Entry #7: McDonalds opens in Lourve

Lourve is the largest national museum of France, housed in the Lourve Palace in Paris. It is a historical monument and also the most visited museum in the world. Lourve has been recognized by many to be a place of prestige and high art, hence resulted in a controversy when McDonalds proposed to open an outlet in the food court of the palace, which serves high cuisine. Critiques argue that the high culture of the museum would be diluted, and was afraid that it might become too commercialized.

It is evident in this situation, that the globalization of the mass media enabled McDonalds, a popular fast food chain to quickly multiply in countries and spread across geographical borders. The intensive communication network made it possible for gobalization of McDonalds to take place. McDonalds has even found their way to backward countries, and is seen at every corner of the street. Now, McDonalds is attempting to infiltrate into the walls of high art by attempting to open one of its many outlets in the Lourve itself. The question is, is McDonalds compromising on the attempt to preserve high culture by opening an outlet in a museum of high art and culture?

While it is true that opening a McDonalds outlet in Lourve Palace may enhance the options of visitors  when it comes to food choice at the museum, I feel that it would largely contaminate the high art culture of the museum. Firstly, being placed alongside the high cuisine restaurants in the museum gives people a more commercialized option of food choice. Being more familar with McDonalds as opposed to high cuisine, visitors might choose McDonalds over the high cuisine restaurants, resulting in a great loss of business at these restaurants. Furthermore, it would defeat the purpose of trying to preserve a place that retains all purposes of high art and culture as the world gets more commercialized.

Some people however, may feel that a mere McDonalds outlet would not disrupt the culture of the fine museum but in turn enhance it and make it more modern. McDonalds IS culture, as mentioned in the video. Youths may find the museum less boring with something they are more familiar with and are able to gravitate to. After all, almost everywhere is McDonalized anyway.

This is the pinnacle of exhausting consumerism, deficient gastronomy and very unpleasant odors (literally) in the context of a museum.

So why try to influence the only entity that has not been touched by consumerim? McDonalds IS culture, but McDonalds is NOT high culture.

Mona Lisa, or Mona Lisa with a slide of grease, you decide!

Entry #6: Ban Trend

People are becoming more creative with their advertising schemes and gimmicks in attempt to inform and educate the public about pressing issues of our society. Because traditional mediums of mass media  (newspapers, television and radio) transmit messages/ideas almost instantaneously, it is largely influential in persuading and to a certain extent, propagating the masses. Furthermore, the convenience of mass media allows for information to transcend geographical boundaries, henceforth having a wider coverage and network system to influence more people. It is precisely because of these reasons that governments have to step in to censor inappropriate content to be revealed to the general public. I came across this site, (Compilation of the Best Banned Ads 2009) and decided to feature some of the ads that were deemed inappropriate due to sensitive political, religious and sexual content.

With the increased number of smokers in our society these days, many advertisers found the need to educate the public about the harmful effects of smoking. Some dissuasion methods they undertook were obviously ineffective in getting the message across, because they aroused another set of issues that were even more provocative than addressing smoking itself. The above advertisement on anti-smoking stimulated much debate when it was first released as it mimicked the 9-11 attacks. Because the advertisement had negative political connotations that could possibly suggest a mockery of the 9-11 tragedy, it was banned. Furthermore, it was seen as an act to exploit the mass media. This illustrates the Moderate Effects Theory as the audience reacted strongly against the advertisement, showing that they are not passive receivers of information.

This advertisement on anti-smoking is yet again provocative and seen as violent. The public was afraid that because such images are widely displayed on billboards, buses and pillars on sidewalks, it may have a harmful impact on young children.

                                                   
Such advertisements, like the Gucci one above, were considered as risque and had sexual connotations implied, hence were not suitable for the consumption of the general public. Such advertisements were especially frowned upon by the older generation as they found such imagery crude and unsuitable to be seen by adolescents and children as their social make-up is still very volatile. Adolescents and children may think that such images are 'cool', hence mimic them. The movie ''The Rules of Attraction" was not successfully aired because of inappropriate content.

If you remember, there was a period of time in Singapore where religious advertisements on God were publicized widely. This act was initiated by 150 churches that came together to form the ''Love Singapore Movement''. Because the love churches were too successful in making God omnipresent in the media (with a budget of over $1 million to place commercials on TV and the newspapers), the government banned such advertisements to be displayed on national TV as it was seen as a violation to the multi-racial community in Singapore. An example of the banned content is shown below.

This is an act of Agenda Setting Function were the media (in this case the 'Love Singapore Movement through the media') repeatedly broadcasts a certain issue to raise the importance of it. However, was not successful because Christianity is important to a certain group of people, but not to others. It was not successful also because in this time and age, the audience are aware of the advertising gimmicks and are able to discern for themselves, the content that can be trusted and the content that is appropriate for viewing purposes (Moderate Effects Theory at work again).

Therefore, unlike the past, people are not so well-accepting to information that are fed by the mass media. It is good as it prevents propaganda(ref: WWII) and reduces the strong effects of the mass media for the better.

Entry #5: Group Whoop!

