The American Monomyth in a New Century - Lawrence and Jewett

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett, The American Monomyth in a New Century

Your articulation of their thesis:

The authors of this article mainly argue that there is an overarching tendency in American narratives to follow the same classical monomythical pattern: a hero travels from an ordinary world to a supernatural one, where he/she does battle against magical forces and wins, then they return to their mundane world with the power to bless and help the people around them. The authors deny the claim that this myth has been slowly disappearing from American popular culture, arguing instead that Americans are actually so attached to this myth that they have revised it slightly and made it their own, forming the “American monomyth.” It is similar to the classic monomyth, but with some changes: a safe, harmonious community is threatened by evil and danger that normal institutions are powerless to protect against, so a selfless hero steps forward to rescue the people. It is fated that he shall win, but his victories come also from his worthiness and faith, and his triumph returns the community to its idyllic beginnings. The hero returns to his former anonymity and obscurity. The authors connect this change in the common narrative of American pop culture to religion, arguing that it “determines and shapes goals and ideals for both individuals and society” – these narratives are avenues for confessional statements of personal transformation and new conclusions of life’s meaning. The authors additionally claim that the relationship between reality and fantasy eventually begins to blur any clear distinction that once existed between mere entertainment and seriously-held life purposes.        

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. As the authors were talking about the movie The Matrix in relation to heroic, redemptive violence, they briefly mentioned connections between the film and Biblical language and events – I found this absolutely fascinating and wanted to learn more, finding this article identifying and explaining all the biblical references and parallels in The Matrix.

2. I think the movie/story ofCaptain America is a really good example of the American monomyth: evil (in the form of Hitler and the Nazis) threatens a peaceful community (America itself, in this case), so a selfless hero (Steve Rogers) steps forward to sacrifice himself for the community. He battles the evil and wins, returning to his community in triumph, only to disappear back into obscurity when the community no longer has any need of him. Not to mention that this completely fits the standard stereotype for the rescuer: a physically-powerful white male.

3. At the very end of this article, the authors compare the American monomyth to the events of September 11, 2001 and the reaction of the American people, whom the authors say saw this as an attack on America because it was the shining symbol of freedom and opportunity in the world at the time – the American people adopted the view of “good vs. evil,” with America being good (of course) and terrorists being evil. This is a very interesting article about who shares this belief and who saw the world as being even less divided into good and evil than before as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Personally, I agree with the writers of the monomyth article – America’s reaction to 9/11 was definitely to divide the situation into terrorists and Americans, with the Americans obviously being the victims and the protagonists, and the terrorists as the bad guys, the evil villains.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. The authors of this article argue that Americans are getting more and more of their life’s meaning and worldview from pop culture. As a Christian, do you think this is a good thing? Should Christians guard themselves more from the influence of myths such as the American monomyth?

2. The American monomyth and some of America’s actions following 9/11 were based on the idea that there is a clear notion of good and evil. Do you think there is a clear definition of “good” and of “evil?” If there is (and especially if there isn’t), is it possible for us to ever be completely sure which side we are on? 

When Reality TV Gets Too Real - Peters; TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to the Brink - Wyatt

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Jeremy Peters, When Reality TV Gets Too Real and Edward Wyatt, TV Contestants: Tired, Tipsy and Pushed to Brink

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

            Both of these New York Times articles identify and discuss the environments on reality TV shows.

In TV Contestants, Wyatt speaks to contestants on competitive reality TV shows such as “Hell’s Kitchen” and “The Bachelor,” where contestants were worked almost 20 hours a day, deprived of sleep and access to communication devices (phones, computers, etc.) and entertainment (TV, books, magazines, etc.), and, in some cases, underfed. They also spoke of the ready availability of alcohol at all times. Wyatt discusses whether or not this is ethical treatment of the contestants – if they do not sign a disclosure agreement allowing the show to treat them how it wishes, they will be kicked out and someone else on the long waiting list will replace them, but if they do sign it, they are allowing the show’s producers to manipulate them so they make better television. Wyatt does not make a case either way, but acknowledges that the people running the show aren’t actually forcing the contestants to do anything against their will. The contestants, however, were not made aware of the expectations of them, and reveal that they were continuously exhausted, hungry, and emotionally strained.

