Mediation of Lady Gaga free essay sample

This essay unpacks the life of cultural objects based on Scott Lash and Celia Lury’s argument in the book of Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things. It draws on a set of case studies of a current phenomenon in music and culture, Lady Gaga, using the framework of The Global Culture Industry. Lady Gaga has only been in the spotlight since she first appeared on the television in 2008. Since then, she has been gaining her fans from all over the world. She is seen as a brand that has a global flow of movement. The theory is tested by being compared to other writers’ view on social objects, which includes Karin-Knorr Cetina (2002), Appandurai (1986), Deleuze (1994), World Industry of Information Culture industry was the term that first mentioned by Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightment (1947), which has been the main reference to the critical theories. However, in the glorious era of ‘dot. We will write a custom essay sample on Mediation of Lady Gaga or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page com’ and social network such as blogs, twitter and facebook, the relevance of the theory is questioned by contemporary theorists. One of the critiques is elaborated in Lash and Lury’s Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things. The book is driven by the concern of the implementation of Adorno and Horkheimers’ Cultural Industries in the global media age. The main argument of the book is culture has taken on another different logic with the transition from culture industry, ‘that globalization has given culture industry a fundamentally different mode of operation’ (Lash Lury, 2007: 3). The view of the objects is rather metaphysical than dialectic. Since the emergence of information industry and the global communication system, culture has been seen in different perspectives. The second half of 1990’s was marked with the 2 boost of globalization of the information economy and the rise of cyberspace. The academic studies were followed by business and management analysis with the emphasis on non tangible assets. In this ‘regime of signification’, signalling ‘not simply a shift to a new mode of producing and circulating signs (cultural commoditization), but an alteration in the very relation between culture and economy’ (Wernick, 1991 in Grainge, 2008). In the nature of capitalism, brands were one of the non tangible assets that have been gaining attention from the world. As Lash and Urry pointed, culture industry is a branded circulating intellectual property (Lash Urry, Economies of Signs and Space, 1994). Moreover, the reproduction process is reassuring the sign value (Grainge, 2008). Lash and Lury argues that global culture industry of operates through brands. Anthropologically, culture is seen as ‘the signifying system through which necessarily (though among other means) a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced, and explored’ (Williams, 1981: 13). Because culture is the main object of the study, signs and text are the analyzed rather than the objective process that is emphasized in ‘political economy’ (Du Gay, 1997; Hesmondaghl, 2007). There is also ‘culturalization of economic life,’ where ‘contemporary capitalism was marked by a degree of reflexive accumulation in economic life, that included a new degree of aesthetic reflexivity in the spheres of both production and consumption, as capitalist reflexivity in the spheres of both production and consumption, as capitalist production became increasingly design-intensive and oriented toward niche consumer markets’ (Lash and Urry, 1994 in Flew, 2005). In this sense, culture has been industrialized. Hesmondaghl (2008) defines culture industries as a sector or a linked production system which involved in the production of social meaning and deal primarily with industrial production and circulation of texts. The essay will focus on linking a music brand with performing arts, fashion, publishing, and video games. 3 In spite of its multi-billion dollars success, the singular form phrase ‘culture industry’ was first identified by German scholars Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightment (1947) to show the negative side of the information manufacture. The book probes how the culture industry manipulates its consumers through mass media for ‘the interest of financial profitability of corporate oligopoly’ (Lash Lury, 2007: 3). Human beings become dependent on it and the industry legitimates the power of cultural producer or elitists (Adorno, 1997). At the time the book was written, culture was still in the realm of superstructure, where domination and resistance through ideology, symbols, and representation. Nevertheless, Lash and Lury believe that some of the process no longer exists with the situation in global culture industry era. Images and other cultural forms are thingified, not in the superstructure, but in the materiality of infrastructure, dominating ‘both the economy and experience in everyday life’. Instead of circulating as identical objects, cultural entities have the dynamics of their own and move as if it is by accident and unintended. The form of the objects is not static as an atom and determined by the intentions of their producers (top down). Biopower in Cultural Entities One of the arguments of Global Culture Industry is that the industry is animated (Lash and Lury, 2007: 21). In the logic of ‘singularities’, cultural objects ‘move and changed through transposition and translation, transformation and transmogrification’ (Lash Lury, 2007: 5). Translation is ‘an organizational process in which the product moves in a linear, sequential fashion as a short story to a book, a film, video television and so on’ (Lash Lury, 2007: 25). Authorship, creativity, regional or national culture are understood as the result of integrity of an artistic work related to others. By transposition, Lash and Lury mean the intensive features of the 4 object that enables movement, rather than any kind of aesthetic integrity. The movement of transposition is characterized by multiplicity, intensive, associate series of events, merchandise promotion, and publicity. Organized in part by the laws of trademark and passing off, transposition defined by territorial boundaries from multiple origins. It also can be seen as a zone of identity in order to sell products (Becket, 1998, in Lash and Lury, 2007:25). Meanwhile, is an activity to change into a different shape or form, especially one that is fantastic or bizarre (Menheim, 2010). The objects are viewed as ‘a product of normative or instrumental rational action (mediated by a set of internalized habits and expectations) in the first, and as an outcome of social interaction in the latter’ (Leschziner, 2005). Cultural objects are seen as monads that live in different forms by a trace with a memory complex. Unlike commodities by Adorno and Horkheimer that are seen as atoms, monads are self-energizing have their own lives. They are living in microstructures. This culture of circulation is not anymore determined by the producers as Adorno and Horkheimer stated. The value is added in this movement or self-modification throughout the range of spaces. Therefore, the indeterminacy process of production and consumption are the matter of the ‘construction of difference’. This logic of difference is where brand, one of the cultural objects (Lury, 2004), work, and circulate. The embedding of social meanings and relations in physical world constitutes a social ‘morphology’, a spacial arrangement of material objects that constitutes the landscapes, settlements, and technologies to which human actions relate. This book’s argument is in the flow of the objects’ movements, media becomes things, and things can transform into media. Argument is nuanced chapters ma pping the biographies of seven ‘cultural objects’, which are four media that becomes things, such as Toy Story and 5 Wallace and Gromit; and three things that become media: Euro ‘96, Nike, Swatch. The analysis was drawn from a number of different points of view, which are anthropology, science and technology, media theory, biography, multiplicity, and economic sociology. The theory has a number of influences, including Appadurai on how it traces the objects by following them; Deleuze in relating the objects to one another; and Karinn Knorr Catina in the logic of the space of the objects, in microstructures or networks. Brand Has Risen As mentioned before, brand plays a key role in today’s global culture industry. ‘Culture is driven by imagination’ (Tuan, 1998). Within the growing critical literature on brands, the cultural work of logos, signs and trademarks has often been read symptomatically, an aspect of the thickening hegemony of global capitalism and of the social disjunction represented in the production and promotion of goods. Brands have lives of its own that actualize themselves. It flows from brand’s memory, that is ‘brand identity’. A range of series of goods or commodity generates a brand with diversification of products. According to Lash and Lury, Brand experience can be seen as a feeling of intensity. Objects are not always something that can be seen or touch physically. Unlike most natural scientists, social scientists including Lash and Lury refer objects as something that is in the imaginary world. In the new economy, brands are living on the thin air (Leadbeater, 1999; Simmel, 1978) sees ‘economic objects’ that pure desire and immediate enjoyment. Branding has been linked to structural changes, or intensifications, in the basis of consumer culture, which is especially associated with the move from Fordism to post-Fordism in the last third of the twentieth century. As a critical label, Fordism describes a mode of production based around the factory, the rationalization of labour and the standardization of goods (Grainge, 2008). 6 Although both can be sources of power, Lash and Lury differentiate the brand and commodity. Commodities works through a mechanistic principle of identity, brands through the animated production of difference’ (Fraser et al, in Lash and Lury, 2007: 7). However, Appandurai defines commodity ‘as a situation in social life of any ‘thing’ be defined as the situation in which its exchangeability (past, present, or future) for some other thing is its socially relevant feature’ (Appadurai, 1986). The summary is shown on the table below. Variable Logic Exchange value Production role Valued by History Set of relations with others Life Quantity Determinancy Production Works through Consumption Commodity Identity Money Produced as products Exchange for quantity, use value for quality No No Dead Singular Determined Labour-intensive Reproduction of identity Generalized Fordist consumption Use value: concrete singularity, qualities of product Exchange value (as commodity): homogeneity Brand Difference Not exchanged except for capital markets Source of production Expected future profits and difference Yes Yes Alive Series of goods Indetermined Design-intensive More production difference Specialized consumption Values Sign value: qualities of experience Table 1 Commodity versus Brand Methodology This essay uses the method of Global Culture Industry by following the life of Lady Gaga 7 with a biography. Lady Gaga is seen as a thing, ‘the internal organization of the object itself’ (Lash and Lury, 2007). Although she is a living human, she is a singular, manufactured