I recently saw this ad for Andes Beer posted on a friend's wall. I was surprised not so much at the content (I mean, really, it is a pretty standard dialogue in modern society) but by the person posting it. I don't want to out the individual who posted it, but I will mention that he is someone dedicated to tearing down barriers in our society against race, religion, sex, class, and more. Even more interesting is that he had just posted the clip going around for Miss Representation. To his credit though, the video is no longer on his wall!
So let's take a look at the video. The first thing that comes to mind is this dichotomy of men as oppressed victims and women as possessive and overbearing. It really is ridiculous to see this, given how the reverse is so true (and has been throughout history). Watching the video really made me want to comment on it saying something sarcastic like: "finally, someone is stepping up for the rights of men who are unable to go to the bar!".
Seriously though. Maybe I just don't understand this culture very well. I may well be in the target audience for the beer commercial, but as someone who doesn't particularly enjoy the bar, I think that it's lost on me. I mean, I thought that going out to the club was to pick up, not to just have a friendly drink. So what's the subtext here? Are women limiting their partners' sexual activities? That's entirely laughable when we consider the effort being made throughout the world to control female sexuality.
What's really interesting in this commercial, and there are certainly other elements that I would like to talk about if you comment below, is how international this culture is. Keep in mind that this commercial was produced for Andes, an Argentinian brewery. Notice how similar (or perhaps how "western") this representation of Argentinian culture is? With many people from across the political spectrum declaring that feminism is dead or that sexism doesn't exist anymore, it's really important to understand where the spaces for inequality still exist.
Many people determine inequality based on law. In many jurisdictions in the world, women and men, at least on paper, have the same rights. However, that just means that capital, social relations, various media, and religion are now spaces where women are unequal. Think about these examples:
What good does having equal access to the courts mean if a woman is unemployed and can't afford to go to court?
What good does the right to have an abortion do when a woman's family will not support the decision?
What good does the right to run for office mean when a woman is belittled for her clothing or hairstyle in the evening news?
What good does equality do when a woman is told by her congregation that her role is centred on the family?
I hope you will thoroughly consider these - especially the ties that are made back to the particular media I have highlighted in this post. I want to quickly point out one more thing, though.
My partner showed my the Everything I Do Is Wrong campaign as well, which again paints women as irrational and oppressive, and men as victims and in need of banding together to protect their interests. Thankfully, due to much public pressure, the California Milk Board pulled the advertisements, though not without a ridiculous controversy and claiming that "some people found it funny". It was a weak apology. My hope is that together we can stop making beer commercials about ridiculous premises such as the oppression of men by women. And maybe get a good apology while we are at it?
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Spent
Recently, I came across this really interesting game, Spent. It was posted on a site that my partner and I love to check out, called feministing.org. I really encourage you to take a few minutes to sit down and try to play this game. The most important part of it is to be honest with your answers and make it as realistic as possible.
The premise of the game is remarkably simple - it's a flash-based interface that asks you some challenging questions about how to avoid running out of money. You are a single parent who has just lost their job. You have to take a job working in either the service industry, a factory, or as a temp, all for minimum wage, while trying to stay afloat.
Poverty in North America is a tough road. I really can't explain in text how awful it is, and I'm exceptionally lucky to be where I am in life, a professional student of eight years, and still not be in debt. But the reality for a growing number of Americans and Canadians is that they cannot make ends meet.
The corrosion of great public programmes for basics (such as social housing) is devastating to the collective well-being of our society. When combined with more competition for lower waged work, particularly in the wake of the recession, life becomes unlivable for many. As the game highlights, those in poverty are more likely to be unhealthy, depressed, unable to access medical care or legal help, living in fear of losing their homes or their jobs, using illegal substances or alcohol, and often suffering alone or in silence.
Fighting poverty is one of the most basic social justice needs out there. It's a straightforward cause in and of itself, but what's more: it's intimately connected to a variety of other social issues. Poverty is far more likely to strike ethnic minorities, women, single parents, people with disabilities, people with poor mental health, or LGBTQ North Americans.
As such, combating poverty requires some reeducation on how unjust our modern capitalist society is. Again, since I'm a teacher and a strong advocate of publicly owned and operated infrastructure, I see this as the prerogative and the great responsibility of the state. Ontario, and many other provinces, have curricula that emphasise social justice and critical analysis of modern society. However, it is always up to the discretion of the individual teacher - many of whom don't have the skills needed to be fair and critical. It's time for some change here....
Something that has been in the news a lot in the Ontario Election was the issue of teacher training being extended to become a two-year programme. I wholeheartedly support the shift to spending more of an effort preparing our future teachers to be able to be effective in the classroom. But the issue is not having teachers get more experience, it's about spending more of an effort training them how to think critically. As a graduate of York University, I am fully aware of just how central the inclusive teaching practices are to being a great teacher. It's what education needs to be to keep Ontario at the top of the best education systems in North America.
I find it hard to find a better purpose in life than to make the word a fairer, greener, and more prosperous place. Let's put people before profits and fight for a tomorrow worth living in. Fight inequality by opening your mind and realising that living in poverty is not a choice or that people deserve it. Poverty happens because our system is designed to make it happen. That needs to change.
The premise of the game is remarkably simple - it's a flash-based interface that asks you some challenging questions about how to avoid running out of money. You are a single parent who has just lost their job. You have to take a job working in either the service industry, a factory, or as a temp, all for minimum wage, while trying to stay afloat.
Poverty in North America is a tough road. I really can't explain in text how awful it is, and I'm exceptionally lucky to be where I am in life, a professional student of eight years, and still not be in debt. But the reality for a growing number of Americans and Canadians is that they cannot make ends meet.
The corrosion of great public programmes for basics (such as social housing) is devastating to the collective well-being of our society. When combined with more competition for lower waged work, particularly in the wake of the recession, life becomes unlivable for many. As the game highlights, those in poverty are more likely to be unhealthy, depressed, unable to access medical care or legal help, living in fear of losing their homes or their jobs, using illegal substances or alcohol, and often suffering alone or in silence.
Fighting poverty is one of the most basic social justice needs out there. It's a straightforward cause in and of itself, but what's more: it's intimately connected to a variety of other social issues. Poverty is far more likely to strike ethnic minorities, women, single parents, people with disabilities, people with poor mental health, or LGBTQ North Americans.
As such, combating poverty requires some reeducation on how unjust our modern capitalist society is. Again, since I'm a teacher and a strong advocate of publicly owned and operated infrastructure, I see this as the prerogative and the great responsibility of the state. Ontario, and many other provinces, have curricula that emphasise social justice and critical analysis of modern society. However, it is always up to the discretion of the individual teacher - many of whom don't have the skills needed to be fair and critical. It's time for some change here....
Something that has been in the news a lot in the Ontario Election was the issue of teacher training being extended to become a two-year programme. I wholeheartedly support the shift to spending more of an effort preparing our future teachers to be able to be effective in the classroom. But the issue is not having teachers get more experience, it's about spending more of an effort training them how to think critically. As a graduate of York University, I am fully aware of just how central the inclusive teaching practices are to being a great teacher. It's what education needs to be to keep Ontario at the top of the best education systems in North America.
I find it hard to find a better purpose in life than to make the word a fairer, greener, and more prosperous place. Let's put people before profits and fight for a tomorrow worth living in. Fight inequality by opening your mind and realising that living in poverty is not a choice or that people deserve it. Poverty happens because our system is designed to make it happen. That needs to change.
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Education and Provincial Politics
It has been a pretty interesting year for politics - just a year ago we had some very significant municipal elections nationwide, in May we witnessed the federal election which brought the Conservatives to power in a majority government, and now we are only a month away from an Ontario provincial election.
I can't help but feel exhausted when thinking about another election campaign. And I'm someone who enjoys the culture of politics in Canada immensely. It gets me thinking about our nation's political landscape, more specifically the realities of federalism in our country. With the turnover for our governments being so short and with the presence of three layers, it is not surprising that not only are people overwhelmed, but they are also rather confused about everything from political parties, to how different levels of government interact, to how elections work. It's enough to cause some serious headaches for many.
One of the biggest solutions to this problem is also one of the parts of our public infrastructure that is under threat in Ontario: education. I aim to talk about both public education and post-secondary education in this post, but I will try to stay concise and focused.
Let's start with the post-secondary education system. In Ontario, we have a mixed private-public partnership for operating and funding universities. While tuition in Ontario is relatively inexpensive when compared to tuition in the United States, the province actually ranks LAST in terms of cross-Canada rankings. What's interesting is that fees have also gone up substantially in the past fifteen years, easily outpacing inflation. That previous link is to an HRDC report which outlines many stats about affordability, including the effects of students carrying more debt on average.
While this is a trend that is nationwide, Ontario has been particularly hard hit. The tuition freeze in Ontario has been a contentious issue, with the Liberals oscillating on what is to be done. While the modest growth in the cost of going to school is viewed as unfair by most students, there is a growing demand for tuition fees to be decreased. Unfortunately, universities have been underfunded by successive governments, there is an increase in private funding. The privatisation of public institutions should be worrisome for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which being that it generally results in university being less affordable, particularly for those who are already economically marginalised in our society.
