American Flag

Well I have to just start out by saying that just finished a paper for my history class (I'm T.G.I.F'ing already). We had to watch an historical movie from a list and then write a very open-ended paper critiquing its historical accuracy. I chose The Patriot, because, well, Heath Ledger is in it, and I thought it was pretty good but the whole point of me telling this is that I wrote my essay on demystifying the our ideologies of the American Revolution!

Anyways though, that movie has a symbol in the glorious end battle scene. Mel Gibson epically rides in with the tattered American flag his son had been stitching back together. He waves it, urging those running away to go back and fight. In this case, the flag represented all of the idealisms that were fought for during the Revolution. Freedom, independence, liberty, etc. The fact that he is now waving this flag loaded with meaning shows how much his character changed since the beginning of the film. He had declined to vote for the war, only getting involved out of obligation, and his motivations were juxtaposed with his sons’ idealistic ones. Now he has taken on those same ideals and has discovered that they are worth fighting for.

The flag has a referent that evokes strong sentiments in many people at the sight of it. The signifier “American flag” is connected to the different meanings people associate with it. Some, like my grandpas, both WWII veterans look at the flag as something to respect and honor. They see it as a symbol of all of the ideals which men and women have strived to keep in our country. On the other hand, people in both our country and in others, see the flag as representational of greed, domination, bullying, or oppression. Some hold the flag up as something to be cherished and believe it almost physically embodies its signified, and some burn it in protest or demonstration of their disagreement with the meanings they associate with it. Usually people’s opinions about this subject are strong either way, and this is a great example of how a symbol can say so much more than words.

Ads

A few years ago, my grandma, usually a woman of pretty good taste, bought me a hideous yellow-plaid jacket. She said, “Well it was Tommy Hilfiger,” meaning that the brand and all of the adjectives that presumably went with it—“chic,” “hip,” I don’t’ know, made it a good choice for her teenage granddaughter. I cringe when I see my friends spend so much more money than necessary on a plain white shirt from Hollister just so that they can have the tiny seagull-type bird on the chest. Most of the time these clothes are of terrible quality, with fraying threads and mis-cut seams. I could go on an entire rant about this but I’ll refrain :) Naomi Klein echoes this when she points out how companies have become so much more concerned with ads than they are with the actual product they are churning out. How weird is it that a shirt’s whole style could be about how big the brand name is emblazoned over it?

I think it’s pretty apparent how abundant brands are in our society, and also that they contribute to superficiality. However, I never really thought too much more about brands other than in terms of clothes, writing them off as just attempts to gauge status, such as Gucci. But brands are all over the place, absolutely saturating our lives. Brands in general evoke a whole image. I find it a little disconcerting when I realize, that although I don’t like to admit it, I am very affected by brands. It’s odd because even though the brand name doesn’t necessarily equal quality, we seem to be much more comfortable with things of brand name. I might choose something that is not a brand name, but I’m still often suspicious of it primarily, whereas brand names already have a point in their favor. 30 second ads during the Super Bowl cost something like $3 million a spot, and I heard they were definitely nothing to write home about (not a football fan so I didn’t see any)—even if they were all hilarious, that amount of money on less than a minute is insane...but I guess maybe very smart considering the effect such a widely-seen ad has on the public. So is there really any way to stop the escalation of the importance of brand names? Stop buying anything with a brand? I’m interested to keep reading the rest of Klein’s research to see what see has to say.

So according to Wikipedia, our favorite trusty source, one of the most famous Super Bowl ads ever was this Macintosh one from 1984:

A girl walks by with her Uggs and NorthFace jacket. A guy comes into my history class with a NIN shirt and ripped jeans. A guy in Gorecki has plaid shorts and a Hollister shirt. One of those intriguing people swishes by on Cape Thursday. All of these people are communicating something, whether it is intended or not, or how it is interpreted (which depends on who is doing the interpreting).

I have experienced both extremes of the spectrum of interpretation/reading in classes I have taken. One teacher in high school shunned every original thought that a student would have, dismissing any new possibilities of new ways of looking at a text. He would respond to any new takes, “That’s not what the author meant.” The class eventually grew pretty mutinous, especially while reading Beloved by Toni Morrison, our main argument being, “How do you know what the author was getting at here?” He gave all authoritative power to the author on the surface, but maybe was really giving it to himself, to make us take the meaning exactly how he wanted us to.

On the other end of the spectrum, there seems to be someone with a certain tendency (we’ll call him/her in general Bob), in all of the lit classes I have taken during both high school and college. We’ll be reading a novel, and Jack will raise his hand during discussion and make a random declaration, like “Well it is obvious that this character doesn’t feel the way he says he does, and is really a homosexual but doesn’t realize it yet.” There is usually a confused silence, and the prof, if attempting to be open-minded, asks for textual evidence. And Bob will tell him that it doesn’t specifically say it anywhere, it is just implied. The prof will try to explain that we have to be able to find proof in the text to make such a claim, but Bob will just become more adamant about it.

This would be an example of the control shifting too much to the reader. We, as Barthes’ power-wielding readers, have the ability to create meanings, but as Jeff and Susan point out, not everyone’s opinions are good. I’m still wrapping my head around the idea of the readers making the meanings, but at the same time, the meanings making the readers. Things could get super-ly off kilter if we didn’t ground ourselves in the text--reading isn’t about just reinforcing a personal opinion and adjusting the text to your liking. The words do matter as a way of communicating.

The language and words matter also in everyday conversation. A single word could have a whole array of different significances or connotations. If I mention “Obama” to my friend Ana, she will begin talking about “change” and “unity,” whereas if I mention “Obama” to my grandpa, he’ll start grumbling, or to my friend Marcus, who will throw around the term “Socialist.” If I am in the interpretive community of a GOP convention, my interpretation of Obama will be different than if I am in the interpretive community of the crowd at his inaugural address. Or even if I am analyzing him in a Poli Sci class vs. on the Link.

Side note: talking about words and connotations reminded me of the new Britney Spears song that is so controversial called “If U Seek Amy”--the title is dirty if you say it fast. Have you guys heard about this? I think it’s kind of hilarious. Not that I'm a diehard Britney fan, but if you wanted to listen to it just for fun since I didn't add anything extra to my last blog: