Barthes & Foucault

            The delicious consumption of modern media messages, what a delicacy! You are what you eat. This statement describes the attitudes of Barthes and Foucault (more emphasis on the latter) towards the effects of modern media on our desires, fears, and fundamental beliefs. And I have to agree with them to a certain extent, however, not fully. After all, we are what we eat, but our bodies do have the ability to specifically choose which polypeptides, carbohydrates, vitamins, fats, etc. to utilize while replenishing the body. I draw a parallel to media here. I too have the option to consume NPR, America’s Next Top Model, The Origin of Species, Hamlet, etc. Nonetheless, if an individual consumes too many glorious glazed doughnuts, then she will have no control over the over-reservation of fats, and thus turn into a plump toad. The parallel with media continues. If that same individual consumes too much America’s Next Top Model her (or his) perception of physical beauty is skewed, which results in an artificial desire to be skinny…too bad she ate all those doughnuts.

            I should probably incorporate the readings. Barthes states on page 98 that there is a dialectical synthesis between a signifier and a signified subject, which creates a sign. For example and in honor of my magnificent birthday that just passed, the signifier might be my birthday cookie cake, the signified love and appreciation of my existence. They exist without me, but the cake is a sign of this joy that they have me in their life. Haha, I sound like a narcissist.

            Foucault paints a similar image with the author in “What Is An Author?” (451). Here he talks about “the link between a proper name and the individual being named and the link between an author’s name and that which it names are not isomorphic.” For example, Oprah is not just Oprah; she is a sign of all things good. All you need to do is slap her name on a book and suddenly it is a credible and commendable piece of genius.

            The topic of merely being a sign amongst signs was mentioned. Sure, why not? We specialize in various skills and knowledge area. The clinical psychologist is a sign of healer, the professor a sign of knowledge, the governor a sign of leadership…or corruption. ;) Moreover, I don’t know that this is a relatively new idea. For instance, tribal cultures have shaman, or signs of lore and medical remedies. Foucault goes on to describe his “Panopticism,” which is essentially this systematic ordering and controlling of human populations through subtle and often unseen forces via a circular building with an observation tower in the center in an open space surrounded by an outer wall made up of cells to contain individuals. This metaphor for society doesn’t work for me. I think that maybe this was more plausible with TV because it was more passive (i.e. the individual just sits and consumes the information and cant respond). However, with the invention of the Internet, she can play a more active role and choose what to consume and interact with the information source.