brand (Gaffney, 2010) which makes her a cultural object. She is no just a pop music singer, she other values behind her. There are several people who shape Lady Gaga, including herself who has a major influence on the brand. The objects are followed by getting as much of information in many places and time from as many points of view as possible (Lash and Lury, 2007: 20). Literature reviews from various articles and research about Lady Gaga are used to reach comprehensiveness and the richness of data; and also to show intersubjectivity. In the book, Lash and Lury uses interviews to support the biography. This essay uses the interviews that are done in the multiple sources. In this biography, writer also incorporates other theorists’ views to the objects in the biography in order to test Lash and Lury’s method on the specific situations, time, and space. This essay will look at the objects with theoretical approaches by Karin-Knorr Cetina, Appandurai, Deleuze, and Heath and Potter; and Beer and Burrows. The biography is structured in three parts: the most recent development which the object enters to a flow; the structure of the industry; the beginning of the cultural object as a thing. Biography: From Germanotta to Gaga ‘I am my music; I am my art; I am my creativity’ (Gaga in Robinson, 2010) ‘She isnt a pop act, she is a performance artist. She herself is the art. She is the sculpture’. Lauper, 2010). Lady Gaga is one of the most successful acts in popular music industry in the last decade. ‘There is no denying it. Lady Gaga is one huge global brand. In fact, the money-making machine that is Lady Gaga is predicted to earn more than $100 million in 2011’ (Daily Mail, 2011). She has 8 been gaining her fans from all over the world, whom she refers as ‘little monsters’. With combining performance, she and her image have been shifting in different kinds of movement, adding her values in the eyes of the world.

Female Participation in STEM Based The WritePass Journal

Female Participation in STEM Based Introduction Female Participation in STEM Based IntroductionCurrent TrendReasons for Current TrendConclusionReferencesRelated Introduction Never has there been an issue regarding the academic potential of women, however, their participation in STEM based subject post Key Stage 4 has always been a problem resulting in extensive research. There are many reasons for this trend in participation, such as those that are discussed by Hill, Corbett St. Rose (2010), that all provide some contribution to the reasoning. The ones which are deemed the most prominent, and have the biggest effect are discussed as well as the history behind how they came forward. Although the topic area has been heavily researched, there is not as much conflict as might have been expected. Differences seem to occur in the eye of the beholder and an individual’s take on the situation. Since the issue of female participation has been present since at least the 1960’s, where feminism was largely an issue through to the mid 1980’s, there has been a number of initiatives set up to counter this. An early journal such as that of Timperley, S.R. Gregory, A. (1971), suggests and shows gender differences but fails to take this any further. They relate a lack of science teachers, and excess of female Arts and Language teachers to simply just give some cause for concern. However with recent research such as that done by Beaton, A. et al (2007) regarding the effects of stereotype threat, can potentially be linked to the classical stereotype of a Math or Science created that has been created historically. The initiatives that have been set up are pushing to try and get more numbers into further education of STEM based subjects. All age bands are being targeted, from KS1 up to KS4 and beyond, in an attempt to broaden female participation and create role models for women. One such initiative is Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (WiSET), who work with women of all ages and backgrounds and at all levels of STEM. Details can be found at the WiSET website at wiset.org.uk/index.php. Whether these initiatives are producing a change in current trends of participation levels is something that can be debated. Perhaps the most comprehensive argument for this is too look at virtually raw data that can be obtained from the Joint Council for Qualifications and analyzing the trend female participants in STEM based subjects over a period of years. This is an area that can also give an insight toward the future of women in STEM, and suggest how things need to change if at all. Current Trend The first part in assessing female participation is to find out a where we are now, and where we have come from. By doing this it enables you figure a correlation to see whether female participation is declining or whether it is growing. According to Results from the Joint Council for Qualification (2009), there were 29,420 female entries to the A-Level Mathematics examinations in June. Considering that there were just over 40,000 male entries, there is still quite a gap between them. When considering the case of Physics, what is considered a traditionally male domain as suggested by Arnot, M., David, M., Weiner, G. (1999), the gap is considerably larger. A mere 6538 females were entered for the examinations, 16,300 less than their male counterparts. Despite the difference, a sheer lack of females studying Physics post KS4 causes considerable alarm. For Chemistry, the numbers are relatively equal and there are actually significantly more females than males in Biology (8000). There are over 3000 more males than females in Technology subjects. Moving on from where we are now, it is clear to see that the big differences lie in what are deemed as