tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182062467728779377.post231198569752907128..comments2023-04-01T22:25:59.459-07:00Comments on Or So Sachi Says: The Man & The Myth of Jon StewartUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182062467728779377.post-25398299323080345212011-11-20T14:49:44.792-08:002011-11-20T14:49:44.792-08:00Definitely agree with you on many levels. I love p...Definitely agree with you on many levels. I love postmodern theories, but it's hard not to talk yourself in circles when using them. Actually, I'm not a fan of the Cottle article, but it was a required source for this paper. <br /><br />Thanks for reading! I know it's a little dense/tldr for a blog post.Sachi Subterraneanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090226686864098749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182062467728779377.post-62122901470663152172011-11-17T23:46:23.034-08:002011-11-17T23:46:23.034-08:00This is very well written, definitely an interesti...This is very well written, definitely an interesting read. You clearly elucidate the theoretical implications of the works you cite, though I'm not sure I agree with all of them or with the conclusions they lead you to. There are definitely alternative readings of events that come to mind: for instance, why not contest Cottle's use of Durkheimian analysis here in favor of one that combines Weber and Goffman? Stewart and Cramer are certainly caught up in dramaturgy and spectacle, but perhaps it is less representative of rituals of solidarity and more indicative of professional boundary work and/or direct competition over resources--in this case, legitimacy. <br /><br />. . . .<br /><br />Employing postmodernist arguments has some very specific consequences and I think one of these is definitely dangerous: the mode of critique itself, limited as it is to images, texts, surfaces, takes the objects of its inquiry too seriously and at the expense of critical analysis. Harvey harps on this big-time in "The Condition of Postmodernity" when discussing the reaction of postmodernist architects to modernist city planning schemes.<br /><br />What do I mean? At the very end of your article (which again I am a big fan of) you discuss Spohrer and extra-textuality, taking the text of Stewart as "prizefighter" quite seriously. I think this shows a certain credulity on your part. You earlier discuss emergent/dominant/residual discourses, which in my opinion is super important for understanding not only institutional media (a sort of macro site for struggle over cultural symbols) but also collective behavior. Much has been written about Political Opportunity and Political Process models of collective behavior--as well as New Social Movement theory--that I feel would compliment and strengthen your analysis. <br /><br />Whereas you attribute the clash of discourses to individual actors, their motives and their performances, these sociological schools would point to, respectively, opportunities, mobilizing structures, and "oppositional cultures" as integral preconditions or staging grounds for such contests. It is essential that we take into account preexisting disparities in political power and access to social (economic) and cultural (symbolic) resources when we interpret events which, like the Stewart/Cramer debate, take place at the literal nexus of said resources.<br /><br />Thanks for posting this, I'm gonna have to read up on some of your sources. The Clark and Cottle pieces sound really interesting. :)Finktronnoreply@blogger.com