Lyotard – Metanarratives and Postmodernity
Post by Dan Baillie
Lyotard states that metanarratives are a distinctly modern phenomenon: they are stories that not only tell a grand story (since even premodern and tribal stories do this), but also claim to be able to legitimate or prove the story’s claim by an appeal to universal reason. Lyotard also states that the central tension for Lyotard is not between big stories and little stories or global narratives versus local narratives. Instead, he formulates the tension as a conflict between science and narratives: when judged by the criteria of modern science, stories and narratives are little more than fables. When pushed, however, science must legitimate itself: it must produce a discourse of legitimation, which Lyotard simply calls philosophy. (Smith, 2006: 65).
Lyotard discusses the notion of ‘denotative utterances’. He states that denotative utterances are descriptive, in contrast to being a command, or a question, or an expression of emotion. Therefore, Lyotard sees denotative utterances in the case of science, purporting to describe facts or states of affairs if they are true and fail to describe them if they are false. He also states that science is composed of denotative statements, but imposes two supplementary conditions in their acceptability; the objects to which they refer must be available to repeated access, in other words, they must be accessible in explicit conditions of observation; and it must be possible to decide whether or not a given statement pertains to the language judged releveant to the experts (Irizik, Nola: 2006: 59).
Lyotard’s view of science is more influenced by his interest in the sociology of science. He states that scientists, when interviewed by the media, resorted to an implied ‘epic of knowledge’. This is a myth with which the state is happy to collude, Lyotard argues, following the beliefs of Foucault, because this can be used for it’s own end- power (the state spends large amounts of money to enable science to pass itself off as an epic: the State’s own credibility is based on that epic, which it uses to obtain the public consent it’s decision makers needs.). For this purpose, the more elitist and therefore more mysterious science becomes, the better. He also states that a science that has not legitimized itself is not a true science; if the discourse that was meant to legitimate it seems to belong to a prescientific form of knowledge, like a ‘vulgar’ narrative, it is demoted to the lowest rank, that of an ideology or instrument of power (Prickett, 2002:18).
Reference:
Irzik, G., Nola, R. (2006) Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture. Dordrecht: Springer
Prickett, S. (2002) Narrative, Religion and Science: Fundamentalism Versus Irony, 1700-1999. Cambridge: University Press
Smith, J. (2006) Who’s afraid of postmodernism?: taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to church. Michigan: Baker Academic
London Riots: Shall we dazzle or dance?
On the other hand the London riots showed a better example of what a spectacle is.
As talked about in last weeks lecture, a spectacle can often give you this illusion that you are participating in what is happening. Using the London riots as an example of this opposes Bahtkin’s idea of a carnival as the riots became heavily violent and anti social so quickly after the death of the Mark Duggan. The controversy struk after a police officer reportedly killed him, so understandably his family a close friends were upset however afer the Media highlighted the incodenct it raised such a big awareness people rebelled. However these riots didn’t just stay in the capital they spread across the UK leaving many business out of work. This highlights how the media can grab our attention (spectacle) and encourage it to escalate: everytime a new city was hit the news would show footage and so instead of it been to stand up for lost soul Mark Duggan it became more about each city making a stand for themselves.
Guy DeBords idea of ‘do it yourself’fits nicely with this argument because as it suggests that the public were originally left to break the common conventions of society by breaking the law to make a stand for themselves. As we are living in a world where everybody is seen as equal, here demonstrates how the Government found it difficult to control the aftermath including Social Networks, BBM (BlackBerry Messenger) and viral ads ect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvJQ60bWhTM
During the video it discusses idea’s that the Government increased universities fee’s making it less encouraging for young people to want to go. This can lead them to been jobless and left on benefits so turning to drug dealing allows extra income to live however that is law breaking so the police will arest them. So what began as a protest for justice in Duggans name got left behind and everyone was out for revenge on those who held all the power. Sigmund Frueds theory that dreams are unsatisfied wishes shows how this debate can be looked at as a dream following Thanatos drives (Aggressive behaviour/ Death). A dream becoming a reality in these riots as those who should of held the power were left powerless.
The London Riots Was Against the Spectacle (Carnival)
- ‘A carnival is a moment where everything (except arguably violence) is permitted…..It is usually marked by displays of excess and grotesqueness.’ (Mikhail Bahtkin)
- ‘The carnival is where the mass is involved actively, no one is relegated to the role of passive spectator/consumer and it views mainstream news and scepticism with great skepticism’ (Bahtkin)
- This is influenced by Guy DeBords’ concept of the ‘deadening, pacifiying and self-perpetuating society of the spectacle.’
