Reflection

This essay by far was the most difficult for me to write. One of the reasons why it was so difficult to write was because I felt that I could not find adequate research material that worked cohesively with my topic sentence. Another reason why this essay seemed hard for me to write is because I dont watch much television as my lack of free time prevents it. As a result, I did not dedicate as much time as I would like to do my television research. I sound like a broken record but I feel that my writing improves with each essay I write. I am able to incorporate different writing styles like the one we just learned. Appositives is a nice transition away from the standard sentence structure and gives an essay a nice characteristic. I am very confident in my introductions and my thesis as I feel that it give a concise description of what I will be writing about.

I learned a lot from this writing assignment. By analyzing sitcoms more closely, I see how the shows downplay our working culture. It amazes me how bashful the content is toward the workplace but interestingly, this is what we want as these shows are the most popular.

Sit-coms or Fictional-coms?

Bored and with nothing else to do, I threw myself onto the couch and instinctively turned on the television. As the flat screen started to warm up, I thought about which show I wanted to watch. How about turning to Headline News and see what is going on around the world? What about flipping the channel to The Hills, a reality TV show on MTV? Or perhaps SpongeBob Square Pants for a few laughs? I think of all the possible shows that are accessible at my fingertips and I instantly hear the voice of my mother running through my head. “Jon, don’t waste your time with the television, you will get nothing from it. TV doesn’t allow you to think or imagine, it does absolutely nothing for you. If you want real entertainment or want to learn something, go read a book.” I shrugged the thoughts of my mother out of my head and turned the television on anyway. “What does she know?” I said to myself, “I just don’t think she has experienced the greatness television offers.” I aimed the remote toward the television and clicked away.

The first thing that grabbed my attention was Ren and Stimpy, a show watched among children that follows the adventures of two dogs. “See, here is a nice show. I bet kids learn fundamental social skills such as sharing. I don’t know what my mom was talking about when she said all of that television rubbish.” As I paused a moment to relive the show that I followed so dearly as an adolescent, I noticed Ren and Stimpy attacking a man to near death. While Ren was holding the man down, Stimpy was kicking and punching with all his might. “Wait, I don’t remember this show ever being this violent.” The characters continued to beat the poor man until they were free to escape. Thinking nothing of it, I continued to flip the channels until I came across a show that sufficed my need for entertainment. I dialed in channel 331 and found myself on MTV. My finger hovered above the channel buttons as I assessed whether this show was worth investing the next hour of my life. The Real World: Las Vegas, a show about ten strangers getting along in the sin city of Las Vegas, was on and I found it pretty entertaining. “Now here is a realistic show that can’t be considered a waste of time. This is a show of ten real, normal people trying to live. This show can teach me what life is like after college.” I placed the remote down and watched. All the characters just got back from an assignment and are recuperating in their penthouse suite before they go out to party. The women are half naked as they put on their dresses for the night. Their bodies are flawless; long legs, small waists and plump breasts. The night progresses and they are all back in the suite. The alcohol is flowing in their bodies and the only thing on their minds is sex. The show then cuts to a camera scene in the bedroom where a couple is about to take it to the end. “Wow, this is like public pornography.” I decided to turn off the TV and get something to eat. About to get up and walk toward the kitchen, I decided to sit back down. I clasped my hands behind my head and pondered over a revelation induced by my mother and English teacher.

My mother was right, there seems to be more bad than good coming from the television screen. When I was a seven years old, I remember watching Ren and Stimpy religiously. I remember laughing, learning, and reenacting everything I saw. But when I look back now, was I really learning to be a malicious, violent animal? How was it that children were able to watch these graphic shows? Even now as a mature twenty one year old adult, I am shocked at the content I see on MTV. I find it scary that the shows that make me cringe and embarrassed are equally accessible to any five year old who knows how to work the remote. Regardless of how old you are, if you can navigate through the channels, you can watch whatever you want. With this being said, adolescents are tuning into material that is not conducive to healthy mental development. As said by author Mark Crotty in his article about the effects of television, “television viewing has been blamed for shortened attention spans, a loss of touch with reality, poor communication skills, a passiveness towards learning, lowered reading scores, et cetera.” Television is not only clogging our brains with material that is inappropriate, it is also portraying the world into a perception of fantasy rather than reality. The show The Real World, a title in which I find ironic, is anything but real. It is not typical to have ten attractive people that are all the same age who party and live together in a city which is considered an ideal vacation destination. After synthesizing my own experiences and the insights given from my English teacher, I have learned that television gives a false portrayal of the world, causing viewers to have perceptions that are unacceptable. For this essay, I studied three popular work-related sitcoms, The Office, Parks and Recreation, and 30 Rock, and have come to the conclusion that these shows portray the workplace in a comedic manner that is inaccurate to the real working environment. More specifically, while I find these sitcoms as acceptable for mass consumption, I do not, however, feel these shows properly define culture in mindful ways.

“The Office is an American satirical mockumentary television series that airs on NBC and is developed by Greg Daniels. An adaptation of the BBC series The Office, the series depicts the everyday lives of office employees in the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch of the fictional Dunder Mifflin Paper Company. To simulate the look of an actual documentary, it is shot in a single-camera setup, without a studio audience or a laugh track. The presence of the camera is openly acknowledged by the characters.” The viewers of this popular show know The Office is a comedic take of the workplace, and as a result, the viewers know not to take the contents of the show too seriously. While I feel this viewers’ knowledge of the show makes it acceptable to watch, it does not excuse the fact that this show does not accurately portray our culture in an appropriate manner.

In the episode Frame Toby, Michael, the boss of the Scranton paper branch, has a continuing feud with coworker Toby, the human resources coordinator. Ever since these two characters were introduced, Michael has held a grudge against Toby due to undisclosed reasons. Toby is a nice, sensitive guy that is very likeable. He comes off as a peacemaker, as his job requires, than an instigator, giving him no reason to be hated upon. In this episode, Michael wants Toby out of the office for good as he cannot stand his presence in the workplace. As the title foreshadows, Michael attempts to frame Toby with an illegal act which will get Toby fired and gone from the office for good. Michael and Dwight, a salesman and “side-kick” of Michael, congregate and think of several scenarios that will get Toby fired. Many ideas develop to frame Toby, one of which is to catch him sexually assaulting another coworker, but the one that sticks with Michael is to frame him possessing illegal drugs. Michael thought this scenario would be very fitting because Toby just got back from a trip to Mexico and Michael immediately associates Mexico with marijuana use. As the show progresses, Michael finds a group of drug dealers and buys a couple ounces of the drug. When he comes back to the office, he discreetly puts the drug in Toby’s table drawer while Dwight calls the police, dropping a tip that someone within the office has illegal possession of marijuana. The cops arrive and forcefully search through Toby’s desk. While Toby is completely unaware of what is going on, he argues for invasion of privacy and demands the police to go away. The tension escalates and the camera focuses in on Michael, who instead of being elated with things going as planned, suddenly feels guilty for his actions. Michael’s conscience overpowers his conscious thoughts and ends up yelling the drugs were his, not Toby’s. When the police finally find the marijuana, they check to see the validity of the drug. After minutes of discussion, the police conclude that the marijuana was in fact left over parsley from someone’s lunch. The police leave the office and everyone continues on with their work. Michael is left with Toby and there is awkward silence between the two. Toby starts to ask why Michael would frame him and Michael runs away before he could finish the question.

This show supports my thesis that while its contents are suitable to watch, as there are no acts of violence or explicit sexual scenes, it does not define our working culture as an accurate portrayal of the real working life. This particular show is the epitome of the whole television series as to why this show does not properly define our culture. First of all, the boss, the one person of all who should be the most responsible and mature, is found to be immature and unfocused. To deal with a social problem he is having with Toby, his solution is to find a way to get him fired. Instead of confronting Toby on the reasons why he is not able to work peacefully with him, Michael resorts to unethical, childish means to resolve his uncomfortable situation. I find this situation in itself very ironic because Michael is trying to solve his work related complication with the one man who is in charge of these very types of problems, the human resources guy, Toby. This show gives its viewers the perception that all bosses are impulsive and irrational, that they care about nothing else other than their own well being. Instead of portraying Michael as a boss who is sincere and understanding, like most real bosses, The Office perceives bosses to the public as unapproachable and difficult, an inaccurate portrayal of the real working place.

Another way The Office downplays the working culture is by this episode’s plot of framing Toby. In real life the boss, the one person who makes sure the company is efficient and productive, needs the human resources adviser to ensure that the working environment is a comfortable place where everyone can do their job at the highest level. As a result, the human resources is one of the most prominent divisions in any workplace. The Office, however, downplays the human resources department as Michael tries to get the very man in control of this sector kicked out. This show gives the public the perception that the human resources division is futile and unneeded in any company. The Office implicitly alters our perception that the human resource man is the bad guy since Michael hates Toby so much, where in truth, the HR person should be considered one of our best friends. The fact of the matter is that human resources are here to help us solve any work related social problems so the actions similar to Michael’s would never happen.

Another work related sitcom that portrays false perceptions is Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation is a series that follows Leslie Knope, a mid-level bureaucrat in the Parks and Recreation Department of Pawnee, Indiana, who hopes to improve her town while advancing her career to reach her personal aspiration of becoming the first female president. Leslie takes on a park project with Ann, a nurse at the local hospital, to turn a construction pit into a park while trying to mentor a bored college-aged intern. While this television series is new and still in its first season, it has established itself as a show that mocks the American government. Once again, I feel this sitcom is acceptable for mass consumption but I do not feel it properly defines the American workplace, or more specifically, the culture of our government.

In the episode The Banquet, Leslie goes to a banquet where her mother, Marlene, is being honored with the life time achievement award called the “Telleson” that recognizes a decades worth of excellent work. This award is considered a prestigious honor and as a result, there will be many other famous and “powerful” authorities present to honor Marlene. Since Leslie is so focused on advancing her career in politics, she finds this a great opportunity to get her name out and be recognized among these influential people. In preparation for this event, Leslie gets her hair done by a man who has worked on other famous politicians. Leslie feels that in order for her to become a famous politician, she should get her hair done as other politicians would. Unfortunately, Leslie was the first woman the barber ever worked on and as a result, Leslie’s haircut looked like that of a man’s. Leslie arrived at the banquet with her friend, Ann, and they both drew immediate attention from the crowd as Leslie’s haircut and Ann’s over-dressed attire made them come off as a gay couple. A man came over to them and whispered they are “very brave for what they are trying to do.” As Leslie arrived at her table, she noticed Geneen, the head member of the zoning board, sitting adjacent to her table. Leslie approached Geneen and asked to talk with her about several topics. Geneen blew her off and asked Leslie to talk with her secretary to make an appointment. Excited, Leslie told her mother but realized that Geneen was blowing her off. Marlene advised Leslie to be more proactive and suggested that she blackmail Geneen to get what she wants. Marlene told Leslie that Geneen’s husband had a DUI last month and that Geneen did not want anyone to know. Knowing this, Leslie approached Geneen one more time and brought up the topic of her husband. Seeing how Geneen reacted, Leslie immediately felt sorry and apologized. In anger, Geneen threw water on Leslie and left the table.

One of the ways Parks and Recreation misleads the public is by the show’s portrayal of the government. The major theme for this episode, which is essentially also the plot, is a means of advancing one’s position up the political latter. Here we see Leslie finding an opportunity from the banquet to associate herself with prominent people. Initially she approaches Geneen in an appropriate manner where Leslie was able to schedule a meeting with her. As Leslie realized this was not good enough and that a month was too long to wait, she resorts to blackmail. This episode shows that doing things in an ethical, proper manner is unnecessary and prolonged. As a result, this scene gives the false impression that in order to get what you want, you need to situate yourself in a position that will give you leverage over the person that can give you power. In fact, Marlene tells Leslie that “the only way to be somebody in politics is through blackmail. In fact, they only give the Telleson award to those who have blackmailed. Telleson was the master of blackmailing.” This perception of blackmailing allows the viewers to assume that similar behavior translates to all governmental interactions. It gives the false impression that since all government agencies blackmail, our government as a whole is corrupt. While there have been some scandals within the realm of politics, Parks and Recreation emphasizes that this style of manipulation happens all the time and the foundation of government is based on blackmail. This, fortunately, is not true and is why Parks and Recreation does not define the government culture in a mindful way.

Another misconception that is illustrated from Parks and Recreation is the perception that government is closed minded and too conservative. This topic was addressed by the scene when Leslie and Ann walked into the banquet room where they were interpreted as a lesbian couple. Immediately, Leslie and Ann were alienated from all the guests with the exception of one man who approached and commended them for their bravery, meaning the “couple’s” audaciousness to openly show they are committed to each other. The fact that Leslie and Ann were in a room full of politicians who were giving them speculative and shunned looks connotes the fact to the viewers that government is opposed to gays and lesbians. To a viewer, this show is representing that all government officials dislike gays and that there is no room for liberals in governmental society. This, however, is not true. The government, which is strikingly representative of the human population, has just as many liberals as conservatives. There is no discrimination against a particular race, sex, or gender orientation as the fundamentals of the constitution protect this right. While I feel the contents of the shows are acceptable, just like the office, the messages presented in Parks and Recreation give the public false conceptions about our working culture.

So, with all of this false information thrown at the viewers, are comedic sitcoms really that funny after all? With false perceptions programmed into our minds, are we getting anything beneficial out of these comedy shows? According to Mark Crotty, “I don’t believe at all that [comedy] reinforces anything bad in society. But again, I don’t see that it has changed anything for the good, either. I would be a horse’s ass if I thought that one little situation comedy would accomplish something the entire Juedeo-Christian ethic hasn’t managed in two thousand years.” While Crotty personally feels that comedy has not done anything good for society, or anything bad, scientific research suggests otherwise. Ron Tamborini, the author of Television Sitcom Exposure and Aggressive Communication: A Priming Perspective, found new and compelling data regarding about the affects of comedic television. In Tamborini’s essay, he states that “Regular exposure to sitcoms, which are known to contain a great deal of verbal aggression, was expected to frequently prime aggression-related constructs, making them more likely to come to mind and to be incorporated into one's communication. No evidence supporting this hypothesis was found. Instead, increased sitcom exposure was associated with lower levels of aggressive communication.” Does this mean watching shows like The Office will give us the ability to counteract the violent tempers induced from shows like Ren and Stimpy? Not necessarily. Tamborini continues to say that “the humorous context of verbally aggressive sitcoms may decrease the aggression-related effects associated with it, while the context of other genres may increase the effects of exposure to verbally aggressive television.” Unfortunately, the content of popular sitcoms do not encourage optimistic perspectives of the working environment we live in. Society will continue to be exposed to false information and gain incorrect impressions about the workplace. It will only take time before we realize the implications our entertainment has over us, hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.













Sources:



“The Office.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series). (6/23/09)





“Expressive Conventions and the Cross-Cultural Perception of Emotion.”

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=105&sid=40a277fd-b7d7-4bbc-af6f-66e70114a199%40sessionmgr102. (6/23/09)





Chory-Assad, Rebecca M.; Tamborini, Ron. North American Journal of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 6 Issue 3, p415-422, 8p

Better Than The Wheel?

The sun is high and two men inch along the nature trail on a hot summer’s day. They are surrounded by trees, bushes, and mountains, leaving no sign of civilization in a forty mile radius. The two men continue to walk in what appears to be the middle of a jungle, perhaps the Amazon. They have no source of protection but a backpack full of food, rope, and other miscellaneous things that would leave them completely defenseless to any animal or predator. Ten minutes ago they saw alligators, heard mountain lions, and almost disturbed a treacherous wasp nest. So far they are lucky, but how far will their luck go? The two men continue to walk until the leading man falls to the ground, clutching his ankle and screaming in pain. He just stepped onto a poisonous snake and the snake retaliated in its most natural way. The other man calmly takes out his cell phone and starts texting. Instead of calling 911 or helping his friend with aid, he continues to text. “What are you doing?” I yell toward the television, “why on earth would you be texting when your friend is screaming in pain?” After a minute of more texting, the man finally looks up and gives the other man step by step instructions to remediate the poisonous snake bite. While I thought the man was being insensitive and oblivious to his friend, he was actually searching the internet with his phone, finding the type of snake that bit his friend, and relaying information for a cure, all in a nonchalant manner! While this episodic scene can only happen in the wilderness, it goes to show the usefulness of technology in any situation. Without the friend’s cell phone, there would be no way for him to get help, let alone, save his friend. I have come to learn that technology not only helps us become more efficient in everyday life, but technology also helps us become more intelligent for all social situations.

Due to today’s advances in technology, information is easily accessible at our fingertips. If I wanted to know how to cook a delicious chicken pot pie, I can just Google for the recipe online. If I wanted to know the proper way to say “hello” in Mandarin Chinese, all I would have to do is log onto the internet and ask away. With the internet, we are able to connect to a worldwide community. We can ask questions and get different answers from people all over the world, giving us an immediate access to intellectual diversity. While we have so much information on the internet, however, some people despise the benefits of this new technology. Author of Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood, John Barlow talks about why he feels the internet is not considered a diversified community. “There is not much human diversity in cyberspace, which is populated, as near as I can tell, by white males under 50 with plenty of computer terminal time, great typing skills, high math SATs, strongly held opinions on just about everything, and an excruciating face-to-face shyness, especially with the opposite sex” (pg. 346). According to Barlow, we are communicating with the same group of people, therefore, not allowing us to interact with a real community. I feel Barlow jumped to conclusions with this statement. The cyberspace the internet provides is more diverse than ever with computers so affordable that almost everyone has one in their household. Even if they don’t, they can access the internet free at a local library. With so many people from all over the world connected, we are interacting with a diverse community. For example, there was one time where I was assigned an essay addressing an ethical business situation. While I had a perfect argument for my essay, I wanted to check if other people agreed with me. As a result, I posted my essay in a forum where people all over the world had access to my position on the topic. Immediately, I was contacted by someone in Japan that had a counterargument that never crossed my mind. While my ethical solution focused solely for people within the United States, it did not seem to work with the people in Japan. This is because I did not take into account the cultural differences of both countries. Because of the internet, I was able to see an issue from more than one point of view. Because of the technology that gave us the internet, I was able to connect with a diverse community that gave me intellectual insight to help me find a way to develop a perfect solution in an imperfect world. Just as Barlow stated himself, “diversity is as essential to healthy community as it is to healthy ecosystems” (pg. 346). I guess no community will ever be healthier than that found on the web. As the technology helps us connect with others, it also helps us connect with ourselves.

While we are able to learn more about each other through the web, the technology of the internet also enables us to learn more about who we are. To know what we like and dislike, we have to experiment. No one can explain the sensation of eating a black pepper. No matter how good the explanation is, the only proper way to know what eating a black pepper is like is to actually eat it. We learn through experience and the internet is our window of opportunity. However, some people might consider experimenting through the internet as a disorder. The author of Culture Jam, Kalle Lasn has come up with the term MUDs, or Multiple-User Domains, to classify the people Lasn feels should be diagnosed with a psychological dissociative disorder. On page 44, Lasn talks about a man who suffers from MUD. “In each MUD he is a different person: a teenage girl, a history professor, a dog, an Arthurian knight, a cyborg and William S. Burroughs. In none of them is he actually himself. Yet each persona has come to feel as real to him as his “real” self.” While Lasn feels that this man might have a disorder that developed through the internet, I feel this man is learning about himself through this new technology. It might not be realistic to become a dog, of course, but through this man’s fantasizing of a dog, he learns about his real self using the internet as a tool for self discovery. Rebecca Blood, the author of Weblogs: A History and Perspective, agrees that the internet is a means of learning about oneself. “First, I discovered my own interests. I thought I knew what I was interested in, but after linking stories for a few months I could see that I was much more interested in science, archaeology, and issues of injustice than I had realized. More importantly, I began to value more highly my own point of view. In composing my link text every day I carefully considered my own opinions and idea, and I began to feel that my perspective was unique and important” (pg 403). Not only has the internet helped Rebecca find her true calling, but the internet helped her hone personal skills. She became more confident in herself and her abilities. Rebecca continues to support the claim that the internet is a means of self discovery through her experience with a blogger. Through the community the internet provides, the blogger was “met with friendly voices, he may gain more confidence in his view of the world; he may begin to experiment with longer forms of writing, to play with haiku, or to begin a creative project—one that he would have dismissed as being inconsequential or doubted he could complete only a few months before” (pg. 404). While the internet can help us find out who we are, it can also help us with personal problems.

While the internet has the ability to bring us information we desire, the internet can also give us a “family of information” to help us prepare for the unexpected. Being in a family is a learning experience. We learn from each other and teach one another, the unique interaction that makes siblings so great. What if we extend our immediate family to more than just blood relatives? According to Kalle Lasn, the author already has a colleague that accomplished this through the internet. “Her mild curiosity about this new world grew into a full-fledged addiction. Day and night she jumped in and out of conversations with strangers on one topic or another. These strangers, who may or may not use their real names or genders, who may or may not tell the truth, came to seem almost like friends. She knew some of them as if they were family” (pg. 43). Lasn considers her friend’s relationship with others on the internet as unauthentic. The same mindset is true with Barlow as he states “prana” is missing from the internet. “Prana being the Hindu term for both breath and spirit” (pg. 346). However, both of these authors might not realize how the internet community can act as a family. In Barlow’s article, he continues by elaborating on a tragic experience he had with a loved one that eventually counter-argues his assertion. His lover died unexpectedly and he had no one else to go to but the internet. In a forum, he wrote a eulogy for his loved one and was immediately found with global support. “Over the nest several months I received almost a megabyte of electronic mail from all over the planet…They told me of their own tragedies and what they had done to survive them. As humans have since words were first uttered, we shared the second most common human experience, death…Those strangers, who had no arms to put around my shoulders, no eyes to weep with mine, nevertheless saw me through. As neighbors do” (pg. 349). Here Barlow shows that the internet can be a place of community, a “family” where one can go for support. This family was able to give Barlow the information he needed to cope and move on. Through other “relatives’” advice in the internet community, he was able to learn from their experiences to help him overcome his own.

Technology has made everyday obligations into easy tasks. It has made information easily accessible, learning about ourselves effortless and fun, and even gives a helping hand in times of need. Technology is breaking down the brick walls and bringing everyone together. Who needs family reunions when we can see family members through a computer screen the in comforts of our own homes. The vacation spot that is thousand of miles away is now only a click away. While technology improves every hour of every day, I can only image what we are capable of in the years to come.

Personal Response

This topic seemed very troubling to me. The essay prompt asks to synthesize my ideas about technology and the authors' in relation to culture. The author's essay's, however, do not address the topic of technology with culture. Instead, they just talked about technology and its effects in their lives. I am afraid I was not able to answer the essay prompt because of this. All I did was address the importance of technology in today's society and try and incorporate the authors' ideas.

For my in class essay, I honestly don't know how I did. I felt rushed and it was very hard for me to get a good jumping point because I did not fully understand the topic. I tried working my best to make a clear thesis with supporting paragraphs. I also worked on I^3 with quotations.

Personal Response

Without a doubt, after reading the modules and following the class exercises, I have so much more confidence that my introductions bring the readers in and clearly describes what the essay will be about. I am also a lot more confident in my body paragraphs. Following the DSS and PIE, my body paragraphs not only prove my point, but also in a manner with back up facts. Every writing assignment, I am become more efficient with my writing as I only include the important sentences.

I also learned a lot about advertisement. While I initially thought Hennessy's advertisement was just showing various pictures with handsome models, there are actually underlying messages in all pictures. Advertisements approach the work in a meticulous and insidious manner to attract more consumers without the consumers even realizing it.

The Thirst Quencher

Walking through the library, I scanned the shelves full of magazines. I had an hour until my next class so I thought it would be a good time to catch up on leisure reading. I picked up an issue of GQ and flipped its pages. I saw pictures of men posing for different styles of clothing, an exclusive article with famous talk show host Jay Leno, and an ad for cologne that had a paragraph description on why it will change your life. Nothing seemed worth my attention so I decided to move on to the next magazine. As I returned the issue back onto the shelf, I had a quick glance of the back cover. I saw a series of three pictures that seemed to capture a party. A sense of curiosity filled inside me as I built up unanswered questions. There was no description of the product or even a sentence. All I saw was the word Hennessy and I was hooked. “Over the past century, the American marketplace has grown increasingly congested as more and more products have entered into the frenzied competition after the public’s dollars” (pg. 74). With so much money invested towards advertising, marketers have perfected the understanding of the American psyche and “have discovered the softest points of entrée, the places where their messages have the greatest likelihood of getting by consumers’ defenses.” Without a doubt, Hennessy’s mysterious ad attracted me. It might have been the simplicity of the description, or even, the lack of it. In this advertisement, I learned that Hennessy assimilated to the cliché “less is more.” With less clutter and less words, Hennessy not only targets itself to men as an exquisite alcoholic beverage, but a product that can ensure all emotional needs of men.

Through the use of emotional appeals, Hennessy’s advertisement connects with the male consumers by depicting itself as a product that can provide the needs of all men; the need for prominence. By creating a particular environment, Hennessy’s ad not only portrays how the product can ensure prestige, but also a way to attain high social class. Hennessy carefully handpicks its models to illustrate this sense of eminence. In the ad, all four males are wearing formal attire, something that someone would wear to a business meeting. There are vests, neckties, and jackets with visible handkerchiefs in the front pockets. Hennessy attains a high class vibe by associating itself with first class accessories, such as formal clothes. In this ad, Hennessy also utilizes a lavished living room to emphasize prestige. Jib Fowles knew exactly what Hennessy was trying to achieve as he explained in his Advertising’s Fifteen Basic Appeals. “Many ads picture the trappings of high position…a book-lined study in the setting for Dewar’s 12, and Lenox China is displayed in a dining room chock full of antiques.” Hennessy follows suit as the four men hold their glasses of cognac while sitting on plush, leather seats. Of course, this immaculate scene would not be complete without a dust-free glass table placed in front of the men with an antique, Roman numeral clock in the background. While the environment Hennessy creates is important in its attempt to establish affluence, the literal, immediate setting of the Hennessy glass is equally important. The ad situates the bottle of Hennessy by complementing itself with exquisite hor’dourves. We don’t see popcorn or pretzels, but rather, luscious olives and nuts. These are the same snacks associated with first class drinks such as wines. This advertisement shows that Hennessy not only enables the power to bring about prestige, but the drink itself is a world class beverage that needs to be situated the same way other world class drinks are consumed. Hennessy shows that when you drink its product, you are not just consuming cognac, but you are drinking a wealthy lifestyle.

