Lack Luster View of Nuclear Family and Children in the Social Imagination...

 

"THROW THE CHILD" INFOMERCIAL ~ 2024 SUPERBOWL

Given his pedigree playing such characters as Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Professor Charles Xavier, when Patrick Stewart issues an instruction, one’s automatic instinct is to follow it.

However, in the new Super Bowl ad from Paramount+, Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa hesitates when that instruction is three simple words: Throw the child.

Created by ad agency Droga5 and directed by David Shane, “Sir Patrick Stewart Throws A Hail Arnold” manages to take so many of the elements that so many Super Bowl ads have—a collection of celebrities, a comedic concept—and combine them in a way that makes it feel fresh and actually funny.

Why are Stewart, Tagovailoa, Jeff Probst, Drew Barrymore, Knuckles, Arnold, Peppa, and Creed stuck on Paramount Mountain in the first place? Who cares! It’s all just weird enough to make the suspension of disbelief possible.

Credit to Droga5 for leaning into dark, odd humor for the Super Bowl, and to the brand for going with it. But the key here may be director David Shane, who has long been a master of commercial and short-form comedy.

For Shane, it’s all about a great script, and then looking for specific moments. “All stories, whether 24 seconds or 2 hours, are really a collection of moments,” Shane said. “Nobody tells their friends the plot of a movie over and over, but they do quote lines and specific scenes all the time. So, the first thing I’m doing is looking for that or the possibility of that in a script. Moments are about real human behavior. People laugh because they recognize themselves in what they’re watching.”

He said that another important quality to any funny ad is comedic friction. “Someone said this, it may have been Freud, but I don’t know because I never graduated college: ‘Violence is funny whether it is emotional or physical,’” said Shane. “In a script, that means finding where the friction is coming from, then it’s about finding the places where people are trying to not reveal what they’re thinking. We never think we’re an open book, but our expressions can betray that. What’s the subtext? Especially in commercials, I’m always trying to work the subtext. What are they saying . . . but what are they really saying? Also, awkwardness is funny.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/91022317/patrick-stewart-paramount-plus-super-bowl-commercial-2024-best-yet

 

COMMENTARY: The underlined texts above are enough for you to get the gist of this post. But, if not, then consider the images only in that 'infomercial/commercial for Paramount +.  In propaganda, its important to use the best possible lures: images, numbers, slogans/catch phrases, stereotypes, and any/all discriminatory measures to reel the viewer in. 

Looking at that infomercial, one should take notice of the carefully selected celebrities, the once popular grunge 'Christian' band -Creed, the mooning of that band, the old football player (representing aging population demanding to "Throw the Child"), a cheesy sheriff in shorts (disrespect of lawmen), a 'Miami' football player of color (American/Samoan Evangelical Christian with one son), a robot or transformer (the future singularity), and a torch bearer aside of a cartoon kid (ushering in the new reality). 

What can any of that mean in context of the title of this blog? It points to the lack luster view of the nuclear family and children in the post-modern social imagination. The traditional family has no appeal no luster/value, women want abortions/control their own body which fits with with a selfish aging American population .So, of course, throw the child away because who needs them; and while you are at it, throw out religion as it is (Creed) passe. 

As for Tua T... he did not throw the child because in the scene he was supposedly 'not ready for the moment'. Mmm. And, as a true Christian, he shouldn't be ready to throw the child. I guess he will eventually get ready or be totally excluded the next time this kind of thing comes up. 

Hopefully, Tua did not think such violence was funny like the rest of America. He chose to opt out but still took the money for the gig. When you think about it... it was probably the right thing to do knowing there won't be a come back. Unless, he changes his 'religion'.

Politics and Presidents in the Social Imagination...

Politicians today and eons ago deliver rallying cries to inspire people to act. They use a wide variety of rhetoric to spread the word...  

