Response to ccandelario "Violence as Entertainment"

http://whatwouldchirstdo.blogspot.ca/2012/03/violence-as-entertainment.html 

Ccandelario,

It was very interesting to hear your thoughts on violence, and the final statement you made about nature vs. nurture is definitely intriguing and I would like it to examine further.

There is a common belief in society that violence is natural and that the natural world is filled with competition. Darwin's “survival of the fittest” is referenced everywhere, and this has become the norm. Animals are in constant competition for resources, mates, and space. In order to survive, one most be the strongest to fight-off between each other and between species. This theory has gone on to provide a basis for business competition. The violence seen in the animal kingdom is reason to believe that violence is a natural process and that individuals are naturally competitive and violent. 

The idea that violence and competition is a natural process, however, has been highly contested. As an environmental studies student, my courses have taught me many natural species that do not compete with one another, and instead, cooperate in order to attain common benefits. For example, a rhinoceros allows a particular bird species to eat insects off of its back. This cooperative dynamic (biologically called mutualism) ensures that the bird has food and the rhino is kept clean. Also, primates cooperate with one another by eating bugs off one another. As our closest natural relatives, the cooperation patterns in primates can provide some direction into our natural instincts as cooperators. According to Professor Allee, who frequently experiments with animals to test Darwin's “survival of the fittest” theory, he has come to conclude that " there is a general principle of automatic cooperation” and there are certain situations that only those animals that work together tend to survive[1]. Even the idea of “survival of the fittest” is argued to be widely misunderstood, and that the fittest does not always mean the most aggressive and violent, but can include the most clever or the most cooperative [2].

Clearly, the question of nature vs nurture when it comes to violence is a complicated, yet enticing, question. As you pointed out in your article, increased media violence has not caused increases in violence in society and with the evidence I have provided, cooperation is actually a natural component of the animal kingdom and that violence is not particularly the only natural way. It seems as though violence is neither culturally nor naturally developed. Perhaps, violence and cooperation are both natural but as a result of laws and regulations, we have learned to become more civilized. We have moved more towards our cooperative nature and away from violence. I would not, however, claim that violence is our sole natural instinct because it is evident that cooperation is possible.

[1] Thomsen, Arnold; Allee, W. C. (Apr. 1925. Dec. 1964). Review of "Social Life of Animals". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 34. 3: 411-413.

[2] Le Page, Michael. "Evolution myths: 'Survival of the fittest' justifies 'everyone for themselves'." New Scientist. April 16, 2008. Retrieved on March 19, 2012. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves.html

Angels in the Outfield: Christianity in a Film about Sports!

Angels in the Outfield (1994) is a lovely Disney film about a young orphan boy named Roger who prays to Heaven that his favourite team, the California Angels, will come up from last place after his father sarcastically tells him that they will become a family again when the Angels win the pennant. As a young hopeful boy, he believes him and begins to pray for his team in hopes that his faith will bring his team to victory, and his family back together again.

As a film that mixes Christian faith and sports, I feel that this is an interesting movie to discuss with regards to the convergence of religion and sports.

Religion and Sports within the Film

Right from the start of the film, the themes of faith and Catholicism becomes a major theme. In fact, the first line of the movie, said by PJ (Roger's orphan friend) is, “Roger, do you believe in heaven?” With Roger responding “I guess...”. As the film progresses, religious themes become more intermingled with sports when Roger prays that his favourite team will win the championship, not only because of his father's commitment, but because they are his favourite team. By praying for his sports team, Roger represents an entire society of sports fans. These individuals are strongly connected to their favourite teams and they use their faith and spirituality to support their teams. The ritual of prayer is a very spiritual act in the Christian community. This film demonstrates that sports have become so important to people that the spiritual actions are being used for non-tradition intentions.

Religious function in Sports

This film also puts forth the idea of sports emulating the social function of religion. At the beginning of the film, Roger is a lonely young boy without a family, and he relies on sports to provide him with some sort of belonging. As the film progresses, and his gift of seeing Angels becomes known by the coach and the team, Roger is welcome by the California Angels and they treat as though he is a part of the team. To take this idea of community and family even further, the coach of the California Angels adopts Roger, making the theme of family and collectivity even clearer. This literal community-building in the film demonstrates the wider connection individuals have with sports teams. Individuals feel they are a part of the team, and the collective excitement, as Eric Bain-Selbo explains, exudes a temporary notion of intense community [1].

I would argue that this film demonstrates that sports and religion has developed an interesting relationship, whereby sports has become such an important component in many people's lives that religion and sports have become equal. Interestingly enough, religion has accepted this correlation and association. Society is mixing religious rituals with sports, while sports have begun to take on many of the functions of religion.