In When Reality TV Gets Too Real, Peters investigates reality TV shows that have camera crews follow people around during their daily lives, such as alcoholics (on the show “Intervention”) or police officers (“Cops”). On some of these shows, the subject of the episode/show puts themselves and/or others in danger as the cameras roll. Peters’ question is this: should the camera crews, producers, directors, etc. intervene in these situations? Obviously, these sort of situations make for exciting, dramatic television, and they want to capture as much of it on film as they can. Additionally, American law does not require people to intervene in a crime in progress or obligate anyone to help anyone else in a bad situation. I believe that Peters’ opinion is that it is the moral obligation of the showmakers to help the subject of their show if they are going to put others and/or themselves in danger or commit a grievous crime.

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. This kind of picture is literally the only thing I could think about when I was reading in the Peters article about the camera crew of Intervention not… well, intervening when an alcoholic woman got into her car and, clearly drunk, drove away. Some staff member could surely have driven her car for her, or simply taken away her keys. She created a dangerous (and potentially fatal) situation for herself and everyone around her, and that is not okay to me.

2. The Wyatt article talked a lot about the bad conditions the contestants on Hell’s Kitchen and other such reality TV shows worked under, and when he wrote about sleep deprivation, I immediately thought of something I had read about sleepdeprivation being used to torture detainees in Guantanamo. Personally, I think anything that could be considered torture should not be allowed to be practiced anywhere, much less an accepted, professional environment such as the entertainment/television industry.

3. These articles really made me question the practices that go on in the reality TV business. Personally, I enjoy watching a show called “Wipeout,” in which contestants try to complete obstacle courses in order to win money. The contestants are always very… interesting people, with flamboyant, overdramatic personalities – after reading these articles, I find myself wondering if that’s just the way those people are, or if they have been affected in some way by the show’s producers/directors to make them more interesting and/or ridiculous to the audience.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Would you, as a Christian, ever work on the staff of a reality show like Hell’s Kitchen or Intervention? Why or why not?

2. Would you ever knowingly enter a situation like that of the contestants on Hell’s Kitchen? If you would, what are your motivations? If you wouldn’t, do you think it’s wrong for others to do so?

Gods Behaving Badly - Ward (chapter 2)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Pete Ward, Gods Behaving Badly – chapter 2: Representation

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

In this chapter, Ward presents the idea that celebrities, no matter what they are famous for, communicate meaning through their actions, persona, beliefs, and public image. They represent things to different people because the images they create have the possibility for different interpretations. These people assign meanings to these images based upon their personal experiences and use the actions of the celebrities to find a sense of identity within themselves. It is important to note that the celebrities themselves do not force their own identities upon their fans – they simply offer themselves and their beliefs and interests up for inspection and consideration. Whether or not a single fan chooses to adopt the celebrity’s way of thinking is completely up to the fan themself.

This dissemination of a celebrity’s image, life, and personal beliefs is due completely to media. Popular media allows the public to consume every part of a celebrity’s life, which leads to the formation of “fake” celebrities, whose actions, words, outfits, etc. are planned carefully to make a certain impression and impact upon the public. In a way, every celebrity is at least a little bit fake – the thing that “sells” about them is their image, so they must cultivate it carefully to reflect positively upon themselves and make people want to “buy” more.

Ward stresses that celebrity depends completely upon media, and vice versa – without media to make a celebrity known, they cannot be popular, and thus they cannot be a celebrity, and without celebrities, people would be much less interested in media. Thus, celebrities and the media have a very special relationship – the media is always trying to find out more about celebrities, to expose them, draw back the protections in order to provide a sensational story, while celebrities are always trying to cover the parts of the lives that they can, presenting a perfect, unblemished image to the media for consumption.

At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. Ward talks briefly about how celebrities can even have influence upon fashion choices on a very large scale, inspiring imitation of a certain unique aspect of their look. This has always been something that interests me – it’s so fascinating to me that people love celebrities so much that they want to be like them, and attempt to achieve this by looking like them. Something that I thought of immediately while reading what Ward had to say about this was Jennifer Aniston’s haircut that she had as the character Rachel on the TV show Friends – it was widely imitated, but Aniston herself has expressed her distaste for the “Rachel”haircut. Her fans were assimilating a style that their idol didn’t even like – for them, it was simply their way of expressing their love for her.

2. Somewhat related to the above topic, Ward also talks about how people love to buy celebrity-endorsed products or products with the celebrity’s name on them. He postulates that this is because we want to show other people our identity, and go about doing this by showing them our interests – not necessarily because it makes us feel connected to the celebrity. This relieves me, in some ways; at least the 13-year-old girls buying One Direction toothpaste and toothbrushes probably don’t think using them will make them feel closer to the members of the boyband – they just want to show everyone how much they love the five cute boys.

3. Ward talks a lot about media, especially how it pierces the private lives of celebrities. Since media relies on celebrities for its success, journalists, paparazzi, interviewers, etc. are continuously digging ever deeper into celebrities’ personal lives. Personally, I think this goes way too far sometimes. I know I use One Direction as an example way too much, but they are such a permanent fixture in the public eye these days that they work really well for this point. The five boys (Louis, Niall, Zayn, Liam, and Harry) can’t go out to a corner store to buy some food without being photographed and having it plastered all over the internet. If Harry hangs outwith his friend Nick Grimshaw (who happens to be a gay radio DJ), they are photographed and speculation immediately abounds over his sexuality. Every move is documented and eagerly discussed – they have absolutely no privacy anymore.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Have you ever adopted a political view or considered a social issue just because a celebrity supported it/brought it to your attention? If you agreed with their position on the topic, why do you think this is – where they subtly affecting your opinion, or would you have agreed no matter who presented it to you?

2. Do you think it’s right for the media to pry into every aspect of a celebrity’s life? Should there be more restrictions/protections in place controlling what can be published about celebrities? 

Michael Jackson - Smit (introduction)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Christ Smit, Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle – introduction

Your articulation of their thesis:

            Smit starts this introduction by establishing that although Michael Jackson may be deceased, his spectacle will live on. The most famous thing about Jackson was always the image, the act, the show that he put on, and this will live on without him, perpetuated by media, record companies, and even his own family. Everything he did was about the spectacle, and this reflects back to us, the consumers – when he died, our grief was as large a spectacle as his life was, making his death almost seem like a performance. Then Smit breaks his introduction down into different points of focus on aspects of Jackson’s spectacle; what it meant to “know” the man himself, the different layers that made up his spectacle, and how to understand where this persona/image came from.

            “Knowing” Michael Jackson was almost impossible. Everyone had a notion of who he was, what he stood for, etc. etc. inside their heads, but none of them truly knew the man behind the music – the human behind the depersonalized spectacle. Indeed, it became an impossibility to ever get to know this person, because Jackson began to exist solely as a spectacle – he created his own system of reality in which he was not defined by culture, or his own personality or anything that we regard today as the basic definitions of celebrities and/or people.

            The layers of Jackson’s spectacle were deep, confusing, and difficult to travel down through. His spectacle was made up of many different images, stories, myths, etc. that described his origin and his current existence. For example, we know that Jackson underwent extensive plastic surgery and body modification, but we don’t know why – was he perhaps disabled? What was this (and/or these) disability (disabilities)? Was it a side-effect of his spectacle, or part of the cause, or neither? Past the purely physical layers of the spectacle lay even more questions – about Jackson’s identity, culture, and psychological state. Smit argues that the most important layer of this spectacle isn’t the layers pertaining to Jackson personally, or the physical layers – it is the layer of music and video creation. As Smit says, “To know Michael Jackson’s music was to know Michael Jackson’s image.”

