s transformation from machine to sentient being and a search for purpose, and Decker’s sacrifice to become the guiding program.

I believe that formulas of the past stay true as the years pass.  Both of these movies draw heavily from the past and from formulas that drive characters that do not matter if they are driving a Roman chariot or an X-Wing fighter.  “Wars” borrows from the “King Arthur” mythology and from the medieval prince and princess formulas.  The rules of honor, family ties and rites, kingdoms and royalty are found here.  “Trek” is closer to the formula of the old westerns of the 50s and cop buddy movies.  Kirk and Spock and their crew are on an adventure in to the frontier friending and fighting those along the way while they protect the integrity of the Federation.

          Learning about the formulas that drive these films along with the other parts of the entire “Wars” and “Trek” franchises helps me to understand the division between the two sets of fans.  “Wars” fans do roleplay and reenact parts of the films, putting themselves in to the mythology and fantasy of the films.  They want to be those characters and fight those fights for  honor and to preserve the kingdoms.  “Trek” fans, on the other hand, do roleplay and create new characters, languages and elements of the ever-expanding frontier.  Anything is possible on the horizon or on the holodeck, but the bonds of the crew buddies remain strong. 

Heroes vs. Celebrities

   4.2

In today’s fast paced, but lonely and competitive world, it is important to have solid heroes that provide moral guidance and inspiration through the adversity we face.  Often people find themselves looking up to celebrities who charismatically fill their needs as someone who has the things they want; fame, talent, recognition, wealth, beauty, etc.; but do not generally see that person as a role model for their actions or substance.

While there are many varying definitions of a hero, a very appropriate one is defined at dictionary.com.  A hero is “a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal”.  Another of the listed definitions also applies; “a man (or woman) of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities”.  These would be the people in real life we would look up to and seek to emulate.  Other definitions, such as being god-like, immortal or superhuman, apply to the comic book character type heroes that save the day in fantasy worlds that we might revere but do not identify with.

On the other hand, celebrity is defined as being famous or well known, or the act of being famous or renown.  Nothing is said about the person’s quality or deeds.  Certainly heroes can be famous and be well known, but the act of simply being famous does not a hero make.

Scott LaBarge, an Ethics educator at Santa Clara University, cites the tie between heroes and morality and points out that persons who find heroes in people who work toward goals or fight for a cause, such as Martin Luther King, or Susan B. Anthony, will have a far different view of what is good and right than someone who idolizes and emulates celebrities like Paris Hilton, or 50-Cent.  The

 difference seems to be the depth to which one seeks to know about their hero.  Does the person want to emulate deeds of their hero and are they drive to reach goals, or are they simply saying, “she’s pretty and I want to be pretty”.  The qualities of our heroes define the qualities we have or want.  Mr. LaBarge cites examples of young people who list celebrities as their heroes and the dangers of losing sight of the importance of the difference that people of courage and nobility with a sense of purpose and drive to a goal have made to society.  He believes that teachers and others in society should help to highlight positive role models and show young people the difference between enjoying a celebrity and emulating a real hero.  He also points out that pervasive cynicism in today’s world breaks apart those who should be heroes to show they also have a human and fallible side, casting a shadow on the positive deeds they have done, when it is their human weakness and likeness to us that should show us that any of us can rise to do great things.

           Elizabeth Goren in an article in The American Journal of Psychoanalysis suggests that just prior to 9/11 heroes in this country were based only on their fame, fortune, beauty, or prowess and that these symbolized the superego that the media and our country’s values of disillusionment had given to the people.  These heroes were temporary and fleeting, quickly replaced by the next best thing.  The effect of 9/11 was to bring us back to more traditional heroism, and honoring the firemen, police, politicians and others who held steady on that day and that such traumas create common heroes as they do common enemies.  In time however, disillusionment would befall even these heroes, moving then from the heroic symbol of an unwavering servant to a human who might drink or fight or have other faults.  She surmises that in our process of being vulnerable and grieving traumatic events like 9/11 we first see heroes like the firefighters as having courage in the face of defeat, but as we grow stronger we cast those heroes aside because we can no longer associate defeat with the trauma and we move on to our soldiers who are the new hero avenging the action, and we will move forward from the soldiers to another form of hero representing our victory as that becomes available. 