As human beings are social creatures, it is almost impossible for people to not interact in groups. There are exclusive lifestyles however, anomalies in society, where people behave like hermits and deem themselves to be better off alone. While that is recognized, the majority of the human population(animals for that matter too) form little groups and invest their time and commitment in them. People do so because these groups often provide individuals with the support and care to meet their interpersonal needs. After all, the need for inclusion, control, and affection are vital for emotional survival in this world.

Look around you, we realize that the mechanics of society thrive on group relations to operate. Almost all interactions around the world occur in groups. Whether in the coporate field where a few members of the PR department of a bank come together to do up a business proposal, or in school where students form groups to complete their projects; these are exemplary of group synergy which provides people with more input then the individual themselves. The saying, 'Two heads are better than one' hence contributes to the fact that group dynamics often stilmulates creativity and churns out better ideas than if one were to work alone.

Apart from being task oriented and getting work done, people form groups mainly for interactive purposes. Friendship ties in with group formation amongst people in that order. Socialisation allows for people to gravitate to others with similar interests and personalities. With common ground, people will find comfort and reliability from this particular group of friends and a long term relationship among them may be sustained if mutual understanding, commitment and compromise is established. It is presumably easier to form groups(or cliques even) with people who are similar to you because conversations would often land on common topics, and such groups can carry out similar activities according to their interests too. Ironically, having a slight difference in characters help sort out the differences in the group. Strongheadedness would be tamed with more objective people in the group, to rationalize difficult situations, and passiveness would be a lesser problem with more outgoing people in the group. Because of such differences in character, the group would be more complete as people take turns to fill in the gaps of aspects in which their friends are lacking.

Groups can be associated for the wrong reasons too. This occurs when people join groups to identify themselves with certain people of higher influence perhaps. In triads, gang members tab on their gang leader's 'influential status' to market their own statuses and go about disrupting the peace of others. In such cases, it is not important whether or not a person plays a minor role in the group because people tend to label them as bad influence as a whole.

Within a social group, there are always people who are better listeners, problem-solvers and peace makers. Therefore many a time, people take on different roles to maintain the harmony of the group they belong to. Groups predominantly exist in the world to satisfy the interpersonal needs of the individual, placing him at a higer position of self sufficiency on the emotional ladder.

Entry #4: Homosexuality in order?

In no relation to the bible, christianity nor religion for that matter, homosexuality was considered deviant behaviour, and was more distinctively identified as such in the past. Homosexuality did not sprout out only in the 21st century, but had always existed in a delusional state even in the time of Shakespeare. I justify this by the following reason: People knew that such civil groups existed, but had not or were not prepared to come to terms with such behaviour until mindsets took a turn on the liberal end recently. The marriage of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi hence serves as a testimony to the gradual acceptance of homosexuality and the freedom to love in our global community. Because long term relationships could also exist between same-sex couples(the four-year-long relationship of Ellen and Portia before they decided to get married), this suggests that certain factors qualify dyadic consciousness in a non-conventional relationship as well.

For many, homosexuality occurs to a person as a self discovery more than a choice, and one possibly gravitates to another person of the same gender due to a better form of mutual understanding between the couple. We all know that the genetic make-up of a male and a female differs, hence some gay and lesbian relationships perceive their relationships to thrive on the same level of understanding due to the same genetic make-up they share, simply being of the same gender. In an article titled 'Are gay relationships different?' in Time magazine last year, a comparison of 40 same-sex couples and 40 heterosexual couples was done and psychologists concluded that same-sex couples are better at appeasing the situation during arguments compared to straight couples as they are less belligerent, less domineering and less fearful. Very often, gays and predominantly lesbians(which the author of the article aptly dubbed as the 'Ellen DeGeneres effect') were found to inject humour into their conversations/arguments with one another, making the situation less tense. This, I believe, is all in the name of having at least a satisfactory amount of understanding towards each other to prevent over-conflict.

Theories have also stated that it is more difficult for a gay or lesbian couple to repair their relationships during the period of differentiation, circumscribing and stagnating (reference: Knapp Model of Relational Development). This largely attributes to the fact that there are no specific gender roles in a homosexual relationship. Both males take the washing out to dry, and both females are independent earners of their own income, therefore no one takes the dominant lead in patching things up with their partners. However, it is precisely because of equality in gender roles that some people gravitate to homosexual relationships.

The article in Times magazine also states that homosexuals are generally more self conscious than straight people 'perhaps due to their stigmatized status', hence legalizing gay and lesbian marriages could help prolong their relationships. 
Therefore the act of lifting the ban of gay marriages in certain states such as California, Connecticut and Los Angeles not only gives room for the rights to love beyond a specific gender, but also enhances the quality of a relationship status as the above cues. Legalizing gay marriages and having it represented by influential celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres could slowly eradicate the stereotypes people have of homosexuality and make it more well-accepted by the public, in turn also reducing the number of people having to lead double lives to conceal their identities. After all, the sexual orientation of a person largely contributes to giving one his/her identity, hence gays and lesbians should definitely have their rights to pursue their preferences.

Of course, we have to bear in mind that mindsets take time to change. It could take years, decades or even centuries to change views and perceptions of issues that are not socially accepted. However, will such a situation(of countries/states with rigid mindsets) house the growing number of homosexuals in our global community?