Privatisation of course carries other problems, and the one that I think is dangerous is a change in the way that curricula are developed. This has been an exceptional problem in a lot of schools in the United States, prompting a leading writer on eduction Martha Nussbaum to pen Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. While I have yet to read this book, I managed to catch an interview by Michael Enright of CBC's The Sunday Edition. In this segment, she argued very articulately that liberal arts programmes in America (and by extension Canada) are facing a crisis of funding. In many colleges and universities the curriculum is being modified so that students in programmes such as business or engineering are no longer being forced to take credits in philosophy, languages, or history, where they would be subject to learning about ethics, perspective, or the ongoing struggle for social justice. Nussbaum's main thrust is that it is a grave error to support technical skills while leaving out critical thinking, something which, as a social scientist, I agree with wholeheartedly. One of the strongest pillars of our democracy is our schools.
What's fascinating here is that a new book written by two Canadian university professors called Campus Confidential: 100 startling things you don’t know about Canadian universities has a chapter devoted to the scary trend that universities and colleges are rapidly becoming very similar. This, in my opinion, is a significant problem of universities becoming increasingly larger and run for profit. Moreover, its emblematic of the fact that universities now are in the business of acting as a career path, not a path for enlightenment or self-discovery.
So, what about public education? Well, all I really have to say about this is let's keep looking at the effects of cuts and privatisation at the post-secondary level. If we are unhappy with where our colleges and universities are going, then we need to rally behind strong public schools. For more information about privatisation in schools, have a look at some of the following non-academic resources:
The Canada eZine - Education
Canadian Dimension
ETFO - Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario
Solidarity
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Let's make sure this is a campaign issue that gets a lot of attention. Talk to your MPP or find your candidates!
I can't help but feel exhausted when thinking about another election campaign. And I'm someone who enjoys the culture of politics in Canada immensely. It gets me thinking about our nation's political landscape, more specifically the realities of federalism in our country. With the turnover for our governments being so short and with the presence of three layers, it is not surprising that not only are people overwhelmed, but they are also rather confused about everything from political parties, to how different levels of government interact, to how elections work. It's enough to cause some serious headaches for many.
One of the biggest solutions to this problem is also one of the parts of our public infrastructure that is under threat in Ontario: education. I aim to talk about both public education and post-secondary education in this post, but I will try to stay concise and focused.
Let's start with the post-secondary education system. In Ontario, we have a mixed private-public partnership for operating and funding universities. While tuition in Ontario is relatively inexpensive when compared to tuition in the United States, the province actually ranks LAST in terms of cross-Canada rankings. What's interesting is that fees have also gone up substantially in the past fifteen years, easily outpacing inflation. That previous link is to an HRDC report which outlines many stats about affordability, including the effects of students carrying more debt on average.
While this is a trend that is nationwide, Ontario has been particularly hard hit. The tuition freeze in Ontario has been a contentious issue, with the Liberals oscillating on what is to be done. While the modest growth in the cost of going to school is viewed as unfair by most students, there is a growing demand for tuition fees to be decreased. Unfortunately, universities have been underfunded by successive governments, there is an increase in private funding. The privatisation of public institutions should be worrisome for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which being that it generally results in university being less affordable, particularly for those who are already economically marginalised in our society.
Privatisation of course carries other problems, and the one that I think is dangerous is a change in the way that curricula are developed. This has been an exceptional problem in a lot of schools in the United States, prompting a leading writer on eduction Martha Nussbaum to pen Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. While I have yet to read this book, I managed to catch an interview by Michael Enright of CBC's The Sunday Edition. In this segment, she argued very articulately that liberal arts programmes in America (and by extension Canada) are facing a crisis of funding. In many colleges and universities the curriculum is being modified so that students in programmes such as business or engineering are no longer being forced to take credits in philosophy, languages, or history, where they would be subject to learning about ethics, perspective, or the ongoing struggle for social justice. Nussbaum's main thrust is that it is a grave error to support technical skills while leaving out critical thinking, something which, as a social scientist, I agree with wholeheartedly. One of the strongest pillars of our democracy is our schools.
What's fascinating here is that a new book written by two Canadian university professors called Campus Confidential: 100 startling things you don’t know about Canadian universities has a chapter devoted to the scary trend that universities and colleges are rapidly becoming very similar. This, in my opinion, is a significant problem of universities becoming increasingly larger and run for profit. Moreover, its emblematic of the fact that universities now are in the business of acting as a career path, not a path for enlightenment or self-discovery.