Ms. Goren’s explanation of the cycle of heroism can be used to partly explain the concept of the “Cult of Celebrity”.  Cult of Celebrity can be defined as a “widespread interest in arbitrarily famous individuals, or celebrities".  As we move through the mourning process we arbitrarily assign value to and want to be the sacrificers (the firefighters), the saviors (the soldiers), and then the victors, building them up and then diminishing them along the way.  In the same way, we watch with fascination as a new celebrity gains glory and fame only to implode or be exposed as human, and then to be replaced by the next star.  In a podcast, Dr. Angie Hobbs from Britain’s Warwick University states that the Cult of Celebrity that we follow is dangerous to society, keeping people from being as productive or happy as they could be.  Putting fame as our first priority provides no substance, and fame should be a secondary goal to some other heroic action in order to be healthy.

I agree with Dr. Hobbs.  Celebrity in itself does not fulfill the definition of hero, and it shouldn't since it does not provide any understanding of how hard the celebrity worked to reach their status or what their true values are.  To find a hero we first must find deeds that inspire us to reach our own goals, and then we should identify with their success.

What does this all mean to me?

6.1

As you might have surmised, this blog has been part of a class on Pop Culture.  The posts were either assigned short blog posts or summaries of other longer assignments.

I feel that I understand the concept of pop culture a great deal more now than before I took this class.  I had a vague idea of the implications of theories like rituals, myths and heroes, but not a clear enough understanding to apply it to my daily life.  I think it was more that I took these things for granted and didn't really recognize how these could affect me and my understanding of things.  I believe that I will be more conscience of pop culture as I encounter it.

I have enjoyed exploring the field of politics and political humor more though our topic papers.  This is a field that is very interesting to me.  Believe it or not I would someday like to do stand up comedy.  I have done some amateur stuff but I am still working on material and timing.  My own approach is very satirical and sarcastic, so this research has helped me to understand the success of those in the field.

I would like to think that I am not affected by stereotypes, and I don't personally consider any to be universally true—for race, for gender, for orientation, for any difference.  I have never understood the concept of casting a net over any group of people and considering them all the same catch.  I do, however, strongly believe that stereotypes play a large role in our career success.  I have chosen a more technical field in IT, so being female has been a challenge, and being older might be an issue for me should I try to change careers or move to a new company. 

Look around places of business and sometimes you notice that the staff is not diverse at all, and, in fact, they might be a carbon copy of the boss.  Sometimes people like to hire folks who are very close to their own personality and values.  I don't even think it's a conscience choice most times.  Some people are just more comfortable being around other people just like them.  That situation, providing a single line of thought, can be a death sentence for ideas and innovation.

During the class I have found the joy of writing again.  I have been technical writing for so long in my job I almost forgot how to craft an essay.  Through our research and reading I have identified a number of pop culture artifacts that I want to explore further.  I have also read essay pieces in our books that were outside of our reading assignments that speak to pop culture in preserving the past responsibly and to creating a good self-image.

I am a member of my company’s Diversity and Inclusion Council and work to make sure that all of our employees are an equal part of our team.  Concepts that we learned about stereotypes will help me to understand thinking patterns by some of our less diversity-acclimated staff.

I also want to find a way to be a better role model for my daughter and to monitor who she idolizes to make sure they are worthy of hero status.  I want her to find positive and enriching heroes that inspire her to follow on a path of great deeds.  I will extend this to work as well and work harder to lead by example.  I work in the industry that provides the world with celebrities and faux heroes, so I want to help my fellow employees to recognize the difference between celebrity and hero. 

Who has the formula for success?

1.4.5

Over the years television has crafted its own formula for success.  A formula is like a recipe—what ingredients does one need to use to make things happen, and to make them successful.  While TV dawned in the mid-20^th century it invented itself and became a conventional tool for information and entertainment in American society.  With each new programming genre, the television industry steps out of convention to create a new viewing formula.