    According to Plato, rhetorike is the faculty of observing a situation with the most immediate and available means of persuasion, different from the idea of polis which weighs out alternative options.... And, Aristotle applied three elements to effective rhetoric, ethos, pathos and logos. Aristotle defined ethos as, “comprised of the listeners’ understanding of the speaker’s good sense.” Therefore, according to these two philosophers, polis relates to the idea of governance which is the set of decisions and processes made to reflect social expectations through leadership of government... Conversely, rhetorike directly correlates to having control or rule of oneself [https://medium.com/@kbreenconsulting/rhetoric-in-politics-93e860aff081].

    Which types of political rhetoric are most persuasive? Politicians make arguments that share common rhetorical elements, including metaphor, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise, moral appeals, and many others. However, political arguments are also highly multidimensional, making it difficult to assess the relative persuasive power of these elements [https://csdp.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2376/files/media/lauderdale_variable_argument_persuasiveness_princeton_csdp.pdf].

This is still the case today. Say what? Politicians make arguments that share common rhetorical elements, including metaphor, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise, moral appeals etc.  

Why is it then that people (masses that generate a group of one kind or another) think their guy has it right? Somehow they are convinced. How? Rhetorike directly correlates to having control or rule of oneself and this is key. It makes one believe that so and so is right. But, in reality, the other guy/person doesn't have it right. So, what truth is found by anyone? None. Why? Because, their guy or the right guy/person pick they deem decent enough to win doesn't have it right either... not absolutely. 

Thus, after the election, the masses are often disappointed and start creating excuses, or blaming and fingering point to things/people that cause their disappointment...though its never their picks fault. 

During campaigns especially, one should take notice of the theater, the baiting, the hoopla.. and refrain from jumping on anyone's band wagon no matter how sweet it sounds! Why? Because, its a fallen world, and we live in a fallen/broker social imagination.  

Then, why vote at all? That's a good question. The answer is... don't vote for the person. Vote according to the principles that you are willing to die for. At least that is worth the disappointments in so and so that will come and they will. 

*Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life ~ John 14:6.

Every Day Jane/Joe ~ The Youtube Effect in the Social Imagination...

     

The buzz and business of Youtube and its tubies/tubers... with regard to the effect its having on society.

    As far back as 2009, Foreign Policy media platform wrote ~  

    Welcome to the YouTube effect. It is the phenomenon whereby video clips, often produced by individuals acting on their own, are rapidly disseminated throughout the world thanks to video-sharing Web sites such as YouTube, Google Video, and others. Every month, YouTube receives 20 million visitors, who watch 100 million video clips a day. There are 65,000 new videos posted every day. Most of the videos are frivolous, produced by and for teenagers. But some are serious. YouTube includes videos posted by terrorists, human rights groups, and U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Some are clips of incidents that have political consequences or document important trends, such as global warming, illegal immigration, and corruption. Some videos reveal truths. Others spread disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies. All are part of the YouTube effect.

In case you don't know what YouTube is (that would be hard to believe since its the world’s second most popular site after Google)... well, its a stimulus machine. How? Just as you read above, its  the phenomenon whereby video clips, often produced by individuals acting on their own, are rapidly disseminated throughout the world thanks to video-sharing Web sites such as YouTube, Google Video, and others. Its stimulating for those who use it.

Recently, a film was made about how YouTube effects society. The film describes its design and how today Ai has been implemented to take over the operations of content analysis and its dissemination. Which has aroused concerns among users their stuff is being taken down, blocked and or shadowed... and how this has a violation of freedom of speech. 

Whether or not that is 100% true is debatable but it certainly is arguably a problem for content creators and their audiences. Why? Because, Youtube is used by everyone and that means everyone... the good, the bad and the ugly as well as the ignorant, average Jane/Joe, the wealthy, the poor, the educated, the for whatever reason excluded, the cooperate world including big pharma as a means for marketing schemes and the elites and their powerful orgs. And, probably the government for gathering intelligence... even on its own citizens. 