So, what about public education? Well, all I really have to say about this is let's keep looking at the effects of cuts and privatisation at the post-secondary level. If we are unhappy with where our colleges and universities are going, then we need to rally behind strong public schools. For more information about privatisation in schools, have a look at some of the following non-academic resources:
The Canada eZine - Education
Canadian Dimension
ETFO - Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario
Solidarity
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Let's make sure this is a campaign issue that gets a lot of attention. Talk to your MPP or find your candidates!
Sunday, 28 August 2011
If The Olympics Made Us Prouder Canadians.....
When I woke up on Monday morning to the news of Jack Layton's untimely death, I was completely devastated. My first thought was that I was not in Ottawa when it happened, which made me feel the loss even hard. However, I was fortunate enough that a state funeral was held for him in his home city of Toronto, and I was able to attend with the help of the local NDP Riding Associations.
Getting on the bus yesterday morning was such a fantastic experience. I rekindled relationships with members of the party I haven't seen since the 2008 Federal Election. It made me really think about our conceptualisation of democracy as citizens - that elections are neat bookends and that in between it's not our job to act. For Jack, there was never rest. Trying to change our political, social, and economic systems is a venture that simply has no breaks. Sadly, it took such a devastating event to make us realise this. I hope that the energy that people put into memorialising such a great life will be channelled to make our country a better place.
What probably struck me most - out of the whole experience - was walking to City Hall at Nathan Phillips Square to see the messages of hope and remembrance written on the cold concrete landscape. I took a quick moment to write my own very brief tag, one that read "May your legacy inspire". My voice was lost in a sea of outpouring, but I still felt that others would be moved, as I was moved by others.
While I was taken aback by almost everything I experienced, I would like to cast some light on what I thought was so interesting and lovely about the events. I would like to say that seeing so many people.... tens of thousands of them..... gather together to celebrate a great Canadian was incredibly moving. Regardless of people's political stripes they were there to support someone who mixed honour with politics. Someone who strove to make lives materially better for millions of people in our country. And you could see it by what was said, and by the looks on people's faces, or by what they were saying.
But I think what spoke loudest - to me anyway - was the sheer diversity of people around me, all laughing and crying - remembering and envisioning - together. I sat between a same sex couple, immigrants that barely spoke English, people with an array of disabilities, children, the elderly, Muslims and Christians and aetheists. Everyone celebrating together in what I can only say that Jack's memory can do. It's amazing to think about how divisive and negative politics can be - no other figure in recent history could have garnered this support. It made me feel bad for a brief second when I saw Stephen Harper sitting uncomfortably in the audience. I wondered if he was thinking: "would this be how I'd be remembered?"
I wish that I could write more about Jack, but I'll leave that to the eulogist, NDP statesman and activist Steven Lewis.
"Never in our collective lifetime have we seen such an outpouring, so much emotional intensity, from every corner of this country. There have been occasions, historically, when we've seen respect and admiration but never so much love, never such a shocked sense of personal loss.
Jack was so alive, so much fun, so engaged in daily life with so much gusto, so unpretentious, that it was hard while he lived to focus on how incredibly important that was to us, he was to us. Until he was so suddenly gone, cruelly gone, at the pinnacle of his career.
To hear so many Canadians speak so open-heartedly of love, to see young and old take chalk in hand to write without embarrassment of hope, or hang banners from overpasses to express their grief and loss. It's astonishing.
Somehow Jack connected with Canadians in a way that vanquished the cynicism that erodes our political culture. He connected whether you knew him or didn't know him, whether you were with him or against him.
Jack simply radiated an authenticity and honesty and a commitment to his ideals that we know realize we've been thirsting for. He was so civil, so open, so accessible that he made politics seem so natural and good as breathing. There was no guile. That's why everybody who knew Jack recognized that the public man and the private man were synonymous.
But it obviously goes much deeper than that. Jack, I think, tapped into a yearning, sometimes ephemeral, rarely articulated, a yearning that politics be conducted in a different way, and from that difference would emerge a better Canada"
Getting on the bus yesterday morning was such a fantastic experience. I rekindled relationships with members of the party I haven't seen since the 2008 Federal Election. It made me really think about our conceptualisation of democracy as citizens - that elections are neat bookends and that in between it's not our job to act. For Jack, there was never rest. Trying to change our political, social, and economic systems is a venture that simply has no breaks. Sadly, it took such a devastating event to make us realise this. I hope that the energy that people put into memorialising such a great life will be channelled to make our country a better place.
What probably struck me most - out of the whole experience - was walking to City Hall at Nathan Phillips Square to see the messages of hope and remembrance written on the cold concrete landscape. I took a quick moment to write my own very brief tag, one that read "May your legacy inspire". My voice was lost in a sea of outpouring, but I still felt that others would be moved, as I was moved by others.
While I was taken aback by almost everything I experienced, I would like to cast some light on what I thought was so interesting and lovely about the events. I would like to say that seeing so many people.... tens of thousands of them..... gather together to celebrate a great Canadian was incredibly moving. Regardless of people's political stripes they were there to support someone who mixed honour with politics. Someone who strove to make lives materially better for millions of people in our country. And you could see it by what was said, and by the looks on people's faces, or by what they were saying.
But I think what spoke loudest - to me anyway - was the sheer diversity of people around me, all laughing and crying - remembering and envisioning - together. I sat between a same sex couple, immigrants that barely spoke English, people with an array of disabilities, children, the elderly, Muslims and Christians and aetheists. Everyone celebrating together in what I can only say that Jack's memory can do. It's amazing to think about how divisive and negative politics can be - no other figure in recent history could have garnered this support. It made me feel bad for a brief second when I saw Stephen Harper sitting uncomfortably in the audience. I wondered if he was thinking: "would this be how I'd be remembered?"
I wish that I could write more about Jack, but I'll leave that to the eulogist, NDP statesman and activist Steven Lewis.
"Never in our collective lifetime have we seen such an outpouring, so much emotional intensity, from every corner of this country. There have been occasions, historically, when we've seen respect and admiration but never so much love, never such a shocked sense of personal loss.
Jack was so alive, so much fun, so engaged in daily life with so much gusto, so unpretentious, that it was hard while he lived to focus on how incredibly important that was to us, he was to us. Until he was so suddenly gone, cruelly gone, at the pinnacle of his career.
To hear so many Canadians speak so open-heartedly of love, to see young and old take chalk in hand to write without embarrassment of hope, or hang banners from overpasses to express their grief and loss. It's astonishing.
Somehow Jack connected with Canadians in a way that vanquished the cynicism that erodes our political culture. He connected whether you knew him or didn't know him, whether you were with him or against him.
Jack simply radiated an authenticity and honesty and a commitment to his ideals that we know realize we've been thirsting for. He was so civil, so open, so accessible that he made politics seem so natural and good as breathing. There was no guile. That's why everybody who knew Jack recognized that the public man and the private man were synonymous.
But it obviously goes much deeper than that. Jack, I think, tapped into a yearning, sometimes ephemeral, rarely articulated, a yearning that politics be conducted in a different way, and from that difference would emerge a better Canada"
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Politics and Public Broadcasting
CBC/Radio-Canada just announced today that former Bloc Québecois leader Gilles Duceppe will be participating once weekly on a daily programme on on La Première Chaine. I stumbled upon this because I am a fan of CBC on Facebook, and I was appalled at the responses from Anglo Canadians. My favourite being:
"this makes my head explode .... how much more $$$$ does the ROC have to "give" this man - whose whole political life has been spent trying to rip this country apart ... the whole thing disgusts me. "
But why the hate? In a poll conducted for the 2008 General Election, CBC reported that Duceppe was an "elegant separatist" with an impressive political background dating back to 1997 when he became party leader. Unlike many other Québec nationalists, he has managed to gain some popularity outside of Québec, mostly because of his fervent criticism of liberals and conservatives alike. In the past decade the Bloc has become increasingly renowned for its social democratic principles than for its desire to break out of confederation, and this is owing to Duceppe's leadership. The idea being that if Québec is not going to legally secede from Canada, then the Bloc should be a voice of representation in parliament.
And with respect to the financing issue, all Québec residents who pay their federal taxes fund the CBC/Radio-Canada. Since approximately 40 per cent of Québecers support sovereignty and social democracy, it only seems fair that the organisation is selected Duceppe to host a show in that market. This hasn't stopped large Anglo news agencies from attacking the move, such as the Toronto Sun.
So why don't we delve deeper into Duceppe's past to figure just what about him irks non-Francophones? Well, as soon as I started investigating this, I determined that it has a lot less to do with him and a lot more to do with a few other variables.
First, the longstanding Anglo-French rift in Canada. It is no surprise that the disdain directed at Duceppe is mostly because he is a symbol of this divide. I think it would be counter-productive to go on a diatribe about French-English relations in our country, but it's important to consider that this has been, and most likely will continue to be, a sensitive issue for most Canadians.
However, equally important seems to be the legitimacy of having a separatist party in our federal legislature. And of course this point is tied to the first - people seem to have trouble recognising that Québec wants to, and should have every right to, represent their interests as best as they can in parliament. We tend to forget that other political parties often have bases of support that are very regional in nature, for example, the NDP historically. A good example of this is the 1972 Federal Election, where the NDP didn't win any votes east of Ontario. The reality is this, Canada: we very rarely have political parties that can represent the will of Canadians across the country.
Given that Canada is federated (click here to learn more about federalism) we should invest in our regional differences, not look for reasons to introduce a monoculture. And if that's the case, the CBC, which is a public, national broadcaster, should certainly promote a show that is hosted by Duceppe.
What it all seems to come down to ultimately is that parliament doesn't have the right to select who should be on the radio. While the CBC/Radio-Canada is a public enterprise, it'll ultimately be listeners who decide whether or not Duceppe will make a good host. Looking forward to your first show, Mr. Duceppe.
"this makes my head explode .... how much more $$$$ does the ROC have to "give" this man - whose whole political life has been spent trying to rip this country apart ... the whole thing disgusts me. "
But why the hate? In a poll conducted for the 2008 General Election, CBC reported that Duceppe was an "elegant separatist" with an impressive political background dating back to 1997 when he became party leader. Unlike many other Québec nationalists, he has managed to gain some popularity outside of Québec, mostly because of his fervent criticism of liberals and conservatives alike. In the past decade the Bloc has become increasingly renowned for its social democratic principles than for its desire to break out of confederation, and this is owing to Duceppe's leadership. The idea being that if Québec is not going to legally secede from Canada, then the Bloc should be a voice of representation in parliament.
And with respect to the financing issue, all Québec residents who pay their federal taxes fund the CBC/Radio-Canada. Since approximately 40 per cent of Québecers support sovereignty and social democracy, it only seems fair that the organisation is selected Duceppe to host a show in that market. This hasn't stopped large Anglo news agencies from attacking the move, such as the Toronto Sun.
So why don't we delve deeper into Duceppe's past to figure just what about him irks non-Francophones? Well, as soon as I started investigating this, I determined that it has a lot less to do with him and a lot more to do with a few other variables.
First, the longstanding Anglo-French rift in Canada. It is no surprise that the disdain directed at Duceppe is mostly because he is a symbol of this divide. I think it would be counter-productive to go on a diatribe about French-English relations in our country, but it's important to consider that this has been, and most likely will continue to be, a sensitive issue for most Canadians.
However, equally important seems to be the legitimacy of having a separatist party in our federal legislature. And of course this point is tied to the first - people seem to have trouble recognising that Québec wants to, and should have every right to, represent their interests as best as they can in parliament. We tend to forget that other political parties often have bases of support that are very regional in nature, for example, the NDP historically. A good example of this is the 1972 Federal Election, where the NDP didn't win any votes east of Ontario. The reality is this, Canada: we very rarely have political parties that can represent the will of Canadians across the country.
Given that Canada is federated (click here to learn more about federalism) we should invest in our regional differences, not look for reasons to introduce a monoculture. And if that's the case, the CBC, which is a public, national broadcaster, should certainly promote a show that is hosted by Duceppe.
What it all seems to come down to ultimately is that parliament doesn't have the right to select who should be on the radio. While the CBC/Radio-Canada is a public enterprise, it'll ultimately be listeners who decide whether or not Duceppe will make a good host. Looking forward to your first show, Mr. Duceppe.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Magnum. Concealed Weapon?
I recently stumbled across this very interesting ad. After experiencing the thrill of the "Pleasure Hunt", I thought I'd write a few words about the trend of games and marketing.
While listening to an episode of CBC Radio's Spark, I learned that it is becoming increasingly more popular for people in the promotion industry to lead up to the release of games and movies with intense puzzles and adventures. What's truly fascinating is that they generally tend to get more and more realistic and more and more involving, often to the point where contestants are getting into trouble in order to win a contest or find some key information.
A good case is Dr. Pepper's 2007 stunt in Boston, a story which I am borrowing from Terry O'Reilly's Age of Persuasion. A treasure hunt was launched with a grand prize of a gold coin worth $10 000. Unfortunately, the planners chose an ancient burial ground as the hiding place, causing much controversy and leading eventually to the event being cancelled.
This is a good example of what has been called "guerrilla marketing". O'Reilly identifies this phenomenon as having four key components:
1) garners attention
2) doesn't involve traditional media
3) isn't an ad
4) would be considered unconventional
Although we should be careful when talking about this, because we can take other stunts, like the original Terry Fox Marathon of Hope and say it conforms to this model. A good question to ask is whether or not there are key differences between campaigns that are for raising money for charity, advertising a product, or performing a public service announcement.
Obviously this isn't entirely new. It is also obvious that this is something that is going to continue to evolve as the media it uses changes. One of my favourite authors, Naomi Klein, writes that guerrilla marketing is part of an intensifying trend of brands to push the envelope ever further.