Television news has hewn out its formula following trends in public opinion and pop culture.  In the early years, the news was staunch and unbiased, but has become affected by the gleam of celebrity.  TV anchors and those they report about—politicians, the famous, and the infamous—all become stars in their own right.  Political news in general has become more about campaign strategy and creating celebrity than the issues themselves.

Television comedy’s formula had previously been to satirize the news, either by creating caricatures of stories, or developing fake stories that mimicked reality.  Recently, however, political satire comedy and news has melded in to a new formula invention that reports politics in an overt yet accurate way.  Shows like “The Daily Show” and  “Colbert Report” have redefined how America gets their news.  Even shows like “Saturday Night Live” and “The Simpsons” have treated the ridiculousness of things like Dick Chaney’s machismo or Sarah Palin’s naiveté in such a way that they helped to steer public opinion.

I hope that the current convention of reality TV does somehow lose its stability and a new framework emerges in prime time.  I believe that we will see a reduction in the amount of programming in the coming years, as the cable industry changes to a more a-la-carte model and we lose some of the fringe cable channels.  Will this mean an increase in the quality of what programming is left?  Let's hope so.

Do we need another hero?

1.4.4

Heroes are somehow better than us.  They exist, or more correctly we create them, in order to show the rest of us the way to greatness.  Heroes can tie us to our past and give our traditions meaning, or they can fill our current needs for a role model.

Often their greatness is simply myth but their reputation and the outcome of their deeds spreads in to legend.  In today’s electronically connected society a hero’s shelf life can be much shorter and those heroes created simply by virtue of celebrity are quickly replaced.  Celebrities shouldn't really qualify as heroes anyway, as they haven’t contributed any real great action, but apparently our society has a need to create role models of fame and excess.

In the political arena heroes are even more subjective than celebrities, aligning to parties or causes.  Even if a political hero is widely revered, there are those of the opposite philosophy who will not agree.

The 2008 presidential election was a very interesting one for hero watchers.  On the right, John McCain brought his war hero status with him, being a former prisoner of war, and then a long-term political public servant.  On the left, Barack Obama’s hero status was quickly created, representing the hopes and dreams of the civil rights movement, and providing a role model not only for the African American population but young voters of all races who wanted a president more closely related to their American dream.  President Obama’s future heroic story will certainly include his rise past adversity but the rest, that based on his deeds, will be told in time.

Some might say that President Obama already possesses a heroic status akin to a cult of personality.  Dictionary.com defines “cult of personality” as an intense devotion to a particular person.  It would also refer to the person who is arousing such devotion. 

During that 2008 election that seemingly lasted forever, Barack Obama emerged as a larger than life figure.  He won the resolute of the African American community and used the media to ingratiate himself as a man of the people, though critics claim he was cultivating celebrity instead.  The currently divided political landscape helps to create more controversy and inflate his presence even more, polarizing his unwavering fans to his defense against his vehement opponents.  Books are written to broadcast his greatness.  Pundits and critics compare him to the power or charisma of Stalin, Hitler, or Kim Jong-Il.  Some churches call him the anti-Christ, while school children make venerating videos for You Tube.  Selwyn Duke examines his phenomenon in “Beyond the Idea of an Icon”, written for New American in 2009, but ends with an ominous thought.  What if this is less about who Barack Obama is, who comprises his legions of fans, and what his presidency means, and more about the need for the American people to find a deity for a leader?

I am not sure if the adulation for President Obama is as strong as it once was.  I expect to see a great deal more media coverage as we get closer to the November election in order to renew his cultish stature.  I do not see Mitt Romney garnering the same kind of fame and that may seal his fate—to be beaten by Obama’s celebrity and not his record.

Welcome to the 45th iteration of the presidential election ritual.

1.4.3

     Few non-religious social process contain as much ritualized activity as the political process. It would seem as soon as one election ends we are already moving in to the next by way of the same cycle of events. Here too, in the political process and in the media surrounding it, a myriad of stereotypes emerge about the participants, the process, and the media themselves.

    Steven Lukes, in an article titled “Political Ritual and Social Integration”, posted in the Journal of Sociology, links rituals with set rules and symbolism. He suggests that these rituals are what hold a society together. In studying the history of political and social mores; from the official ceremonies like an inauguration, the campaign speeches, parades, and even the way a society reacts and mourns after an assassination, that these rituals draw the public attention and drives public loyalties – even if those loyalties polarize biases held against differing beliefs. Consider the differences between the political parties and how this divide might be more visible during certain rituals, like the party conventions.

     So many of the steps in our political process are ritualized, from the formal statement of eligibility based on our Constitution, the way candidates campaign, to how the winner will do his or her job. On the campaign trail we are used to the visits and speeches, with candidates kissing babies and making promises. Each state has a different ritual to decide its primary elections, whether a vote or caucus, and the conventions cap the primary season by celebrating the values of each party. Our citizens proudly visit the polls on Tuesday after the first Monday in November for the general election and the presidential winner stars planning the elaborate Inauguration parties for January. Each year too, we have the State of the Union Address, and similar events in the states and cities across America.

      Stereotypes can be defined as focus on obvious characteristics of a group, whether real or imagined but certainly don’t generally apply to the whole group, that can be good or bad, but most often are used to detract. In American politics the most frequently used stereotype is the assignment of political parties – either the socialist-leaning, tree-hugging, baby-killing liberal Democratic left, or the heartless, gun-loving, religious nut capitalistic conservative Republican right.

     Many stereotypes can relate to the voters and to the media that report and comment on the political process. Younger voters, who typically do not read newspapers or watch mainstream news are seen as uninformed and naive, while the mainstream news media is characterized as displaying elections more like sports contests such as a horse race, and that they focus more on the campaign strategies more than the actual issues the candidates represent, in effect parroting the campaign promises without an real substance creating a general public ignorance of the political process.

     Those folks who aren’t watching the news networks are shown to be watching comedy and political satire shows like Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, or NBC’s “Saturday Night Live”. These shows are stereotyped as fake and unreal, but studies show that they can provide quality political information, oftentimes more detailed and focused than the mainstream news, and that viewers can be more likely to be aware of the political issues and the candidates’ stands.

     There are many facets to the political process in this country—those we ritually participate in or celebrate and those we create generalities about. I personally try to keep an open mind and not fall in the bias and polarization of the parties but view both sides as completely as I can to make an informed decision. I do enjoy the rules and symbolism of casting my vote, and of the formal ceremonies.

     So many others rely on the media to provide the context of the rites we share, and to help them decide between the alternatives. With this type of apathy, at least there are outlets that combine satire and commentary and provide the viewers with the real issues, even if they aren’t aware they are learning while they laugh, against the stereotype of being fake.

The yellow brick road to heroism...

4.1

In the Wizard of Oz Dorothy Gale may be America's most endearing female hero.  The movie was released in 1939, so the treatment of a female hero is somewhat different from the book, where Frank L. Baum wrote about several very strong female characters, but in 1939 young women were much more gentle and naive.  She was not a heroine, who would have helped a male hero on his journey, but takes her own hero's journey instead.

First Dorothy saves her dog Toto from the evil Miss Gulch by running away.  Dorothy had opined to find a place to be happier “Over the Rainbow” anyway, but when she is convinced that her Aunt Em is ill she hurries to return to the farm.  She is fearful in the tornado but does what she needs to do to shield herself and Toto.

Her trip in the tornado results in her accidental killing of an evil witch.  She is rewarded for this, but has made an enemy and must go on a quest to find her way home.  Along the way she gathers companions, all of which lack something that Dorothy has, and she reassures them and becomes their guide.  The Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion listen to Dorothy’s suggestions and follow her lead to find their own reward as well. 

Once they reach the Emerald City Dorothy faces fear of the Wizard and is given a test to return the witch’s broomstick.  She takes the challenge but is captured.  Saved by her friends, once again she uses her courage to accidentally defeat the witch, mostly to save her friends rather than to complete the test.

Once the test is completed she must stand up to the Wizard who turns out to be a fake, but her suggestions save the day once more.

The Wizard of Oz is America’s first and greatest fairy tale.  In the book a much younger Dorothy purposefully defeats the witches, but in the movie version she is made to be much more tentative and like a “damsel in distress”.  It is through her courage, and her heart, and her brain that she leads and succeeds.