            The last, and most complicated layer, is death. Jackson’s death is the layer through which we must look at all of the other ones, adding genuine feelings and reactions to what was formerly simple performance and emotionless spectacle.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. This short clip from the movie Shrek shows a scene in which Shrek, an ogre, is talking to his friend, Donkey, about the nature of ogres. He attempts to explain ogres using an onion to show all the different layers that ogres (apparently) have. On some childish level, this seems similar to Smit’s points about Jackson and how his life was arranged in layers of importance, popularity, accessibility, etc. Perhaps Shrek’s last layer wasn’t death, but I really quite prefer this image when it comes to trying to picture Michael Jackson with all of his layers of spectacle.

2. Smit talks a lot about Jackson’s fans, and how while they mainly only “knew” Jackson through his music and performances, they still found themselves greatly attached and felt as if they knew him on an intimate level. These are the same fans who, when Jackson died, took the news hard, and personally. Smit especially talks about the outcry on the internet and social networking sites – expressions of grief, fear, sorrow, etc. were very common. I myself have many social media accounts, and while I was not one of the people posting emotionally-charged entries on the internet after Jackson died, I was curious to see what would happen if I put ‘michael jackson’ into Twitter’s search bar. I found a twitter account for a dead man. It appears that Jackson’s fans are so dedicated that he cannot be silenced, even in death, and that fans obviously feel they have some sort of special bond to Jackson – they still need more from him, whether it be a few tweets or a tribute performance.

3. Smit talks at length of how so many people felt that they knew Jackson, but how they really didn’t know anything about him. Jackson existed solely as a spectacle, as entertainment – there was no dialogue between him and the world, only a monologue of the things he produced and the world’s consumption of them. It was not a mutually beneficial relationship, but a give-take one – where Jackson did all of the giving and the world did all the taking. Thus, nobody really ever knew Jackson. This assertion immediately reminded me of a song by The Weepies called ‘Nobody Knows Me At All,’ which has the same basic idea – although with the implied undercurrent of sadness and depression. Perhaps this was true of Jackson, also, but it cannot be denied that there were very little (if any) people who truly knew Jackson on a deep, emotional, meaningful level.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article:

1. What do you think made Michael Jackson so special for so many people? It’s not like he really tried to connect with his audience on a personal level – he really mostly just made and performed music. Why did so many people feel such a strong connection to him, leading to such an enormous public outcry at his death?

2. What do you think of the idea as Jackson as a monetary value – specifically, the way his family, record label, etc. have been essentially selling the rights to his life to the highest bidder? Do you think Jackson would be happy to see his legacy continuing, or horrified that even in death people can’t seem to leave him alone?

Gods Behaving Badly - Ward (introduction)

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Pete Ward, Gods Behaving Badly – introduction.

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

            In this introduction, Ward writes about the blurring lines between religion and pop culture (aspects of religion are continually filtering into media, finding their way into TV, movies, music, books, etc.) and explores it using the context of celebrity. Ward argues that whether or not you like or loathe celebrities is not important – they still affect you. A celebrity merely represents something else – a bigger idea, value, or “take” on being human. If you are the type to frown upon celebrities and everything they stand for, you are no better than a cultural elitist. Instead, you must view celebrities for the symbols they are and define your opinions of the topics they represent. Increasingly frequently in modern society, celebrities have come to be very nearly religious figures – they have obsessive fans who are said to ‘worship’ them and are called ‘gods.’ Ward explains this occurrence by citing the release of mainline Protestantism’s “stranglehold” on society – without religion in their everyday media, fans latch onto the nearest celebrity and worship them in the place of religion, using religious vocabulary to describe both the celebrities and their actions and turning celebrities into semi-divine figures. This “religion” tells us much less about Christian theology than it does about the nature of ourselves—we much prefer fallible, human idols than perfect, Christian ones – celebrities are the exact right mix of sacred and profane. In essence, we are knowingly labeling fellow humans as gods while still being perfectly aware that they are not, in fact, perfect – false gods. We set them up in our heads as sacred and perfect, but we almost seem to delight in their failures more than we do in their successes. We love hearing about the latest failings of our fake gods, and we especially enjoy sitting in judgment of them when they do so – media has become our way of keeping an eye on our gods.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the

ideas of the article:

1. Ward talked a lot about how people love celebrities who show their humanity – by making mistakes, doing bad things, etc. These celebrities do not usually suffer ill effects from their recklessness, stupidity, and/or maliciousness – they simply receive more attention because of it. A prime example of this is Chris Brown, a rapper infamous for having physicallybeaten his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, multiple times. Brown’s career barely even took a hit from the media backlash against him, and today he is a top-selling artist in the United States. It’s horrendous, but it really exemplifies the celebrity-glorifying culture we have in America – everyone was horrified by what Brown did, but it only served to make them more fascinated with him.

2. Ward also talks about the growing use of religious terms and vocabulary to refer to parts of celebrity culture and celebrities themselves. Nothing is a better example of this linguistic shift than the title Justin Bieber fans unite themselves under: “Beliebers.” An obvious play off of the word “believer,” these young people are very up-front about the way they equate Bieber with a semi-deistic figure.

3. Ward tells us that celebrities are not famous precisely because they are particularly intelligent, talented, or special, but because they show a unique “take” on what it means to be human (or black, or a woman, or short, etc.). As I tried to think of reasons Ward would say this, only one example came to mind: the cast of The Jersey Shore. None of these people are especially remarkable human beings, with no super-exciting talents to boast about. Why, then are they so ridiculously famous? Because they show an intriguing way to be human. Other humans are fascinated by the way they live their lives – not necessarily because they think it’s a good way to live, but because it’s new and interesting.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of

the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Have you ever found yourself building up a celebrity (and/or celebrities) to be a “false god?” Did they live up to your expectations of them? Did you expect them to?

2. What do you think it is about celebrities that makes everyone else think there is something special, something remarkable about them – what makes them better god-material than anyone else in the world? Money? Fame? (Perhaps nothing at all?)

Cockfights and Demographics - Schulze; Exile of Britney Spears - Smit

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Cockfights and Demographics by Quentin Schulze; The Exile of Britney Spears by Chris Smit, prologue.

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

Cockfights and Demographics:

Schulze posits that there are two main groups of communication theories: transmission theories and cultural theories. Transmission theory explains communication as originating from social and natural sciences using very physical, literal terminology, while cultural theory views the process in a very creative, imaginative, subjective way. He analyzes some of the benefits and weaknesses of both views before discussing some of his own views on communication theories from a Christian perspective.

First, he explains the two purposes of communication theories: 1) to show the reader how the theorist understands communication, and 2) propose a way that we should communicate and helping us understand the process so we are capable of doing so.

Transmission theory: senders influence receivers, audiences are passive and easily receptive to manipulation, people believe incoming stimuli automatically – “we are what we receive.” The biggest problem with this theory is the absence of God from the process – in the closed system of senders and receivers, where do we put a God whom we believe talks to us and whom we can talk back to? Communications cannot be seen as a strictly scientific study. Another obvious problem is that humans aren’t really passive receivers – humans add their own interpretation and creativity to everything that is communicated to them. Adding to this, communicators have a specific motive when they send a message, which must be taken into consideration when analyzing the content of their communications.

Cultural theory: communication is a communal activity that everyone takes part in. Through communication, we create, keep up, and change culture itself – instead of messages being a sending/receiving action, it is a co-creating activity between many different participants to form shared meanings. Cultural theory is especially appealing to Christians because communication with God becomes a shared conversation/discussion between the person, God, and other people.

