Paper (from previous post)

     In this paper I will examine the way that Michel Foucault's theory of the will to knowlege mediates the construction of a postmodern identity within consumer culture. To do this I will apply the differentiation made by Douglas Kellner between the modern identity and the post modern identity to the theory of "the society of the spectacle" proposed by Guy Debord. I will also examine the role that imagery created by consumer culture plays in construction of identity and the need that individuals have for tools to mediate the kinds of imagery they consume.
      Within the first volume of Foucault's The History of Sexuality, one encounters three salient theories which Foucault develops over the course of the text. The first theory that Foucault forwards is that the repressive hypothesis - the assertion that since the 19th century western societies have sought to repress human sexuality and sexual urges - is false. In its place, Foucault offers that "... Rather than massive censorship... what was involved was a regulated and polymorphous incitement to discourse." (Foucault, 34).
      In problematizing the repressive hypothesis Foucault questions the relevance that sexuality plays in the formation of ones personal identity. "...There emerged a completely new technology of sex... Through pedagogy, medicine, and economics, it made sex not only a secular concern but a concern of the state as well; to be more exact, sex became a matter that required the social body as a whole, and virtually all of its individuals, to place themselves under constant surveillance" (Foucault, 116).
      This recognition of how social institutions regard sex reveals the constructed nature of sexuality. Rather than ones identity being derived from the sexual self, Foucault forwards that identity and sexuality are both social constructions. The nuanced relationship that they have with each-other is not hierarchical, but give and take. This redefining of sexuality's role in the formation of ones identity also problematizes "identity" itself. If - as Foucault suggests - ones identity is not ones sexual self, what then does identity consist of?
      This is a question that Douglas Kellner addresses in his text Media Culture. "...Identity has been increasingly linked to style, to produce an image, to how one looks. It is as if everyone must have their own look, style, and image to have their own identity, though, paradoxically, many of the models of style and look come from consumer culture, thus individuality is highly mediated in the consumer society of the present..." (Kellner, 233).
      Kellner's assertion that identity is linked to look, style, and image fits with Foucault's belief that the creation of identity draws from numerous sources. Like sexuality, image is both an input that forms identity as well as an output of identity. The salient point found in Kellner's thought is the role that images from consumer culture play in creation of identity. However, this point raises several more questions, specifically, where do images of identity within consumer culture originate? And, what is consumer culture?
      Foucault has already answered the first question in his debunking of the repressive hypothesis. When he described a "polymorphous incitement to discourse," Foucault was referring to the way individuals within consumer culture willingly submit the intimate details of their lives to social institutions of power. "... Sociology, applied psychology, cybernetics, and semiology [etc.]," (Debord, 42) these institutions within consumer culture ingest information from individuals and output data, text, and images.
      The second question - what is consumer culture? - is addressed by Guy Debord in his text The Society of the Spectacle. "...The world at once present and absent that the spectacle holds up to view is the world of the commodity dominating all living experience. The world of the commodity is thus shown for what it is, because its development is identical to people’s estrangement from each other and from everything they produce."
      Debord is saying that "the society of the spectacle" is a culture of consumers living within the economic system of global, late capitalism. He is also describing the world in which we live today; a world in which the value of a quality or quantity is proportional to its potential to exist as a commodity. In this society, identity - like everything else - has been commodified. Kellner describes the process of this commodification when he makes the distinction between the idea of the modern identity, "...An innate essence which determines what I am..." and postmodern identity, "...that identity is constructed not given, that it is a matter of choice, style, and behavior rather than intrinsic moral or psychological qualities... ...Postmodern identity, then, is constituted theatrically through role playing and image construction..." (Kellner, 242).
      These two forms of identity fit within the society of the spectacle in an interesting way. If - as Debord believes - the spectacle constitutes the entire culture in which we live - and our identities are informed by roles and images we consume from culture - then the idea that one can "just be" (possess a modern identity) is false. Within consumer culture the modern identity only exists as a form of ignorance to the fact that every identity is postmodern. To clarify, the postmodern identity is an image or role that one constructs and performs. It is based on images and images of roles that one consumes from culture. The institutions of consumer culture produces images based on input from individuals. This output is consumed by individuals and used in the creation of identities. Individuals (possessing identities) then submit more information to the institutions of consumer culture and the cycle repeats. The nature of the postmodern identity is intimately linked to image, specifically images produced by consumer culture. This begs the question; what do the images of consumer culture look like?
      Jonathan Crary addresses this concern in his text Techniques of the Observer, "... the historically important functions of the human eye are being supplanted by practices in which visual images no longer have any reference to the position of an observer in a 'real,' optically perceived world..." (Crary, 2).
      Crary is describing the form that images produced by consumer culture now almost exclusively take. He is specifically referring to the creation of digitally manipulated imagery and entirely digital images and environments. The proliferation of these sorts of images within consumer culture is of great concern to Crary because they present themselves as reality, when in fact they have never - and in many cases could never - actually exist.
      Non-real imagery of the sort described by Crary is given a name by Jean Baudrillard in his text Simulacra and Simulation, "...Today's abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that preceded the territory - precession of simulacra..." (Baudrillard, 2).
      Baudrillard and Crary are both concerned with the quality of image that is being produced by consumer culture. They both believe that the digital imagery consumed by individuals through advertising, the internet, film, and television are overwhelmingly hyper-real in nature. The question that is found within the subtext of their concern can be explicitly stated as, "If the imagery produced by consumer culture is overwhelmingly hyper-real (simulacra) - and individuals construct identities from images taken from culture - are those identities simulacra as well?"
      The relevance of this question is addressed in the second theory - the concept of biopower - presented by Foucault within The History of Sexuality, "... An explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations..." (Foucault, 140).
      This reification of groups of people into "populations" is a technique of consumer culture that is enabled by the creation of simulacrum identities. The knowledge that this system of control exists is an aspect of Foucault's third theory, the will to knowlege.
      The will to knowledge in essence is the will to power; but instead of taking power by force, or by "right", one obtains power through knowledge. In the case of consumer culture, power is obtained over populations through the same input of information and output of imagery that turns identity into simulacrum. Conversely, individuals within a population may gain power over consumer culture through the knowledge that this process is occurring. Knowledge of this process also gives individuals power to consume images that are not products of consumer culture.
      What does imagery that is not a part of consumer culture look like? In a visual culture of television, cinema, and the internet how does one discern if the media one is consuming is authentic - not hyperreal - in its production? One example of modern film production that attempts to address this concern is the Dogme 95 movement created by directors Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg in the mid 1990's (wikipedia.org). Von Trier and Vinterberg laid out a declaration and a set of guidelines to aid filmmakers attempting to create a new type of film that could not be effected by the production values of consumer culture. "...Today a technological storm is raging of which the result is the elevation of cosmetics to God. By using new technology anyone at any time can wash the last grains of truth away in the deadly embrace of sensation. The illusions are everything the movie can hide behind. Dogme 95 counters the film of illusion by the presentation of an indisputable set of rules known as The Vow of Chastity..."
      The "elevation of cosmetics to God" that the Dogme movement attempts to circumvent is synonymous with Baudrillard's description of the hyperreal. The "Vow of Chastity" that filmmakers working in the Dogme 95 style take are ten guidelines that von Trier and Vinterberg believe are necessary for the creation of films that owe no debts to the production values of consumer imagery. The rules of this style of film production are useful in attempting to create new films, but also can serve as a makeshift measuring stick for texts that already exist. This is not the intended purpose of the Dogme 95 movement, but in making such a comparison one can observe the sort of films that von Trier and Vinterberg are trying not to make.
      The most popular movie of 1994 - the year before the creation of the Dogme 95 style - was Forrest Gump, with a domestic box-office gross of $329,691,196 and six Academy awards including best director and best picture (imdb.com). Forrest Gump is not a Dogme 95 film, a fact which is observable when you compare it to the ten parameters which define that style.
      The first "Vow of Chastity" states that, "Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found)" (wikipedia.org). The story-line of Forrest Gump begins in the 1950's and progresses through the 60's, 70's, and 80's with fastidious attention to detail in re-creating each decade with accurate props, sets, and dressed locations.
      The second states that, "The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot)." Forrest Gump relies heavily on music to build dramatic tension as well as to add to the authenticity of the various decades that the characters found themselves in.
      The third states that, "The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place." In re-creating battle scenes from the Vietnam War, Director Robert Zemeckis utilized helicopter shots to capture scenes of soldiers from above.
      The fourth states that, "The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera). Forrest Gump has many scenes that take place at night or indoors which utilize artificial sources of light specifically for production purposes.
      The fifth states that, "Optical work and filters are forbidden." In one scene in Forrest Gump, the title character - played by Tom Hanks - is digitally inserted into preexisting film footage so as to appear to shake hands with president John Kennedy.
      The sixth states that, "The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)" During the portion of Forrest Gump which takes place during the Vietnam War, Gery Sinise's character - Lt. Dan Taylor - has his legs shot off.
      The seventh states that, "Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now)." As already stated, Forrest Gump spans several decades in its timeline.
      The eighth states that, "Genre movies are not acceptable." This is a criteria which Forrest Gump may meet. The film has funny moments but is not a comedy, has war but is not a war movie, and is historical without being a reenactment of any one instance in particular.
      The ninth states that, "The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.)" Forrest Gump has an aspect ratio of 1:85:1 and many of the special effects were shot and edited digitally.
      The tenth states that, "The director must not be credited." Robert Zemeckis is credited for directing Forrest Gump.
      In making this comparison one can see the way in which films with one set of concerns and production values compare to another set with very different ones. Although the tenets of Dogme 95 may not be the best criteria to judge the "hyper-realness" of an existing film, a system of checks and balances similar to it may be.
      To conclude, the images that consumer culture produces are consumed by individuals and used in the creation of identities. The images of consumer culture are predominantly hyperreal in their nature, and and upon consumption forward the creation of identities that are necessarily hyperreal as well. To avoid the form of social control offered by the simulacrum identity it is of interest to individuals to develop a system of analysis with which to gauge the relative hyper-realness of a given image.

Identity as Simulacrum.

Simulacrum then...



...and now.

1. Michel Foucault (paraphrase) - Is ones "true self" (identity) really derived from ones sexuality? If so, to what degree? What other factors inform ones identity?

2. Douglas Kellner - "...Identity has been increasingly linked to style, to produce an image, to how one looks. It is as if everyone must have their own look, style, and image to have their own identity, though, paradoxically, many of the models of style and look come from consumer culture, thus individuality is highly mediated in the consumor society of the present."

3. Question - a. Where do images of identity within "consumer culture" originate? b. What is consumer culture?

4. Answer to a: Foucault - "...Rather than a massive censorship, beginning with the verbal proprieties imposed by the Age of Reason, what was involved was a regulated and polymorphous incitement to discourse."

5. Meaning - "We" - individuals within a population - willingly submit the intimate details of our lives to the institutions of power (AKA "... Sociology, applied psychology, cybernetics, and semiology [ect.]..." - Guy Debord). 6. Answer to b: Guy Debord - Consumer culture is the culture of the commodity AKA The Society of the Spectacle.
"...The world at once present and absent that the spectacle holds up to view is the world of the commodity dominating all living experience. The world of the commodity is thus shown for what it is, because its development is identical to people’s estrangement from each other and from everything they produce."

7. Clarification - 1. "The Society of the Spectacle" is image/consumer culture within the economic system of global or late capitalism. 2. Identity, like everything else The Society of the Spectacle produces, is a commodity.

8. Application to Kellner - Kellner differentiates between the modern identity, "...An innate essence which determines what I am..." and postmodern identity, "...that identity is constructed not given, that it is a matter of choice, style, and behavior rather than intrinsic moral or psychological qualities... ...Postmodern identity, then, is constituted theatrically through role playing and image construction..."

9. Question - c.How do these two forms of identity relate to each-other?
Support for c. -Charlie Rose (to David Foster Wallace (41:53)) - "Quit worrying about how you are going to look and just be."
David Foster Wallace (45:16) - "I think postmodernism has run its course... A lot of the schticks of postmodernism - irony, cynicism, irreverence - are now part of whatever it is that's enervating in the culture itself. Burger-King now sells hamburgers with, "You've got to break the rules...""

10. Question (rhetorical) - How can one "just be" when one lives within The Society of the Spectacle?

11. Clarification - Postmodern identity is an image or role that one constructs and preforms. It is based on images or images of roles that one consumes within culture.

12. Jonathan Crary - "... the historically important functions of the human eye are being supplanted by practices in which visual images no longer have any reference to the position of an observer in a 'real,' optically perceived world...".
12a. What is Crary talking about? - The proliferation of digitally created imagery and environments that have never - and could never -exist in the real world (outside of an image).
12b. Why is this relevant?

13. Jean Baudrillard (from Simulacra and Simulation) - "...Today's abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that preceded the territory - precession of simulacra - that engenders the territory..."

14. If the digital images - advertising, photographs, movies, news, television, etc - that have become ubiquitous within our culture (AKA The society of the Spectacle) are overwhelmingly hyperreal (simulacra) and we construct our identities from images taken from culture, are our constructed identities simulacra as well?
14a. What does this mean?
14b. What is the consequence of this?

15. Answer to a and b: Foucault - explains biopower as, "... An explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations..."
15a. Interpretation - The postmodern identity as simulacrum is a a technique of power (here power is synonymous with "The spectacle") for achieving control of populations.

16. Is an identity simulacrum desirable?

I submit that it is not.

16a. To avoid the consumption of simulacrum - ergo, the creation of a simulacrum identity - one must consume imagery that is factual, original, and objective (or self critical). 16b. Rhetorical - How does the consumption of an image relate to an actual experience?

17. Question - What defines imagery that meets the above criteria?
17a. How does one create imagery that is factual, original, and objective (or self critical)?

18. Potential formulae - 1. Lars von Trier - Dogme 98. 2. Roland Barthes - Camera Lucida. 3. Peter Beste - Literary photojournalism.

Locked Down: 'Toons in the Stupermax

My Fellow Gangmericans:
There are a lot of gangs in prison.
That shit be scary.
Both prison and gang people.
      It's funny how they - the prison gang bangers - remind me of cartoons I watched when I was a kid. All these goofy looking guys, covered in ink, committing heinous acts of violence...
I can see the connection.
      The anvils and dynamite in Road-Runner are kind of different than the shankings and gang-rape in Pelican Bay State Prison, but since I played all those violent video games during my formative years, the comedic effect hits my funny bone in the same general area.
YAHTZEE! I frickin' found it.

Addendum 1: A bunch of bullshit I wrote.
Locked Down: Gangs in the Supermax.

     The SHU - Security Housing Unit - is a function of the Supermax prison system designed to contain the "worst of the worst" of felons. Mostly the SHU holds known gang leaders and higher ups in the gang social hierarchy. Prison systems that utilize a SHU facility do so with the specific goal of isolating gang members from interacting with members in the greater prison population as well as those outside of prisons. The only way out of the SHU - aside from parole or death - is to snitch or give up information regarding past or current gang activities.
      The American Radio Works audio documentary Locked Down: Gangs in the Supermax presents a vision of the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison that does not live up to the stated expectations of what a SHU should be.
In the documentary Michael Montgomery makes the distinction between street gangs that also operate in prison and prison gangs that have moved out onto the streets. In the first segment Montgomery interviewed Armando Frias Jr. about a murder he committed on behalf of the gang Nuestro Familia (NF), a gang that formed in prison and now operates in the outside world. Nuestra Familia is controlled by street bosses and leaders serving time in prison, including some that are currently incarcerated in the SHU system at Pelican Bay.
      Montgomery's interview with Epitacio Cortina - a former NF boss and felon who served time in the SHU - revealed that prison gangs like the NF recruit members primarily in prisons. The education of new recruits takes place behind prison walls with the assumption that members will one day be released back onto the streets where they can continue to carry out the gang's agenda. Cortina elaborated on how senior members serving extended or repeat sentences pass on criminal knowledge,
      "...how to do bank robberies, how to do armored car robberies, how to do home invasions..." as well as knowledge of the different methods, codes, and languages that the gang uses for communication between prison and the street.
      Gangs like Nuestra Familia and The Mexican Mafia that have large portions of their membership inside of prisons enforces solidarity by killing members who snitch or try to leave the gang. The flip side to this is that gang members gain reputation and status for doing their time without rolling over or giving up information on their fellow members. It is also common knowledge that ratting out your people is one of the three ways to get out of confinement in the SHU. With this in mind it is unsurprising to hear testimony from people like Raul Leon who talk about doing a life sentence in the SHU with a casual pride.
      Leon's swagger is given credence by sociologist David Ward when he compares the personality type of a cocksure SHU lifer to that of a military medal of honor winner. Ward's comment on the status that long time SHU inmates receive as, "...the strongest of the strong..." is reminiscent of the SHU's stated objective to house "The worst of the worst". Conflating these two clichés to create criminals that are more hardened, committed, and relentless than they were before entering the system seems to be the ultimate result of the SHU within prisons.
      The "worst of the strongest" paradigm is illustrated by SHU resident David's recollection of what going to prison meant to him as a younger man.
      "...I think that it's hard for normal people to understand, but the way I used to look at prison when I was younger was like it was kind of like college. I had to go there to further myself. If I wanted a career in what I was doing, then I needed to go to prison and make a name for myself in there in order to do so..."
      Montgomery informs the listener that David "apprenticed" under a senior gang member while serving time in the SHU. The use of the word "apprentice" to describe a relationship that david had with another detainee inside of the SHU contains several assumptions and begs several questions. It is assumed that to successfully engage in a master/apprentice relationship that some modicum of communication must take place. If the SHU exists to inhibit inmates - specifically inmates engaging in gang activity - from communicating with each-other, how is it possible for David - the apprentice - to contact anyone, let alone a senior gang member who could further Davids goal of "career membership" within his gang.
      David also commented, "...I always looked at the SHU as like a piece of steel that you could sharpen yourself with [sic]...".
      David is only one inmate and can not represent the entire demographic of SHU detainees with his personal statements of resolve. However David was one of few inmates to be interviewed for this radio documentary and his words and philosophy present a significant point of view to the listener. With David as a specific example of a life-long criminal who has circumvented the SHU's strict policy of isolation and null-communication - specifically between active gang members - and effectively achieved "worst of the strongest" status, I forward that the SHU system of detention does not achieve its stated goals.

Addendum 2: I've refrained myself from making the entirety of all that bullshit I just wrote a link to this video from JSmooth's illdoctrine.com.
The man knows his shit.

Emergent Patterns Within Arbitrary Data Sets