- It also advocates a participatory, ‘do it yourself’ form of political direct action and communication
- In the case of the London Riots, they were the carnival, reacting to the spectacle of what had occurred, for example, many of the rioters alleged anger was in response to Mark Duggan’s killing, and also at police brutality, excessive and unprovoked searching of ethnic minorities, ‘corrupt politicians’.
- Spectacle can be also be linked in with power. Michel Foucault states that ‘discourse is created by those who have power’.
- So, initially it was the police and government who had the power, because of their creation of the discourse that they were the ones who had ‘morality’.
- However, it changed and it had now become the ‘carnival’. The people taking place in the carnival now had the power, as the police were now afraid to react due to the accusations of excessive force.
- ‘Carnivalistic laughter is ambivalent, since carnival relativizes all that is stable, it reverses accustomed hierarchies (Bahktin)
- ‘The carnival is an authorised site of transgression, a sanctioned form of “subversion”, and one might argue its very purpose is to sublimate and defuse the social tensions that might lead to genuine subversion- a sort of opiate of the masses.’
- So in the carnival, the participants now have the ‘morality’ and the discourse is created, hence why there was support for the rioters, because they are the ones who are ‘fighting against the system’.
- One argument against Bahtkins’ idealistic view of the carnival, is that of Anatoly Lunacharsky (a Russian Marxist revolutionary).
- They both share a similar view, but rather than sharing Bahtkin’s belief that ‘the lower order deals a blow to the epistemological megalomania of the official culture, Lunacharsky concludes institutions like the carnival are ‘safety valves’ which the ruling class use to allow the lower order to let off steam in a ‘harmless, temporary event’.
- So in the case of the London Riots, it could be argued that the lack of action in both the lead up and response to the riots was in fact a deliberate attempt to let off steam, so that the carnival could be reversed and in fact, be used as a ‘sanctioned form of subversion.’
To conclude this discussion the London riots can be viewed in some ways a carnival as it brought communities together but the size of the event was so big and had such a wide audience it was a spectacle.
Gay marriage in France and spectacle
Who provides it:
The media provide that spectacle by diverting the information. At the beginning, this project concerned politicians, the President, the Ministers and the Parliament. It became a social phenomenon with the mediatisation: the media focused on riots and the disagreements between, on one side, the extreme political party and the religious (Catholics first and Muslims, Jews…) and on the other side the gays and “marriage for everybody” supporters.The media monopolized that event that became its one.
Who consumes it:
Different categories of people consume that information. The mains concerned are the Gays and the opponents, as this law concerns them directly. The most important for them in that information is to know if the law is going to be voted or not. But they also consume the spectacle related by Medias to see the extent of the conflict. The politicians also consume that information as much as they instigated it. The third group is the French population and people from other countries following that event watching or reading news. They don’t know enough the conflict and just discover it watching television or reading newspapers. They don’t have any objective opinion.
What they are Not looking at:
People focus on this conflict and forget that other problems exist in France and in the world. The President Hollande is just considered as the one who voted this Act dividing French people. But, during the period of conflicts and riots, other laws have been voted without any mediatisation. Taxes increased such as unemployment and the richest are leaving the country while more and more poor people from around the world are coming, thinking they are going to find a country economically stable. Slump is in many European countries like Greece or Spain and the President doesn’t know if he should try to save France, like the Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany, or try to help this others countries which make the Euro devalue. In the world, many conflict appeared and other have been lasted for a long time (war, famine…). In their private life, people are not looking at what can be wrong, their own marriage, their job, the finance… Judge other people’s life seem to be a good way for them to think that their life is not so miserable.
What would happen in they were not distracted:
If they were not distracted, people would realize that other problems exist in the world. But reality is scaring and they would become depressed, popping scandals the politics doesn’t want us to know. For example, if they would start be careful about the poorness in the world, Governments would have to explain why this poorness is useful for richest countries. In poor countries labour is less expensive which make manufactures save their money and the fact that everything is missing in that countries make them import products and knowledge from our countries. Distraction preserves them of the disillusionment.
How might you get them to stop looking at the spectacle and look at their reality instead:
Make people stop looking at the spectacle would be very hard. In some countries, people are looking at their reality but nobody would like to live in these countries. These are countries where war or famine is, or where the situation is catastrophic. Focusing on Europe, Greeks people are looking at their reality because the economic crisis is very hard and even the national television had to close, which caused riots, medias being symbol of freedom. Then, to make them stop looking at the spectacle, their own life has to be busy, with thing more interesting or worrying.