The Exile of Britney Spears

            Smit argues that although media may seem like it is simply forcing information upon its consumers, with no participation on their side apart from the passive act of receiving it, people do participate in media, and are being shaped by it everyday – the way we relate to the world, understand it, and act within it are all affected by the media and our participation within it. Simply by using technology like computers, phones, and smart devices, we are accepting and perpetuating a system of communication – we are making media cultural by making it such a big part of our lives. We participate so much that we use it as a way of identifying ourselves, giving it so much value and devoting so much of our attention and time to it. Fandoms exist because groups of people all agree that the same thing is meaningful and interesting – but who first assigns this meaning? Who has the power in media? Advertising giants? Celebrities? Or do we as consumers assign meaning to things based on popular interest first, with fame coming afterward when the fanbase has grown? This, Smit tells us, is the ultimate question.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. Obviously, propaganda is a big part of the transmission theory of communications that Schulze talked about – senders doing their best to manipulate receivers into doing or believing something that the sender plants in their mind using a communication device. I just really liked these propaganda posters for the Harry Potter book series as an example of how communicators send messages to their audience in disguise (no matter how bad the disguise is) in an attempt to control them or steer their thoughts and/or opinions. In this case, the messages (unite against the common enemy, don’t lose hope, we’re on the “right” side, etc.) are flimsily disguised as art. 

2. As I read Schulze’s section on cultural theories and how communication is not simply a message from a sender being impressed onto a passive receiver but a dialogue between the two, who are co-creating the message together, all I could think about was a quote by my favorite author, John Green. Green is very technologically-savvy and loves to answer questions from his readers about his books – he has a separate blog for each of his 5 novels (so those who haven’t read some of the other books won’t be spoiled on plot points) where he answers reader-submitted questions. He prefaces a large number of his answers by reminding us all that “books belong to their readers”—yes, maybe Green had a certain message in mind when he wrote a certain scene or a specific character, but it’s okay if that message changes when it gets to the reader – in fact, that’s what it’s supposed to do. Green doesn’t want everyone to find the same meanings in his texts as he does. He wants them to find their own meanings and explore deeper within themselves to find out what is being communicated.

3. Smit, in his prologue to The Exile of Britney Spears, describes fandoms. A fandom is a group of people who are united in their love of something – whether this thing is a TV show (such as NBC’s Community), a movie (like Marvel’s The Avengers), or a project/idea (for example, NASA’s Curiostiy rover on Mars). Smit mentions fandoms on his way to discussing where the power of creating meaning lies in the media – does it lie with the fans? With the people involved in the creation of the thing being appreciated? With media wizards, working behind the scenes to create a false image for the fans? This is a question that I’ve definitely noticed in a specific fandom recently – the fandom for the teen pop sensation band One Direction. A group of five boys who are all very close to each other, suspicion is always rife among their literal millions of fans whether or not there are any secret, romantic relationships between any of the boys. The most popular (nonexistent) romantic relationship is the one between Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson. This “bromance,” (assigned the portmanteau ‘Larry Stylinson’ by fans) is under continual discussion on twitter and fanblogs, with every look, touch, and conversation shared by the two bandmates being relentlessly dissected and analyzed by every 13-year-old girl with an internet connection. Tomlinson—whose girlfriend (of over a year) has received nasty tweets and messages from fans asking her to please cut the act and stop pretending to be Tomlinson’s girlfriend so that he and Styles can “come out”—recently angrily tweeted to the fandom regardingthese rumors, telling them that ‘Larry Stylinson’ is not real and that he is happy with his girlfriend. It is obvious that in this fandom, the boys of One Direction itself have lost their power (if indeed they ever had it), with the majority of it in the hands of their fans, who are abusing it to get what they want, uncaring of who the upset or what relationships they damage along the way.  

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of

the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. What do you think was God’s intention for human communications – did He want them to be transmissional or cultural? What about His interactions with us?

2. Who do you think usually has the power in a fandom? The fans? The creators of the product (be it a media item, a person, a cause, etc.)? The advertisers? 

What is Culture - Warren

Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on: Michael Warren, What is Culture?

Your articulation of their thesis (i.e. in your own words):

Warren expresses his frustration with the overuse of the word “culture” and sets out to detail the history of the word and the most accurate description of it possible. He starts by stressing the importance of seeing culture as something ever-changing and continuously growing, not as a finished product, and also emphasizes how hard it is to clearly define separations between two cultures due to the confusion over what really defines any single culture. In turn, he emphasizes the fact that culture is created by people and the things that people create – likewise, it affects all of us, forming us as much as we form it. It affects judgments that we see as “personal,” even when we’ve only made them because of what society tells us is the right decision.

Before delving into the history of “culture,” Warren makes it clear that culture is directly tied to the ideas of society and economy – they all work together to shape each other and evolve alongside the others. Then he analyzes the history of the word culture itself and how it grew from meaning simply the growth and tending of crops and animals to include the growth and tending of human faculties – Warren encourages us to think of culture as a work of human hands, and to ask what humans are at work (and why) when we hear the word “culture.” Warren continues through the evolution of culture – at different times, it means “civilization,” “refined,” “nature,” and finally, “the individual” and inner, spiritual development.

Finally, Warren gives us a definition of culture (the one that he uses): “the signifying system through which a social order is communicated, reproduces, experienced and explored.” He helps us to look at this complexly by saying that although it is a signifying order, that order is shaped by how it signifies things – if a mostly-consumerist society’s culture is very advertisement-heavy, that may leak over into politics and economics.

At least three links (websites, blogs, articles, music) or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. While I was reading this excerpt by Warren, all I could think of was the culture of celebrities today. They manufacture their own culture, of wealth and power and freedom, but their culture bonds with society to manufacture them, to tell them that they can have all the freedom, wealth, and power that they want with no consequences. This often leads to abuse of that, because the culture today in Hollywood is so accepting of bad behavior, almost seeming to encourage it and reward it, with scandalous news stories getting much more attention than news of, say, charity sponsorships do. One such case recently of celebrity culture getting to someone’s head is what Billy Joe Armstrong of the band Green Day did yesterday – he had a meltdown onstage, screaming at the management of the venue Green Day was playing at before storming offstage. He has since sought treatment for substance abuse. This is such a good example of how celebrity culture and society affects people – most typical 40-year-olds are not abusing drugs or treating other people with so much contempt that they stop whatever they are doing because of a perceived slight and pitch a hissy fit. 
2. What Warren said about the origins of the word “culture” and all the different meanings it has held was absolutely fascinating to me, and what he said about how when we hear the word “culture” we should think “What humans’ hands are at work here, how, why?” I immediately thought of cultured pearls. Cultured pearls, according to Wikipedia, are pearls created by a pearl farmer under controlled conditions. In other words, they are man-made, hand-made pearls. I really like the idea of culture as a pearl – beautiful, and it would have come into being anyway, but with a little help from humans, it can be made extra beautiful. Of course, this analogy doesn’t exactly work out – culture is just as broken as the rest of our existence – but I still like to think of it like that. 
3. When Warren gave an example of how society, economics, and culture can all work together and affect each other by mentioning how America's consumerist society can spread to politics, I was reminded immediately of political ads such as this one. It's not so much the content of this short video, but the way it is made - it's essentially trying to sell Romney to the viewer. It picks one positive issue about Romney to focus on, just as a car ad would pick the fast acceleration or admirable safety rating of its newest SUV. It throws in gratuitous shots of Romeny with his family, Romney out being "the people's man" - even when it has nothing to do with the issue being addressed. This ad exists because our culture has grown and expanded to include our society's obsession with advertising and consuming, precisely as Warren says.

At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article (i.e., keep us talking):

1. Have you noticed any “cultures” in your day-to-day life that you think probably don’t fit the definition that Warren gives us? If so, what are they, and why don’t they fit?
2. If all cultures are affected by economics and society, and all cultures are created by people, then why aren’t all cultures completely different or completely the same? Aren’t we all people? Don’t we all live in societies and use the same basic rules of economics? Or maybe since every person is different, every culture is totally unique in every way?