In the 1950s, people
were more "united" by the limited availability of texts, but the
information provided was not necessarily what every demographic craved. As time
has gone one, more content has become available to the public; This concept of
"edgy" content is merely just one end of the spectrum of this influx of
information that is getting special attention from being...well...edgy. Similar
to how the crime rate has actually decreased over the years in America, but its
representation through the news has increased, "edgy" content does
not necessarily represent the majority of content available nowadays.
Media texts are available in order to inform, educate, and entertain. Cradle of Filth, a black metal band based in England, finds its pleasure in making good music that is intentionally offensive. None of the band members are actually Satanists, but they enjoy the concept of getting a rise out of people who take things too seriously. Cradle of Filth does not work to unite nor divide society as a whole; their music brings people together who like their music, and pushes people away who don't care for them. In a way, yes this is a polarization, but it does not necessarily indicate an active effort to unite or divide.
There seems to be too much focus on trying to preserve this sense of national identity. People talk about Fordism and neo-Fordism's divisions of society as if it were a bad thing. The new media texts available are simply working to pander to more specific demographics. In the 1950s, people had less options and they were less "divided" in terms of what they received, but that is just it. Division in terms of what an individual likes should never be a bad thing; with four magazines available, many people are simply dealing with the best they can get, when now they are able to find texts that best suits their interests. This concept of division does not necessarily imply that people are not as connected to each other, rather they have more options in finding what they like. To polarize between society being either divided or united seems a bit broad. I don't think "edgy" is a bad thing, as it simply panders to the tastes of the people who like "edgy" material. Just like someone who likes Feudal Japan texts or Walrus Dubstep, people are allowed to enjoy what they want.
Media texts are available in order to inform, educate, and entertain. Cradle of Filth, a black metal band based in England, finds its pleasure in making good music that is intentionally offensive. None of the band members are actually Satanists, but they enjoy the concept of getting a rise out of people who take things too seriously. Cradle of Filth does not work to unite nor divide society as a whole; their music brings people together who like their music, and pushes people away who don't care for them. In a way, yes this is a polarization, but it does not necessarily indicate an active effort to unite or divide.
There seems to be too much focus on trying to preserve this sense of national identity. People talk about Fordism and neo-Fordism's divisions of society as if it were a bad thing. The new media texts available are simply working to pander to more specific demographics. In the 1950s, people had less options and they were less "divided" in terms of what they received, but that is just it. Division in terms of what an individual likes should never be a bad thing; with four magazines available, many people are simply dealing with the best they can get, when now they are able to find texts that best suits their interests. This concept of division does not necessarily imply that people are not as connected to each other, rather they have more options in finding what they like. To polarize between society being either divided or united seems a bit broad. I don't think "edgy" is a bad thing, as it simply panders to the tastes of the people who like "edgy" material. Just like someone who likes Feudal Japan texts or Walrus Dubstep, people are allowed to enjoy what they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment