A Strategic Placement of Television?

Over the summer I began to get lazy about my exercise schedule (I dont have enough friends who play tennis), and thus decided to check out the Ratner gym facilities. For individuals going to the gym there are essentially two possibilities: weights or cardio-fitness equipment (ellipticals and treadmills). I choose the cardio equipment. The first thing I notice when I enter the equipment room is the televisions. There is one television screen in front of every elliptical and treadmill. They are completely unavoidable, equipped with all the cable channels you could ask for. I get on an elliptical machine and try what I assume everyone else is doing: distracting themselves from the actual activity of exercise by watching their favorite TV show. This doesnt work for me. I have never experienced television in this way before. Usually I watch television in a relaxed state, sitting or lying down on a sofa, but now suddenly I was sweating, my heart racing, getting a work out (the last thing that I associate with television). Luckily there is the option of turning off the television, which is what I do. But then I wonder... I decide to turn the TV back on and compare my exercise rate/calories burned (all monitored by the elliptical machine) with the TV on versus with it off. I learn quickly that when the TV is on and I start watching it, my exercise rate slows down significantly. It seems that my body associates TV with a state of rest. I guess this is not the case for everyone else at the gym, but maybe they just havent noticed that television is slowing them down.

Performance and Narrative

"Roma Chatterji (1986) has suggested that certain narratives have a built-in formulaic closure (e.g. kahani khatam paisa hajam, i.e. the story has concluded and the penny is digested) which insulate the narratives from events of one's life. She contrasts these with sacred tales (katha) in which the recitation of the story is part of the ritual activity and hence events occuring in the story are also happening in the lives of the people who are listening to it" (Das, On Soap Opera: what kind of anthropological object is it? 181).

Thinking about a culturally removed narrative versus an imbeded performative narrative is quite interesting. This categorization evaluates narrative from the perspective of the spectator. Depending on the cultural position (and also personal disposition) of the spectator, she/he would potentially have different reactions to/interpretations of the same text. A performative narrative would evoke action/reaction whereas a removed narrative would probably evoke speculation and imagination. Thus while indigenous video, for example, often provokes cultural action in indigenous viewers, non-indigenous viewers would be partial to evalution. These lines however can blur depending on the subject matter presented. A documentary video presenting violence against children would probably evoke action and outrage from cross-cultural audiences. Still, the types of action and the way such outrage may be expressed might still differ within varying cultures (with respect to how imbedded or removed such narratives are within a specific culture). It might also be interesting to investigate whether a specific type/genre of narrative is typical for certain types of performances. Or how performative narrative might become removed through succeeding mediations (i.e. performance mediated by narrative mediated by video etc).

I Dont Buy It -- Problems with Harindranath and Cultural Imperialism

"We must recognize that although the relationship between the West and the rest continues to be fundamentally unequal, characterized by the exploitation of labor, the rise in consumerism, the spread of neoliberal values, and so on, the role played by the hybrid, Westernized "local" elite is crucial to this relationship" (Harindranath, Reviving "Cultural Imperialism", 166).

In Reviving "Cultural Imperialism" Harindranath throws around generalizing terms which are undefined and unjustified within the text. What is most problematic is how he uses "the West and the rest" and "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite". What does he really mean by "Westernized" and "hybrid"? Although he explains how Indian elite are sympathetic/conformative to "Western" culture, he does not address what part of their identity conforms to their original culture. In what cases would the Indian elite view a film through their original cultural perspective? The term hybridity seems to fall apart. Why can't there be hybrids of say Chinese/Indian spectators? Why must it be confined to two different cultures? Can you talk about someone harboring three different cultural perspectives? What about four?

How Harindranath seemingly connects "the rest" with the notion of a "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite" is also problematic. This is a generalization which seems inherent in literature about cultural imperialism. Unless Harindranath presents detailed research specifying how all cultures outside of "the West" (the United States I presume?) harbor "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite", it is an unjustified assumption. One little study on Indian spectatorship is not enough to support generalizing claims.

Revolution through Art?

Not just any art is capable of stimulating a revolution. The work would have to be of a specific medium, a highly mobile medium. Sculpture, performance, and painting are not sufficient, because their audience is confined to a single space and time. The medium instead needs to be able to quickly traverse space and time in order to have a unifying, revolutionary effect. Video, digital photographs, and electronic texts are examples of potentially revolutionary media; they can transfer information across the globe (through the power of the internet) in a matter of seconds.

If, for example, an electronic text of Adorno's 'The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception' was circulated and read by the masses, would revolution be possible? There is certainly the potential for revolution. If the masses read Adorno and realized that they are being controlled, desensitized, and standardized by the culture industry, they could form a unified rebelious force. Perhaps the reason why Adorno is so pessimistic about revolution is because, at his time, he could never hope for his writing to penetrate the masses (there was no internet, no electronic texts in the 1940's).