And, everyone of those groups/entities legal or not has an agenda whether its a scheme to draw attention to themselves as a trendsetter, as a virtue signaler, a voice for minorities, a flamboyant 'narcissist' means to get rich/recognized (reactors), to quell boredom, pass the time for the lonely (the aged or home-bound), to give prophecies (the religious), recap and shape local news (municipalities) or to spread disinformation and certainly control the kind of information they want society to have. 

Some are actually entertaining... many or most are ridiculous and twisted, and a few are educational. And, some can be considered dangerous depending on the target audience. Its not for the innocent or weak of stomach or tender hearted with regard to some commenters. Yet, its an interesting phenomenon nonetheless born of man's desire to be heard, to control and to be famous. 

In terms of its impact on the social imagination, we can observe how it creates agreement and disagreement through social interaction and that is evolving daily... in fact, becoming a sui generis (a Latin expression that translates 'of its own kind'. It refers to anything that is peculiar to itself of its own kind or class). I can almost bet that Durkheim would never have imagined such a beast. 

 

 *https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/14/the-youtube-effect/

What is Artificial Intelligence in the Social Imagination...

     

    Artificial Intelligence (A.I) is probably one of the most misused terms in technology and data science. AI as a thing in itself (something created as a thing to be admired and used) is featured in articles, books, politician speeches, and even in consultancy companies PowerPoint slides; let alone that the Pope talks about it [https://towardsdatascience.com/no-artificial-intelligence-doesnt-exist-yet-3318d83fdfe8].

    But if there is artificial intelligence, what is it? In order to answer that question, we should first ask what is intelligence and if there could be artificial intelligence? From a sociologists point of view, intelligence is “learning by association” within the framework of social interaction (one to another in a given place) starting with mother, then parents, siblings (if any) grandparents and the wider community. In years past, anyone who was not considered intelligent by their peers and or local community was the village idiot. Which meant then that some people just don't 'learn'. And, that still may be the case.

    What is learning by association if it truly is the 'mark' of intelligence? One has to be able to learn what one is and is not. In saying that, we can assume there is a kind of internal coding of who is who, what is what (and is not etc.) and how everyone works together agreeing on or not what the causality is and thus assessing what is and what is not in a place over time that more often than not produces positive outcomes for the one and the group...which 'intelligent' people call progress.

    Though that seems to be relatively enough to understand intelligence, its not enough as some things translate automatically through place and culture. Intelligence is found in humor, in jokes, in idiomatic expressions, in pranks, in strategies, in entertainment, in performance, in relaxation and enjoyment of even simple pleasures like that of seeing a rainbow after a storm. Its writing a poem, even if no one else reads it. 

    THE INSTITUTE Artificial-intelligence systems are nowhere near advanced enough to replace humans in many tasks involving reasoning, real-world knowledge, and social interaction. They are showing human-level competence in low-level pattern recognition skills, but at the cognitive level they are merely imitating human intelligence, not engaging deeply and creatively, says Michael I. Jordan, a leading researcher in AI and machine learning. Jordan is a professor in the department of electrical engineering and computer science, and the department of statistics, at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Jordan says, "People are getting confused about the meaning of AI in discussions of technology trends—that there is some kind of intelligent thought in computers that is responsible for the progress and which is competing with humans," he says. “We don't have that, but people are talking as if we do" [https://spectrum.ieee.org/stop-calling-everything-ai-machinelearning-pioneer-says].

 

Commentary: AI in discussions of technology trends—that there is some kind of intelligent thought in computers that is responsible for the progress and which is competing with humans," he says. “We don't have that, but people are talking as if we do".

Exactly, why are people talking as if we do? The word here to examine is not necessarily intelligence but progress. People everywhere have fallen for the word progress as if that represents man's existence. Does one have to progress in order to be intelligent? No, however, western man has a tendency to think so. Max Weber, one of my favorite sociologist, wrote that western (Judeo-Christian) man thinks that man has a duty to overcome the world. That kind of thought is in many ways, artificial intelligence in progress. The man who has a tendency to think he moves forward has yet to really learn.

Interesting as that is about western thought, we still observe many people worldwide fascinated with Ai and they are of different beliefs/world views/culture. Perhaps, they are fascinated or even afraid for their humanity in terms of who controls Ai. One should consider that is the real problem, isn't it? Who has the con in terms of progress. 

Should we (the west) like them (everyone else) be fascinated or afraid of who has the con? In context of humanity as we know it, we should. Indeed, there really is a potential threat to humanity. Not just in light of the fact that Ai technology (who controls it) applied not only in weaponry but in all other aspects of our human existence that was and is created through social interaction/learning.

It is a threat to our social reality, our social interaction (face to face relationships) as we observe that happening already via social media. And, a threat to the paramount reality, the world of work, given that jobs of all kinds will be affected in one way or another. 

Ai will and has crossed national borders making more and more people redundant and or  irrelevant or displaced from the place they belong. As time goes on, eventually man will accept Ai as his/her new 'social' reality and meld with Ai and that is certainly a direct threat to all humanity. We could become aliens unto ourselves and to those who came before us as we effectively become 'artificially' intelligent, 'artificially' in progress.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.”…Genesis 1: 26-28.

 

*Let us rule! Don't take the mark of the beast... know who you are and are not ! 

What Makes a Good Human in the Social Imagination?

What's new in Sociology? Well, essentially, there is nothing new under the sun, only a re imagining of everything that ever was, is and will be as far as us humans are concerned.

Indeed, the truth is that people do not change... they think that they do but they don't. All one has to do is read the 'brave new' titles found gracing the top of sociological papers appearing in sociological journals and or bi-monthlies. 

Titles that paint a wild picture of current issues and imagined struggles. Such titles can make you think that the body of the articles will provide brand new insights into human behavior and the so-called struggles people face today. However, they are actually poor abstract and meaningless attempts to say what has already been said by some of Sociology's best thinkers. 

I have always been a classic social theorist. There are a few human socio-psychological types when we consider social dynamics of individuals belonging to one group or another; and those types (one or group) tend to be dependent on place... the existing given environment in the place they find themselves living out their lives. 

Needless to say, those environments though relatively differing in terms of socio-cultural, historical and geographic are not incredibly or hugely different if we were to look objectively. What I mean is this... one can look down from above, get a bird's eye view, and see human beings doing what they do: eat, sleep, defecate and fornicate. Thus, they look like most other men/animals in a way that makes them appear very similar indeed.

But, there is a difference between humans and certainly from 'other' animals. So, what makes humans different from animals? Well, there are a number of things I could list but one attribute that is truly original is the concept of exchange (one thing (s) for something else) or simply described as the mutual agreement of the concept of exchange which entails a recognized, recorded and established value of an exchange with its desired outcomes: accumulation of power, position and wealth. 

That alone makes man unique...how money, a thing of value from earning, investing or taking by force (paper/coin), is made and spent. Max Weber knew this very well and a concept that Karl Marx failed to grasp. One could claim that education and equality (equal access and reward) are what make the playing field fair but one has to figure in how reward is used... how money is spent once someone has either earned it, gained from investment or stolen it. 

What if money (paper/coin) are no longer used but digital points or rewards for good social conduct are appropriated. Well, even if that becomes true/real, it does not negate the reality of how they will be used as in spent... what we spend our accumulated wealth no matter what it looks like, tells a lot about you as an individual and also as a group.

Of course, you can and will observe that people spend a lot of time and certainly money on necessities: food, clothing, and shelter... so what's new?  But, what is a lot? Maybe this is where inflation comes in. Even so, there are differences in choices especially in terms of quality and or value for money spent.

This is indeed an observation that enters into the reality; yet, the irony is that the quality of a thing used in exchange can be or often is subjective... though it can be made to look/appear objective even when it is not by both inside and outside influences. One can and should ask... is it wisdom then that makes a good human a wise 'spender', or is it that a truly good and wise human is just a better spender? 