the more Mathematical fields. To see whether this has been the trend over the last few years and also to assess whether a change is being brought about, we look at Appendix 1. This is a collection of data taken from the JCQ from the last 10 years. The chosen data is taken from 5 STEM based subjects from A levels (not including AS level), Further Math’s was not included. Appendix 1 shows that more girls are gradually taking up technology subject and the difference is becoming less. The difference in Mathematics decreased to a low point of 12,000, but has since increased slightly. This is still 4000 less than 10 years ago. This may seem misleading however as in comparison over the 10 years, there amount of girls entering Math’s is increasing up to a recent high of 29,000. Physics still seems a cause for concern as the number of girls participating seems to have plateau a nd is stuck around the 6,000 mark. Similarly with Chemistry and Biology, the number of female entrants seems to be consisting, and it is actually male entrants that are on the increase. In terms of results, the situation is quite different. Appendix 2 shows that on the whole, girl’s results are slightly better than their opposite sex. Arguably this could be related to the lesser numbers (particularly in Physics and Math’s). This is something that is discussed in the next part. Reasons for Current Trend Many researchers have come up with their theories as to why there has been such a slow uptake of women in STEM subjects. A large number of these relate to three main points, these being Stereotyping, Self-Assessment and Beliefs about Intelligence. Research by Campbell, P. B. and Storo. J. N (1994), on the common myth that girls are not as good at math than boys, shows evidence that there is almost a complete overlap on average results of girls as there is with boys. This is backed up by more recent results that are shown in Appendix 2. However, this myth seems to be a hard one to shake. The work of Dweck. C (2007), in her research on the apparent differences that a growth and a fixed mindset can have on both participation levels and results, shows evidence that females with a fixed mindset are likely to believe that this math is an inherent ability, and if they are not good at it from the outset, then this is unlikely to change. According to Dweck’s work, females with a growth mindset believe that with hard work and effort, they can become better through challenging themselves to be better. Therefore, with a growth mindset, historical myths can be overcome and females can prevent being influenced by these myths and ster eotypes. The issue therefore becomes as to whether women in science are in an environment promoting a growth mindset at an early enough age, if at all. In Dweck’s continued research, she found that in a classroom, or indeed a lecture theatre, where negative messages are sent out, those with a fixed mindset can quite quickly lose interest. Similarly in a classroom where the work is challenging, females who believe that intellectual-ability is a gift, suffer in grades. Work by Grant and Dweck (2003) shows this in their study of a first semester of a pre-med chemistry course. Interestingly, this study shows that for the females who believed their intellectual ability could be developed, actually outperformed their opposite sex. Mueller and Dweck (1998) showed that the solution is not quite as simple. It is easy to think that sending out positive messages and praising when work is done well, especially when facing a challenge will boost confidence and make them think they have ‘high ability’. However this is not the case. All this creates an individual (female in this case), that believes their ability to be a gift, and makes them unwilling to tackle challenges that pose a risk of failure. As a result there is likely to be a loss in confidence and a loss of interest in pursuing the subject. Therefore, if this is not the answer, then even further studies by Good, Aronson and Inzlicht (2003) show that in a test case study where a group of females were taught whereby it was expressed that (in this case) Math ability can be developed, when compared to a control group they outperformed them in results. Stereotypes in STEM are another cause for concern. Negative stereotypes affect a women’s belief in their intelligence, and makes them more conscious about how they are perceived by others. Farenga and Joyce (1999) show in the work that as early as primary school, students are exposed to these stereotypes and are already being influenced for their academic choices later in life. The effect if stereotype threat has been found by Nguyen and Ryan (2008) amongst others, to have a negative effect on girl’s aspirations and performance in STEM. Their research shows that even those women that believe themselves to be good in STEM can be affected by stereotypical views. Joshua Aronson has contributed many items of research into the field of stereotyping. In particular, his combined work with Good and Harder (2008), provide conclusive evidence that the effects of stereotype threat aren’t limited to those at the lower end of the ability, but also affects those at the top of end of the ability distribution. The common stereotype of a scientist, that the majority of students would draw, would be a white male man in a lab coat. The key word here is male. There is an interesting article on this and other myths regarding women in STEM by Live Science (2007) livescience.com/health/070827_girls_math.html, highlights this and notes how any female drawing of a scientist portray the scientist as very severe and unhappy. It is found that the persistence of these stereotypes are in fact turning girls off STEM, and by the time