When I have a terrible day and someone tells me they like my shirt or they check in on me, I hold on to that for a while. And the next time I have a terrible day, I try to remember those moments and do the same for my friends when they have a bad day. Over time we pull each other along and eventually are in a place where we can do that for others, or have enough energy and motivation to address larger issues. 

I really like Goska’s phrase that “The problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don’t use the power we have.” I think this gets at a lot of issues, but I am a bit concerned that she is discounting the structural factors. The idea that even if every single person on earth chose to reduce their personal carbon footprint, we would still be facing an irreversible climate crisis on account of the impact of corporations. However, that is not to say that personal choices, such as recycling or using green energy don’t matter. They do. They make a difference no matter how small that would not exist otherwise, and every time one person does something, it makes it more likely that another person will follow in their steps. But there is a structural component more than just late-stage capitalism. This has roots in a history of colonialism and exploitation of subaltern countries. About a quarter of the world’s population has no access to electricity. They are not the ones who need to worry about their energy consumption. It’s the people in the global 1% who can make a more significant difference, but its the ones in the 0.1% (leaders of corporations like Exxon, Amazon, and Google) who can make even more impact. I think that people in these positions are obligated to address vulnerable populations and global issues, but not everyone agrees. That’s why even one person making a change in their life can put more and more social pressure on others to do the same. If everyone went ‘green’ we would still have an irreversible climate crisis, but it would also influence the actions of those larger than us, like nations and corporations, to follow suit. 

I find music to be one of the most effective modes of social discourse, particularly around protest and resistance. Beyonce’s “Formation” and Childish Gambino’s “This is America” are great examples of the power of music to be catchy, socially conscious and historically grounded. “This is America” and Ladan Osman’s interpretation of the music video as “slaying the heart of black optimism” are particularly interesting to examine under the theory of Afropessimism (Osman 40). Meanwhile, Beyonce’s “Formation” seems to invoke a version of Afrofuturism (not in the science fiction sense, but in the idea of a future that celebrates Blackness). 

At its core, Afrofuturism imagines a Black future. According to John Jennings, quoted in the article by Hope Reese, “Afrofuturism, to me, is looking to the past, trying to examine it, and try to deal with an unresolved task around race and identity in this country, in the diaspora. It’s also looking to the future” (Reese). 

Afro-pessimism suggests that our current world is fundamentally anti-black, and slavery and black oppression are too closely entwined with our history and that no version of the future can exist where Black people thrive and are free of this past. 

Both Afrofuturism and Afro-pessimism are theories that run counter to our current expression of reality where the idea that Black Lives Matter is radical. Beyonce and Childish Gambino use historical references to build their commentary about our current moment.

I read the Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Gilman before listening to the podcast because I wanted to see my first impressions of the story without context. After listening to the podcast, I was pleased to find that several of my first impressions were correct, though I read a much darker tone into the short story than I might have. From the very first two pages, I saw indicators that this was horror, with words like the horror of superstition, dead paper, ghostliness, artistic sin, suicide, plunge, and destroy. Since I picked up on these indicators of tone early, I was bracing myself for something horrible to happen and expected some form of death or suicide before the end of the story. There is no literal death at the close of the story, however, I think that there is an implied or at least figurative death. The narrator’s perspective shifts from watching the woman in the wallpaper to being a woman in the wallpaper. Combined with the references to suicide on pages 655 and 656, and the language of being freed and released, I think that she committed suicide as a way to escape her life, but that her soul or ghost remains in the wallpaper. The husband faints at the sight of her dead body or ghost. This reading is still open to feminist interpretation on the oppressive nature of marriage as an institution and the sphere of domesticity but is also far more nihilistic and darker.

In an article I read, professor Gail Marshall adds a racial element to the Yellow Wallpaper. We know with historical context that Charlotte Gilman was not necessarily racially conscious or making a point about colonialism or slavery, but that does not necessarily mean that this reading is invalid. She points to the colonial mansion leftover from a slaveholding America and the shackles in the nursery room as clues that lend themselves towards a reading of The Yellow Wallpaper as an interpretation of the violent enslaving of Black people, especially Black women, in the antebellum era. In combining the feminist and anti-racist readings of the Yellow Wallpaper, the short story would not seem misplaced in a collection of Southern Gothic tales, despite Gilman’s northern roots.

I absolutely love how Dr. Bezio was able to draw a throughline from peasant’s songs, various iterations of the Robin Hood story, the peasant revolts, the pressure from dukes to have the king sign the Magna Carta, and then the eventual creation of our modern democratic sociology. I’ve heard many different claims of similar relations between major historical events and examples of popular culture. I am very drawn to the connection between popular culture and social change and find myself working closely with various popular culture ‘texts’ from science fiction to hip hop, and every time I find wild influences 

In my sociology class, Power, Control, and Resistance, we talked about plays like the Marriage of Figaro that blurred the lines of high brow and low brow, and how it influenced/lead to/contributed to the French Revolution, arguably one of the most influential historical time periods of the modern era. My favorite domino effect of history (that does work in the opposite direction of major events to pop culture instead of pop culture to major event) is the connection between 9/11 and 50 Shades of Grey. I picked up this piece of trivia years ago through some random tumblr or reddit post, I’m not sure where, but for some reason, it stuck with me. Here’s the through-line: On the day the twin towers fell on September 11th, 2001, there was a young man watching. His name was Gerard Way. This tragic event leads him to start the emo band My Chemical Romance. Stephanie Meyer was a fan of the band and went on to write her series Twilight using the band’s music and aesthetics and music as inspiration. And E.L. James wrote fanfiction of the series, which later became the basis for her book 50 Shades of Grey. Now, I have not actually read Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey, nor do I plan to, but I always found the connections interesting in our hyper-connected world.

I really value diversity in my media, mainly because I see no reason that there shouldn’t be diversity. We live in a diverse world, and there is no reason that our fictional worlds should be any different. However, Harry Potter is a poor example of racial diversity. There might be POC characters, but they are not necessarily great representations, as Rowling has a history of running aground on racial stereotypes and sometimes using caricature-like names for POC characters. Example: Cho Chang is a Korean last name and a Chinese last name, making a vaguely ‘Asian’ name. It would be extremely uncommon to find a person who is Chinese or has Chinese ancestry who had this name, considering both Cho and Chang are last names, and the naming format has been treated as anglicized, with the given name first then family name.

Like Dr. Bezio says in the podcast, sometimes history can feel like a laundry list of names and dates to memorize. But I find the odd things, the little narratives of history are far more compelling, and actually, help me remember the big events better.  Adding more context to an event or person can make them feel more like fallible, complicated, regular people, which I find also makes them easier to remember. 

I feel like history likes to paint in all one color, you’re either a terrible person, country, movement, or you are a victor. It brushes over the nuances and complexities and forgets that you can be both a terrible person and do good things, and vice versa. One thing that came up for me while listening to the podcast was the intersections of the feminist movements and the civil rights movement. While they were originally in lockstep for the abolition movement, they eventually separated as the white feminists distanced themselves from the abolition movement in order to curry favor with white southerners. White feminists used racist arguments to justify why white women should have the vote. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement had a history of disenfranchising women within the movement. This separation had a lasting impact that pitted the civil rights movement and the feminist movement against each other, as Black women found themselves at an intersection where they had to choose to prioritize their racial identity or their gender identity. But these identities of race and gender collide in such ways that create a unique experience of the world. Now, we use the term intersectionality to talk about how these identities come together, but according to history, all civil rights leaders were men (except for Rosa Parks) and all feminists were white. Black women are erased from the narrative since they don’t completely fit into the boxes provided. And some people who made great changes in civil rights and feminists movements were extremely sexist or racist. But we ignore the less favorable perspective in order to glorify the work they did. This is simply an incomplete history. The other thing Dr. Bezio mentioned was Martin Luther King, Jr.’s role in the civil rights movement. In addition to the fact that he could only be successful due to ordinary people, his role in the movement was white-washed. After his assassination, the public history painted him as this great unifier, someone who championed peace, and was loved by everyone, both white and black. This is simply incorrect. MLK was a democratic socialist, warned against the white moderate, and the FBI tried to get him to kill himself. A lot of people hated him, even as he preached non-violent resistance. He was sexist, and a womanizer, and if the recent FBI memos are to be believed, he allowed and encouraged a rape in his presence. His moral shortcomings do not detract from the work he accomplished, but they do require a closer look at his ‘Great Man’ history. This proves not only that ‘great men’ are often more than history portrays them as, but also that they are not so great in the first place.

My ‘favorite’ ad of the 1964 presidential run is the daisy girl. In this ad, a small girl stands in a field, picking the petals off of a daisy, counting as she goes. She counts haphazardly, eventually getting to nine. At this point, the announcer starts counting down from ten, and the camera freezes then zooms into her face and her eye. When the announcer reaches zero, it cuts to footage of a nuclear bomb explosion, a quote from Johnson that concludes with “We must either love each other, or we must die,” then the catchphrase “Vote Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high to stay home.” I find the child herself actually very annoying, but the ad is startlingly effective. It is only one minute long, and manages to communicate the stakes involved in this election, and why you should care. It requires some outside knowledge that Johnson is against nuclear bombs and Goldwater supports their use, but this is implied. It uses the value of family very effectively, and tells viewers that this is what will happen if they don’t vote Johnson: Their children will get blown up. It speaks to big issues that are widely relevant, and a cause that no one will dispute: the need to protect our children. I particularly like the catchphrase, and Johnson ends all of his videos with it. Compared to Goldwater’s catchprase: “In your heart, you know he’s right,” “The stakes are too high for you to stay home” compels a sense of urgency and agency that are lacking in Goldwater. This is designed to target those who are on the fence in addition to Johnson’s supporters. If you don’t like the picture the ad presents, you can do a concrete action to prevent it! – That action being electing Johnson. Offering this call to action I think is a great way to bring in the general public and make them feel like their vote matters.

I typically hear the term ‘systemic’ around systemic racism, used to refer to how the structures and institutions themselves produce racist outcomes. One example of this would be the justice system that disproportionately incarcerates black and brown people. (I’m using justice system to refer to the interconnected systems of policing, the courts, and penal systems). I’ve heard some people say that the ‘system is broken,’ because it is producing unjust outcomes. And that is certainly a way to look at it: if a justice system is preventing, obstructing, or reducing justice then it is not functioning for its intended purpose, and is, therefore, broken. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story. Like Dr. Bezio mentioned at the end of the podcast, we need to pay attention to where we are coming from. Police forces were originally created to track down escaped slaves. They played a huge role in enforcing Jim Crow. And prisons have a long history of incarcerating black and brown bodies at disproportionate rates, even going back to the 13th amendment that outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude, except for when punishment for a crime (you can watch the film 13th if you are interested in learning more about this). The roots of the justice system are in racism. So when it creates racist outcomes, is it really broken, or working exactly as intended? Clearly, this is not an outcome that we accept, and so we must change the system. Or do we? Are the roots of racism too deeply embedded in our current justice system to reform it? Some activists advocate for abolishing the prison system. They say that our current setup will never be able to provide justice, and we need to turn to community-based solutions. Others say that we have some pretty good things going in our current setup, we just need to reform it. So my questions are these: When do we know a system is broken, or just providing output that we don’t like? and, When do we reform the system or throw the whole thing out and start over?

This glasses brand presented these ads with the tagline: “get the respect you deserve.” So it’s pretty upfront about the extra things it is trying to sell beyond just glasses, it’s selling respect, status, and a particular image. However, the dichotomies here are interesting in that they reveal bias, though it is unclear whether it is company bias or our own cultural biases. It goes from hell’s angel to fashion designer, butcher to artist, ‘easy’ to ‘hard,’ and truck driver to ‘Dr. Professor.’ In theory, these go from low-status descriptions or occupations to high-status occupations, from the addition of glasses. Glasses are associated with intelligence, though this can easily go towards the negative (nerd stereotype). Ogmerk is trying to put a positive spin on this. But why is an artist more respected than a butcher? Neither butcher nor artist requires a degree, and a butcher is a steady trade, while an artist is often by commission/gig/income by the amount of art you sell. Similarly, why is a fashion designer more respected than a motorcyclist? Truck drivers make about the same amount of money on average as professors but get much less respect. At first glance, none of the images would be immediately recognizable without the labels underneath. And finally, the ‘easy’ vs ‘hard’ version, implies that attractive women without glasses are seen as sexually promiscuous, while those with glasses can play ‘hard to get,’ with the sexual promiscuity being less favorable. In neither of those situations, however, is the woman’s attractiveness tied to the glasses, just the amount of respect she receives from others. Additionally, the other slides are about an occupation, not a sexual description, which is a bit suspect in this gendered context. 

I found this ad on a list of “powerful and creative ads,’ so it clearly works. But some of the implications that it gives to certain professions and appearances make me take a second look. What if you are a hell’s angel, or a butcher, or a truck driver? Then this ad is telling them that these glasses are not for them, that they should be ashamed of their status, and instead look like some other occupation group. This alienates Ogmerk’s potential low-status consumers but also solidifies its position as a high-status brand.

http://https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2014/04/120.jpg

This is my favorite misleading chart because of just how absurd it is. In theory, charts and graphs make things easier to understand. Clearly, this is not always the case. This graph, conveniently labeled “Gun Deaths in Florida,” is just so misleading. First, and most obvious, it is upside down to how we typically read graphs, with the zero at the top of the graph. This situates it so that the most deaths are lowest on the graph. At first glance, it seems that death decreased after the Florida “Stand Your Ground” Law was enacted, and that total gun death have decreased since the 2000s. This is incorrect. Gun death actually dramatically increased after 2005. Despite the y-axis being flipped, the numbers are labeled fairly clearly. However, the x-axis could use a few more ticks on the axis bar to show exactly when the graph ends. The filled-in red just makes it more confusing overall as well. To make matters worse, this graph was not created by someone who was unfamiliar with graphing practices, or who was selling a product. It was instead from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement itself!

I was lucky in that I learned how to interpret graphs and charts in middle and high school, and so was quickly able to recognize the misleading aspects of this graph. However, this is a pretty obvious example. I can think of plenty of other graphs that are misleading, either on purpose to hint at a particular interpretation of data, or on accident in an effort to make the graph more aesthetic or fit on a page. I’ve even seen graphs with no labels or tick marks in magazines and popular media. Meanwhile, statistics are even more easily manipulated. The most common instance of this in popular media that I’ve seen are polling surveys, especially when they do not include their margin of error.

I started off reading Flanigan’s article with skepticism. I could not imagine how she would justify the right to self-medication when in the face of the risks associated with inappropriate usage, the lack of information on appropriate usage, and the case of addiction. By the end of her article, however, I was thoroughly convinced, especially with her caveat of ‘behind the counter’ distribution. She laid out her argument exceedingly well and addressed nearly every point I came up with to counter her initial statement. 

Despite this, I was not satisfied by her point addressing addiction. It is not enough to merely allow addicts to enter a voluntary prohibition program. In the event of restructuring the prescription drug system to protect the right to self-medication, there need to be open, easily accessible, and free or affordable addiction recovery services and rehabilitation centers that are promoted within the pharmaceutical centers. I am also concerned about the ability of patients to give informed consent to drugs that we simply do not have a complete understanding of the effects and risks. Additionally, I am concerned about the persuasive power/propaganda of advertisements by drug companies who attempt to sell drugs to people who may not need them, and in doing so, the patient may request unnecessary medication or ignore more useful medication in favor of the advertised drug (you have the right to be informed on the possible risks and benefits of the drug you are requesting, but there is no requirement that anyone has to inform you on other potential medication or methods that might work better/have fewer risks). Lastly, I am concerned about the supply and demand aspect – that with an increased supply of prescription drugs, people who don’t ‘need’ the medication will have an easier time accessing it than people who do medically need it. This could change would also affect insurance and how we pay for medicine, possibly for the better, but not necessarily. 

Overall, I was convinced by her argument, had difficulty finding fault with her premises, and found that most inferences were reasonable. Despite my reservations, the argument is rational, and I was surprised by the extent to which she convinced me when I gave her argument a chance.