There are plenty of tales and proverbs in all cultures that talk of such wisdom...the telling of how a man spends what he has available to him whether its money or time required by duty/responsibilities built into daily existence and relationships, or time and money spent on his/her own person in terms of everyday comforts, pleasure, leisure, caring, loving or not... etc.  

What makes a good human in the social imagination? One that makes the most of his time and money for by what other measure is there... Right?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and turn away from evil.… ~ Proverbs 3:5-7.

Neo-Humanism in the Social Imagination... the Future is Bumping Around!

 

I blogged a five years ago about a possible social reality which I called "Bumping Around". Let's recap... 

 

    Is the social imagination morphing into a hopeless bumping around collective mentality?  It seems so... How is that possible? Technology is replacing our livelihood and sense of place. And, moreover, it is changing the meaning of individual lives and families and how we consume.

    Technology is largely controlled by the power elites who through global top down entities and their implemented systems control work; and thus, control the money. What will the social imagination be able to do? It will conform as best it can... people will be bumping around. They will live with no permanent sense of place or partner or family because there is no job that can support a home, a spouse or family.

    To better grasp how this will come to be, we can look to the past. The communism of the past century is the best and nearest example. Everyone was socialized to care... socially engineered to care - to care about the State. The propaganda used was aimed to get everyone on board with the State. 

 

    Once it appeared that everyone was cared about the State, then everything else that matter to them became secondary or discarded. Essentially, people had 'equality' but only to the extent that everyone had little to own, little to do and little to care about... Sure, they appeared to look busy, have a life... but people were just bumping around.

    Again, the first modus operandi is to get people to love or 'care about' the State because it cares about you and then you can love 'care about' others because they love 'care about' the state as much as you.  Once those at the top see that you care about the State (the), they start a propaganda to get you to collaborate with them to remove caring about anything else that might get you to not care about them and that means to watch out for those who might not be so caring about the State.

 

    In the future of the coming global communism, there is already a call for neo-humanism. The new caring mode of being and all controlled by the new 'State' of social media directed from the top down. There won't be the kind of intimacy between people as we know it now (quickly fading) and there won't be concern for gender of any kind. 

    There won't be any skilled labor or specialization either since that will be taken over by elites and their robots. People will be bumping around passing small courier packages, hard copy information like official notices, fines/tickets, medical waste and body parts, food delivery, and also some small human comforts to be exchanged along the way. 

    People will sleep where they end up at the end of the day (no more individual housing), they will share their day with strangers but they won't be strangers really... just people like them doing the same kind of work: bumping around and not caring about it.  There won't be anything to really care about since everyone has been made the same. Evgeny Zamyatin wrote book about this called "WE"!

Given that recap on Bumping Around, you may ask, what is neo-humanism? According to the so-called experts, neo-humanism is supposed to offer an alternative, empowering way toward a sustainable world. Neo-humanism traces the origins of unsustainability in people’s private efforts to address public problems. Ah ha... Bring on the STATE! The neo-humanist solution would be to  deprioritize economic growth in people’s lives – we would live in a post-growth society, in which our ability to enjoy life is decoupled from consumption. Say what???

 

They say that a common misconception of neo-humanism is that, by giving up consumption and the comfort of modern lives, we would doom current generations to live a lifetime of sacrifices for the sake of future generations as research belies this misconception: it shows that consumption contributes to well-being ONLY at early stages of economic development. Beyond a certain threshold, its contribution to additional well-being is negligible. 

 

Now, that sounds like consumption is NOT for the long term well-being of society... guess they forgot that consumption means eating and drinking. And, now, you should wonder are they talking about depopulation... right? Oh, in sum, they say that promoting social relations would decouple well-being from consumption: people could lead satisfactory lives independently from what they consume, thus reducing their negative environmental impact. Not sure what that means... guess it means = Bumping Around!

 

 

Commentary: "Does controlling consumption result in 'bumping around'?

Answer: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

— Henry Kissinger