students are 14 years of age, there are twice as many boys that like STEM than girls. Another reason for the gender difference that has led to invested interest is the idea of Self-Assessment. By this, there is the idea that the difference seems worse simply because males believe they are better at STEM subjects and are therefore more likely to continue education. Sociologist Shelley Correll’s research shows how female careers in STEM are influenced by the belief that Science and Math’s are male domains. Correll (2001) looks at how cultural beliefs about gender bias individual opinions of their abilities in STEM. The study finds that males assess their ability to be generally higher than that of women. It also goes on to show that the higher the perceived ability an individual has of themselves, there is an increased likelihood of them persisting in STEM subjects and careers. The further work of Ridgeway and Correll in 2004 continues with the idea of Math’s and Science being a historically male domain. The study shows that the belief of STEM being a male dominated domain contributes to men’s higher self assessment of themselves. On the positive side, the research also shows that it is possible to change this trend.   This can be done by altering their historical beliefs, and creating an environment promoting women in STEM. Conclusion Evidence clearly shows that there is a gender difference in STEM, but it does show that the trend of this is changing. From as early as post World War it has been noted that STEM fields are typically male dominated and it is questionable as to whether this will ever change. Inroads are being made to close the gap between men and women and the in-depth research, of which only a selection I have discussed, is giving good direction and analysis to try and make the change. The underlying theme of the research points towards historical views of women in STEM and also women teachers. It seems that women are brought up with this view of STEM being a male domain, and seem to just settle. It has been shown is some of the papers mentioned earlier that at a young age roughly equal amounts of girls and boys enjoy STEM subjects. This begs for the conclusion that the lack of women continuing STEM must be related to nurture and the beliefs that are portrayed to them. If this is the case then surely by creating an environment promoting girls in STEM from an early enough age, or even later on, the gender gap can be decreased.   At a young age women (and men), look for role models and can be heavily influenced by stereotypes. If the traditional stereotype of a scientist is of a male, then women are unlikely to follow this. Stereotyping, Self Assessment and Beliefs about intelligence prove to arguably be the most common reasons for the trend. Research papers on all three of these areas show strong links and common themes between them. Such as the face that girls are exposed to historical views at an early age which then stays with through to later on in their educational careers, influencing their choices. As a result of all the investigations into gender differences, there is a clear direction to go to bring about change. There are initiatives out there such as the previously mentioned Women in Science Engineering and Technology. Initiatives like this are going to great lengths to create role models in Science, and create partnerships with large organizations committed to ‘Promoting change†¦. Broadening horizons’, as the WiSET slogan says. References    Arnot, M., David, M., Weiner, G. 1999. Closing the Gender Gap: Postwar Education and Social Change. Polity Press: Cambridge Beaton, A., Tougas, F., Rinfret, N., Huard, N. and Delisle, M.N. 2007. Strength in Numbers? Women and Mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 22, pp 290-310. Campbell, P. B. and Storo. J. N. 1994. Girls are Boys are†¦: Myths, Stereotypes and Gender Differences. Office of Educational Research and Improvement: US Correl, S. J. 2001. Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessment. American Journal of Sociology. 106:6, pp 730-1691 Dweck. C. S. 2007. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books: US Farenga, S. J. and Joyce, B. A. 1999. Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: An examination of gender differences. Journal of Science Education. 85, pp 55-75. Good, C., Aronson, J. and Harder, J. A. 2008. Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 29, pp 17-28. Good, C., Aronson, J. and Inzlicht, M. 2003. Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 24, pp 625-662 Grant, H. and Dweck, C. S. 2003. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85, pp 541-553. Hill, C., Corbett, C. and St. Rose, A. 2010. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. AAUW: Washington, DC Joint Council for Qualifications. (2000-2009). Provisional GCE A-Level Results (All UK Candidates). Accessed 18/04/2010. jcq.org.uk/national_results/alevels/ Mueller, C. M. and Dweck, C. S. 1998. Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75, pp 33-52 Nguyen, HH. D and Ryan, A. M. 2008. Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 93, pp 1314-1334. Ridgeway, C. L. and Correll S. J. 2004. Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations. Gender and Society. 18:4, pp 510-531 Timperley, S.R. and Gregory, A. 1971. Some factors affecting the career choice and career perceptions of sixth form school leavers. Sociological Review. 19, pp 96-114. Top 5 Myths About Girls, Maths and Science, LiveScience. 2007. Live Science Staff, US. Accessed 23/04/2010. livescience.com/health/070827_girls_math.html. Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. 2008. Centre for Science Education, Sheffield. Accessed 19/04/2010. wiset.org.uk/index.php