[1] Bain-Selbo, Eric.“Ecstasy, Joy, and Sorrow: The Religious Experience of Southern College Football.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 20 (2008), 13p

Response to Andreia De Freitas "Good for you, good for me, good for everyone!"

http://smc305ohmyblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/good-for-you-good-for-me-good-for.html

Andreia,

Your post entitled "good for me, good for you, good for everyone" was very enlightening and I strongly agree with many of your points that you had mentioned.

Right from the beginning of lecture, it was clear that many individuals did not like Justin Bieber even though they really knew nothing about him. They had a preconceived notion that since he is only 18 years old, he is just a music industry product that large corporations have exploited in order to make billions of dollars. His authenticity is definitely something that many question, and rightfully so. But is it right to discredit his good deeds just because he is a kid? As you mentioned in your blog post, many other celebrities have been extremely generous in supporting charities and many are not questioned for their motives.

Charity and goodness should not be associated with authenticity. From what I had understood from Corona's article, authenticity is associated with ones persona and whether the way they are presenting themselves is true. Celebrities can easily fake their persona and therefore be inauthentic, but can one “fake” charity? Does charity and goodness not provide the same benefits whether the person is authentic or not? Whether an individual does something good in order to gain positive publicity should not be criticized too harshly. Charity provides positive outcomes, and one must look beyond the person who is providing the charity and towards those who are receiving it.

I also believe that most individuals would do charitable acts if they had the opportunity to be involved. I do not believe that any individual, especially a young boy who has had so much good fortune in his short life and with a strong Christian background, would be unwilling to give back to those less fortunate. As a Christian, Justin Bieber's generosity should not be criticized for these are core values of the Christian tradition. People need to be less critical of the charitable acts of celebrities and see that people can be generous without ulterior motives. Or maybe I am being too naïve...  

Bieber vs Adele; Celebrities in a Hypermodern World

Within Victor Corona's Memory, Monsters, and Lady Gaga, Corona argues that our current hypermodern society requires celebrities to exude unique and spectacular characteristics in order to sustain longevity and public devotion (Corona, 2007). As Lady Gaga as his example, Corona claims that societal devotion requires more than a captivating voice and that survival in the “collective memory” requires close ties to the populous through Twitter and Facebook (Corona, 2007). In this blog entry, I am going to examine his argument with reference to two highly successful musicians of our time; Justin Bieber and Adele. Justin Bieber is a clear example of Corona's hypermodern celebrity who uses social media to sustain a huge following within society while Adele is the exact opposite, becoming hugely successful without the use of social media and spectacle.

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber's career started with social media where he posted a video of himself singing on Youtube. His video quickly received millions of views and the attention of Scooter Braun who signed Justin to Raymond Braun Media Group [1]. Right from the start, social media was a part of Justin's success. Today, Justin Bieber has 18,110,625 twitter followers, and tweets an average of 20+ a day[2]! He constantly replies and re-tweets fan messages on twitter, and is constantly posting messages and videos on Facebook with 40.8 million “likes” [3]. In regards to Justin Bieber and his spectacle, his concerts are filled with media and visual interest whereby young fans are constantly entertained.  With Justin's huge fanbase, cleverly called “beliebers”- interesting that both Lady Gaga and Bieber have a name for their fanbase- and his multiple  American Music Awards and Grammy nominations, Justin is a clear example of a successful artist who has utilized social media in order to sustain devotion[4].

Adele

Adele, born on May 5, 1988, is an English recording artist and songwriter and has become an enormous name in the music industry. Adele has sold over 17 million copies of her most recent album 21 and has won 8 Grammy's for both of her number-one albums, 19 and 21 [5]. In contrast to both Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, Adele has been able to sustain social devotion without the constant use of social media and without spectacle. Currently, Adele has only 4,520,906 twitter followers, which is a third of Justin Bieber's total followers, and she has tweeted a total of 140 times, with a mere average of 3 tweets per month [6]. Adele does have a Facebook page, however, the posts are impersonal and promotional. In regards to Adele's minimal spectacular nature, her aesthetic and concerts are simplistic with minimal media displays, and her entire appeal is solely on her musical talent. Although Adele does not utilize social media and spectacle, her apparent success through album sales and Grammy wins, demonstrates that she has been able to sustain longevity within the music industry. In fact, Adele has sold 1.4 million more copies of 21 than Lady Gaga's Born this Way record[7]. Clearly, Adele has a huge fan base.

It is clear with the examination of Justin Bieber and Adele that Victor Corona's argument does provide some truth to the current societal needs of social solidarity and the use of social media to sustain devotion with the example of Justin Bieber, but he fails to acknowledge the success of artists who are not spectacular in nature and are not in constant use of social mediums like Adele. I disagree with Corona's claims that societal devotion requires more than a captivating voice and that survival requires close ties to populous through Twitter and Facebook.