So let's get back to the Magnum advert to find out exactly makes it so powerful?
The first element that I will point to is the notion of challenge and high score. This instantaneously adds a new dimension. Rather than watching, you are engaging with, the media. Moreover, you are evaluated at the end and given the choice to try again or invite your friends. Not only will the average person who completes the task likely opt to better their score, they are more than likely to challenge a someone they know, thus exposing the advertisement to new eyes.
Another interesting component is that by interacting with the ad, the audience is experiencing something called synaesthesia - a condition where one sense elicits others. Play generally makes people remember and learn better than by watching and listening. This kinaesthetic experience means that the audience has a deeper and potentially longer lasting bond with the content, most likely far higher than through watching a commercial.
Finally, since we are living in a society awash in ads, this game allows for a seed to be planted that can be reaped later. After playing the "Pleasure Hunt", I have been much more aware of ads I see elsewhere for Magnum, meaning that I have now attached an experience, however trivial, with that product. And that is something invaluable for the producers of the product and marketing I've consumed.
Ultimately, we have to remember that the great Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan remarked that "advertising is the greatest art form of the twentieth century".
While listening to an episode of CBC Radio's Spark, I learned that it is becoming increasingly more popular for people in the promotion industry to lead up to the release of games and movies with intense puzzles and adventures. What's truly fascinating is that they generally tend to get more and more realistic and more and more involving, often to the point where contestants are getting into trouble in order to win a contest or find some key information.
A good case is Dr. Pepper's 2007 stunt in Boston, a story which I am borrowing from Terry O'Reilly's Age of Persuasion. A treasure hunt was launched with a grand prize of a gold coin worth $10 000. Unfortunately, the planners chose an ancient burial ground as the hiding place, causing much controversy and leading eventually to the event being cancelled.
This is a good example of what has been called "guerrilla marketing". O'Reilly identifies this phenomenon as having four key components:
1) garners attention
2) doesn't involve traditional media
3) isn't an ad
4) would be considered unconventional
Although we should be careful when talking about this, because we can take other stunts, like the original Terry Fox Marathon of Hope and say it conforms to this model. A good question to ask is whether or not there are key differences between campaigns that are for raising money for charity, advertising a product, or performing a public service announcement.
Obviously this isn't entirely new. It is also obvious that this is something that is going to continue to evolve as the media it uses changes. One of my favourite authors, Naomi Klein, writes that guerrilla marketing is part of an intensifying trend of brands to push the envelope ever further.
So let's get back to the Magnum advert to find out exactly makes it so powerful?
The first element that I will point to is the notion of challenge and high score. This instantaneously adds a new dimension. Rather than watching, you are engaging with, the media. Moreover, you are evaluated at the end and given the choice to try again or invite your friends. Not only will the average person who completes the task likely opt to better their score, they are more than likely to challenge a someone they know, thus exposing the advertisement to new eyes.
Another interesting component is that by interacting with the ad, the audience is experiencing something called synaesthesia - a condition where one sense elicits others. Play generally makes people remember and learn better than by watching and listening. This kinaesthetic experience means that the audience has a deeper and potentially longer lasting bond with the content, most likely far higher than through watching a commercial.
Finally, since we are living in a society awash in ads, this game allows for a seed to be planted that can be reaped later. After playing the "Pleasure Hunt", I have been much more aware of ads I see elsewhere for Magnum, meaning that I have now attached an experience, however trivial, with that product. And that is something invaluable for the producers of the product and marketing I've consumed.
Ultimately, we have to remember that the great Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan remarked that "advertising is the greatest art form of the twentieth century".
Monday, 4 July 2011
Googlisation
I have been really interested lately in commercials for a new television show that is supposed to premier this fall. Person of Interest, which will be broadcast by CBS on Thursdays, is about surveillance of the public by the state.
While I would certainly agree that there is an unprecedented amount of surveillance in our society today, I would have to question the sentiment that monitoring is malevolent. In fact, the City of London has recently seen the addition of an extensive closed-circuit television system to its already substantial network of surveillance equipment. While many have characterised this move as fashioned after Big Brother, I think it is important to consider the benefits of surveillance while in public, such as providing evidence in crimes. However, this surveillance is by no means the only undertaken by the state. There is a variety of ways in which authorities surveille the populace.
What is more interesting is the private/public partnership going on. There is no central bureaucracy overseeing the cameras - that work is contracted out to private firms. Of course, there isn't much of an impetus for these private firms to do anything other than to watch over the streets. But what about other corporations and surveillance?