Would that be a good thing to do? What would be good and bad about it:
If people were focusing on their own life, they could evolve as an individual and not just be part of a group integrating ideas extoled by medias. In an other hand, make people looking at their own life would not be a good thing because people can’t change and solve problems in the world. Moreover, if people have time to focus on other people’s life, it means that they have time for that, that they have time to think and focus on something else that their daily life. Spectacle culture existed since antiquity and media won’t let spectacle disappears as this is what make medias survive.
The spectacle:
The spectacle is in the media exposure and the way the Act has been related. Instead of focusing on the President and the Minister, explaining the Project to people, Medias was only showing riots and talking about an event that divides French people in two groups. The first gay marriage was also a spectacle, with about 200 journalists and lot of people waiting outside, for or against the gay marriage. Policemen were presents in order to be sure that nothing would happen to the two men getting married. The event was symbolic, of months and months of fighting and riots. There was no intimate for the couple and their families; it became a media event in which everyone felt engaged. The spectacle can be considered as contemporaneous as it was broadcast live on TV. Today with Internet and the medias evolution, everybody want instantaneity, images and emotions. People don’t make the difference between real and virtual life and then wanted to feel like this event was their own event. Media gave them that impression by being present in that intimate event.
The Panoptican
Jeremy Benton describes the idea of a Panoptican as a prison in the 16th century, the Panoptican is a circular building with an ‘inspection house’ at the center. The inspection house acted like a watch tower for guards to watch over inmates privately. No one would know who is watching who. However Micheal Foucault argued its not just a prison cell it can be a hospital, orphanage or school. Both arguments outline the same principle in regards to the structure of hierarchy so whoever is at the top will have the power to watch over those below them.
In modern day society, this ideology of ‘the Panoptican’ can still exist.
Surveillance culture from a retailers perspective is having CCTV cameras which are there to deter potential thieves. However you don’t know who is watching those camera’s or if they are even working, the purpose or visibility of them been there is designed to make a thief second think there actions. On another hand CCTV cameras can be used on the roads, these are better known as speed camera’s. They have the same purpose to catch out what can be considered a criminal offence and shares this idea of power between who is at the top of the hierarchy and those at the bottom.
Technology has adapted the Panoptican into something which is so much more diverse it cannot only be found in the real world but virtually to.
The internet is one the Media’s biggest platforms and therefor a lot harder to control. On one hand there are websites such as Facebook and Twitter where you can sign up for free however in the Terms and Conditions is states that all images can be used by them for advertisement therefor how free are we as a consumer? Mark Zuckerburg argued that social media is about permanent visibility, all of your actions can be made visible to a crowd. So although you can set your profiles to private the people operating the public sites still have access to all your details.
Another example using the internet is how viral adverts can be shared amongst friends using social networks. An example of this was the London Riots, this action broke the conventions of how an event is normally mediated to the public. People who supposedly had all the power within the social media sites had no control over who saw the video clips if uploaded from a standard user. It was only when video’s are shared via Youtube or similar it could be put to a stop.
Society in general normalizes this way of been watched, the news acts as though we need it for our own protection but in reality the news makes itself depended upon to share information to its public. An example of this is when journalists continue to ambush celebrities which has become a big interest to the general public to know what local or global celebrities are doing. However these journalist who have their camera ready to invade the privacy of a celeb icon are then used publicly on our televisions. So even a celebrity who can have a lot of influence on us or their fans can they be considered as an ‘other’ party with little control and power.
An extreme example of this is Tullisa Contostavlos from the R’n’B band N Dubz allegedly been involved with a £800 cocaine scandal (Metro 2013). After reports broke out the star was bombarded with paparazzi outside her home and abuse posted all over her twitter page it left the star been put on suicide watch (Mail Online 2013). This ties into Foucaults idea of power knowledge ‘Power is everywhere’ and ‘comes from everywhere’ so in this sense is neither an agency nor a structure (Foucault 1998: 63). Even celebrities who have a global attraction can still be manipulated to be somebody else with somebody with more power, in this case the media so the ‘system’ of hierarchy can easily be challenged if you have the power.
Remembrance Black Power & TV Spectaculars
“Race is the preeminent pleasure of our time. Whiteness is not a color; it’s a way of feeling pleasure in and about ones bodies. The black body is needed to fulfill this desire for race pleasure. In our colorlined world, the white body is a form of desire and the black body is a form of pleasure.” Anthony Paul Farley
1.a. The act or process of remembering.b. The state of being remembered: holds him in fond rememberance.2. Something serving to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or event; a memorial.3. The length of time over which one’s memory extends.4. Something remembered; a reminiscence.5. A souvenir.6. A greeting or token expressive of affection.Remembrance can be defined in a number of ways. It is often referred to as the process of remembering, or the state of being remembered. Remembrance can be applied at certain events or by certain personal artefacts that revoke the memory of an happy or devastating event, for example 9/11, or a living being that has passed, that is practiced globally.
Although you might not personally remember an event, the act of remembrance can still be performed. For example, wearing a poppy on Remembrance Sunday. The people in this room were not alive during the battle of the Somme, but how many of you wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday? Remembrance can be a form of respect, not just an activity in the brain.
•Is there still an underlying racial stereotype going on ?•Explore Sarah Baartmaan•Explore black women•The gaze of the Black Body• Look at theorists discussing the black body as a fetish objectSarah Baartman••Sarah Baartman•A woman from Africa who became a sexual spectacle in Europe•A spectacle to be laughed at and humiliated.•Forced to be looked at whilst nude.•Became a prostitute died of sexual disease.•Didnt stop there•Vagina and brain was cut out and put in jars whilst her naked body was put in a museum.••When looking at the portrayal of black women in the media today ,we still see women like Nicki Minaj and Rihanna half naked, using their bodies to attract a wide audience and embracing it as power. Sarah Baartman didn’t participate with free will, however musicians like Nicki Minaj choose to represent themselves in an erotic light forgetting the struggle that Sarah went through . Is this perhaps because we have been engineered as a society to look at the black body as a tool of pleasure. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on the audience. However the representations of a lot of the black celebrities aren’t far off from that of Sarah Baartman. Could you say that the black female form is still being exploited? And the gaze of the black body is still being used as a spectacle to attract worldwide attention?••Is that the way the music industry works? Indoctrinated slavery? Encouraging black people to look up to and behave in a certain way? Have artists been told to behave in a certain way to attract attention ? What does that say about our society ?
Gaze of the black body
Power- Memory and Spectacle
When discussing Power, Memory and Spectacle there are many different ways in which they can be perceived.
We started by decoding the meaning of each :
Power : Power can be defined in many different ways. There are many signifiers that decode power. This could mean personal power gained through clothing, emotions and sexuality. Equally we have things like physical power which determines how strong someone is literally, moreover we have things like mental power and how people can be perceived.
Memory : Memory is determined by different factors. Your memory has a direct impact on how you behave and respond to the world. It can determine your emotions and give you joy.
Spectacle : The way which something is created with the intended meaning to come across as shocking?
When we asked the group what they thought each word meant this is what we came up with :
Power is how you portray yourself
Memory is how you go about it
and Spectacle is how its perceived
Power means being in control of a situation — however you are not always in control of how things are perceived .
There are many different powers
Masculinity and Femininity is often linked to power. Men are often seen as the more powerful gender , but now women are trying to get equality.
Power receives different form of respect
Memory is the past — a part of you that you cant erase
Memory relates to power because you rely on memories to validate yourself
If people know your memories and your life you aren’t in control.
If you make a spectacle of yourself you can gain power, loose power and you will remember it and be remembered.
Conflicting power —— Two powerful women are giving out two completely different spectacles of power through music . Beyonce embraces women as goddesses and encourages women all over the world to embrace positivity , on the other hand Rihanna portrays the erotic side and challenges the view that women cant openly embrace that side of being a woman.
The media prays on your weaknesses to sell products and creates a nice media spectacle to gain power over its viewers.
Somebody who faces a loss, , they remember the good times and they miss that person/animal. However it links to power because you have carry on in your daily life which isn’t always easy. The spectacle of a loss can vary ie: a funeral or on personal level you can become stronger from it as an individual or become very withdrawn in society. Everybody handles situations differently.
Remembrance – Black Power – TV Spectaculars
Sarah Baartman — Taken from Africa to be a sexual spectacle in Europe – Prostituted and humiliated—-When looking at the portrayal of black women in the media today we still see women like Nicki Minaj and Rihanna half naked, using their bodies to attract a wide audience and embracing it as power. Sarah Baartman didn’t participate with free will, however musicians like Nicki Minaj choose to represent themselves in an erotic light forgetting the struggle that Sarah went through . Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on the audience, however the representations of a lot of the black celebrities aren’t far off from that of Sarah Baartman. Could you say that the black female form is still being exploited?
Is that the way the music industry works? Indoctrinated slavery? Encouraging black people to look up to and behave in a certain way? Have artists been told to behave in a certain way to attract attention ? What does that say about our society ?
305mccoventry 
Recent Comments