Zipes argues that while our culture promotes freedom of choice, liberty and independence, our market, and the drive to make money, limits and even controls our freedom of choice. Quoting Zipes, "Here I should like briefly to demonstrate how our free time is no longer free but regulated by culture industries that have a cast impact on our schools. Bluntly speaking, our activities in the movie theaters, sports, and schools are all governed by the same prevailing corporate interests" (pg 13).
I feel that Zipes is giving a one-sided argument. It could very well be possible that corporations market products that only cater to the needs and desires of the public. Supply and demand seems like a simple enough idea in terms of the public demanding and the market supplying. Yes, prices may fluctuate, but does our freedom? Who is really controlling who?
He also claims that our culture reinforces the corporations control over us by basing our worth as human beings on our material processions: what books we read, what movies we see, etc. And this conditioning process starts when we are just children. Quoting Zipes, "Of course, the child would have long been seduced to see the film. He or she would be nobody unless the film were seen (pg 13)."
I personally don't remember feeling an insatiable need to go see particular movies as a child. I don't recall feeling lowly or underprivileged if I didn't see the popular movie at the time. Perhaps there's been immense change in the last 10-15 years. Perhaps I was a different type of child, (more concerned with riding bikes with my neighborhood friends and baking cookies with my grandma, instead of worrying about the toys in my room or the show on the TV) but I seriously doubt that.
Have times changed? Is Zipes right? I feel like his argument is stretched, and sometimes goes in circles. What is your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
For most of the reading the argument did sound very one-sided. The discussion is basically surrounded by the fact that our children are trained to jump through certain hoops, they make their choices based on the choices of mass corporations. I'm not really sure that I agree with this...there is no doubt that we are a society of mass consumption but I think children also are still children, they are creative and explorative in their own right.
I agree with your question of "who is really controlling who?" I think the main idea is that we really do need to put "children first". To begin with the parents and the community, if we instill the proper values and importance in our children the cycle will continue on. I believe that childhood goes through cycles, very young children don't usually mind being different, as time goes on they usually go through a period of conformity, and then as they reach adulthood they begin to find themselves.
Every child will eventually become a consumer, the idea is to make him or her into a wise consumer....one that thinks about the product and does not conform to the ideas of others, instead to develop and ask their own questions.
I totally agree that most of the reading are one-sided arguments. Quoting Zipes, "We prep them to respond to the demands of the markets so they will find their niche." (p.2)What this quote is trying to say to me is that, children are like machines, being programmed with all kinds of software to accomplish a certain goal in life and that goal would be to succeed everyone else. I don't know what other people make of this quote but it's frightening seeing a child do everything that an adult tells them to do. It makes me wonder what the adults did to the child to make them behave this way. TV and mass marketing may give children ideas as to how the world works but it does not protect them from the world outside the house. They would interpret the meaning of what they saw or heard how they want to. Children have their own minds and needs. They should come "first" to every parent.
My experiences with children are that they do not mind being the same with everyone else but different within their family. They know the difference between right and wrong at a young age and do not need anyone to "control" them.
My experience growing up as a child is pretty bad, but that's what shaped me to who I am today because having my parents telling me "who I should be", "what I should do", "who I could associate with" and constantly saying " you can't do that because you're a girl". What I am trying to say out of this is that the more someone or something wants to "control" a child, the more they would rebel and take matters into their own hands.
So to the question of "Have the time changed?" I would say yes, because times now are probably more demanding than it was in the past.
Children are going to grow up and become consumers and grow up to continue the cycle that our society demands.
When I think back on my childhood what I remember most is being outside. My brothers, the neighborhood kids and I were always running around and playing in mud and bubbles and chasing the ice cream truck. But my mom was always there with us; my mom or another neighborhood mom. I feel like life is lived at a faster pace now. It's too hard to have one parent stay at home, and if you are a single parent it's impossible. Therefore, it's easy to let kids sit in front of a T.V. or computer because they aren't getting into trouble, they are occupied and the parents don't have to worry about them. This form of child rearing allows Zipes his platform. When children are influenced greatly by advertising and television shows, they get caught up in what other people have which then creates the desire to have those material things. It will continue the cycle of corporate pigeon-holing of the public, through children. I feel that this isn't the fault of corporations directly, but of changing lifestyles. And while corporations may have a hand in this, so do current inventions, global awareness and the economy.
I like that you mention supply-and-demand, Emily. Zipes doesn't give the public credit for knowing their minds at all. We are robots following the paths set up for us by corporations. Zipes is writing as if he wants to enlighten us, yet we are supposed to eat up his ideas without question. Who's controlling who in this situation?
I feel that Zipes' arguments tend to be one-sided, too. In the beginning of the chapter he tries to be open-minded by quoting children. However, the three quotes are ones that allow Zipes to support his theories. In the margin of my book I wrote, 'Where are the “unhomogonized” quotes? Both sides of the beast, Zipes.' What I meant by this was, there are many, many children out there who do not feel the way these three children do, and would not be so cynical. But does Zipes give both sides of the equation? No he does not.
Post a Comment