I think that I speak for everyone when I remark that it's absolutely awesome when you start typing in Google and it knows what you are looking for. It's almost like Google is your best friend - someone who knows you so well that he or she can finish your sentences. Well, the way it can actually tell what you want is because Google is actually surveilling you. Googlisation is a term I came across when listening to CBC Radio's Spark a few weeks ago. Google not only plays the role of selecting what comes up when we start typing, but it also chooses what to give you when the list comes up. It collects this information by tracking what we do as individuals and matching the trends with other people from our region and who have similar interests. Of course it is convenient and attractive - but perhaps so much so that it is actually problematic.
What are the effects of Googlisation? Siva Vaidhyanathan provides what he calls an "unquestioning trust in Google", a sense that it plays a mystical role in our life. This happens to the point where we often fail to ask "hard questions" about what information is given to us and, more importantly, what information is omitted. He talks about how Google satisfied our perceived needs too well - a problem particularly when it comes to using it to find information. Remember, Google is giving you information for what it thinks you want, but not necessarily what you need. What really troubles me is how often people use Google for serious questions, such as climate change.
With respect to privacy, many of you may be surprised to hear that Google's philosophy is that "we ask you to give up a little bit of your privacy for a better user experience". Vaidhyanathan critiques this by stating that privacy is not a measurable currency that we can give up to trade for convenience.
Of course I don't want to be too hard of Google. In fact, it is one of the most useful organisations on the web, one that is used by virtually everyone around the world. What I aim to achieve in this post is not to say "don't use Google", but to implore people to use it more carefully. I know that I have in the past few weeks. The internet is a fascinating place, but we have to keep in mind that it is slowly being devoured by corporations. While Google's actions may surprise you, remember that their services are free and that they do make the internet a pretty great place - Youtube, my email, and this blog are all powered by Google.
I hope that you are armed so that the next time someone complains about the state acting like Big Brother you can tell them that corporations do it as well. It's really up to you to decide which is worse: the City of London or Google for watching your every move.
While I would certainly agree that there is an unprecedented amount of surveillance in our society today, I would have to question the sentiment that monitoring is malevolent. In fact, the City of London has recently seen the addition of an extensive closed-circuit television system to its already substantial network of surveillance equipment. While many have characterised this move as fashioned after Big Brother, I think it is important to consider the benefits of surveillance while in public, such as providing evidence in crimes. However, this surveillance is by no means the only undertaken by the state. There is a variety of ways in which authorities surveille the populace.
What is more interesting is the private/public partnership going on. There is no central bureaucracy overseeing the cameras - that work is contracted out to private firms. Of course, there isn't much of an impetus for these private firms to do anything other than to watch over the streets. But what about other corporations and surveillance?
I think that I speak for everyone when I remark that it's absolutely awesome when you start typing in Google and it knows what you are looking for. It's almost like Google is your best friend - someone who knows you so well that he or she can finish your sentences. Well, the way it can actually tell what you want is because Google is actually surveilling you. Googlisation is a term I came across when listening to CBC Radio's Spark a few weeks ago. Google not only plays the role of selecting what comes up when we start typing, but it also chooses what to give you when the list comes up. It collects this information by tracking what we do as individuals and matching the trends with other people from our region and who have similar interests. Of course it is convenient and attractive - but perhaps so much so that it is actually problematic.
What are the effects of Googlisation? Siva Vaidhyanathan provides what he calls an "unquestioning trust in Google", a sense that it plays a mystical role in our life. This happens to the point where we often fail to ask "hard questions" about what information is given to us and, more importantly, what information is omitted. He talks about how Google satisfied our perceived needs too well - a problem particularly when it comes to using it to find information. Remember, Google is giving you information for what it thinks you want, but not necessarily what you need. What really troubles me is how often people use Google for serious questions, such as climate change.
With respect to privacy, many of you may be surprised to hear that Google's philosophy is that "we ask you to give up a little bit of your privacy for a better user experience". Vaidhyanathan critiques this by stating that privacy is not a measurable currency that we can give up to trade for convenience.
Of course I don't want to be too hard of Google. In fact, it is one of the most useful organisations on the web, one that is used by virtually everyone around the world. What I aim to achieve in this post is not to say "don't use Google", but to implore people to use it more carefully. I know that I have in the past few weeks. The internet is a fascinating place, but we have to keep in mind that it is slowly being devoured by corporations. While Google's actions may surprise you, remember that their services are free and that they do make the internet a pretty great place - Youtube, my email, and this blog are all powered by Google.
I hope that you are armed so that the next time someone complains about the state acting like Big Brother you can tell them that corporations do it as well. It's really up to you to decide which is worse: the City of London or Google for watching your every move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)