Another way Hennessy appeals to male consumers is by providing a way for men to escape. Every now and then, males need to take a break from social obligations and “depart his everyday life for a more carefree experience, preferably with the product in hand” (pg. 85). To portray itself as a product that ensures freedom, Hennessy carefully uses its male models to compose a scene that illustrates a sense of escape. Sometimes, freedom for men is a place where they are able to be themselves, a place where there are no women. Hennessy captures this nuance by using four males in its advertisement instead of the concoction of both males and females. By creating a scene with only men, there is an immediate sense of comfort. There is no sexual tension, no obligation to impress women, just relaxation among the men. This feeling of relaxation is immediately apparent through the facial expressions and body language of the models. The first picture frame shows the men smiling and conversing, a snapshot of the men rejuvenating themselves from prior obligations. To reiterate the fact that Hennessy is a means of escape, particularly from women, the ad uses a lot of masculine colors. Since women are usually associated with bright colors, Hennessy wanted to make sure their product leaves a lasting male impression. All the colors used in the three frames of the advertisement are various shades of black, brown, and grey. The use of these darker colors accentuates masculinity and diverges from any hint of feministic characteristics; or in other words, an escape from women. Hennessy also sells itself as a beverage that ensures freedom for men by choosing a living room as the setting for its advertisement. For men, a living room acts as a safe heaven to fulfill their interests. Whether it is to hang out, play cards, or watch a game, the living room finds itself as the appropriate venue. In the entire ad, the men are only situated in the living room, emphasizing the sense of refuge among men. In fact, the décor of the living room once again emphasizes the theme of escape from women. Not only is the living room full of masculine colors, but in the background hangs two pictures of boxers, very masculine pieces of furniture. Masculinity and freedom continues to be a theme of Hennessy as the second picture shows the men consumed in boxing, their facial expressions focused on the game with even one man posing in the stance of a boxer. In the end, Hennessy ensures that when you drink its product, the only thing that matters is you and nothing else.

Hennessy also attracts the male demographic through emotional appeal by utilizing men’s need for affiliation. Humans are born as social animals, we need others to help us better understand ourselves and our surroundings. More specifically, we need each other because relationships are inherently who we are. “According to Henry Murray, the need for affiliation consists of desires ‘to draw near and enjoyably cooperate or reciprocate with another; to please and win affection of another; to adhere and remain loyal to a friend’” (pg. 79). With this ad, Hennessy has tapped into men’s subconscious need for friendship as it connotes the drink’s ability to spawn social festivities while being versatile in different social situations. In the first picture frame, we are introduced with a social setting in which all four men are conversing happily. One man is laughing, two are “acting out a scene”, and the fourth is enjoying the moment. Hennessy is capturing the camaraderie among a fun group of guys, an epitomic desire for a male consumer. Nothing is better than hanging out with your closest friends while discussing your favorite interests. Of course, this scene would never happen without the glass of Hennessy in everyone’s hand. The juxtaposition of the drink in the hand is the advertisement’s insidious technique to underscore the social effects of Hennessy and its guarantee to do the same for the consumer. Another way Hennessy implicitly distinguishes itself as product that provides affiliation is by the articulation of the pictures. Interestingly, if we look closely at the first frame, the only object in clear focus is the glowing drink. Similar to the actual composition of this picture, the atmosphere of any social gathering may become a bit “out of focus”. Hennessy is trying to show that while a party may be fun or reckless, we can “clearly see” what started it all. What ever way the party develops, Hennessy should be the distinctive factor in the burgeoning fun. In the second picture frame, Hennessy not only fulfills the men’s need for affiliation, but also shows the drink’s versatility within social situations. In this picture, all four men are presenting various facial expressions to illustrate different social moods. While one pair of men attentively watches television, the other pair converses over a serious subject. In this one picture, we see two different social situations, four unique facial expressions, but all men consuming one special drink that brings them together: Hennessy.

Just like the product Hennessy is trying to sell, its advertisement is versatile. Hennessy’s advertisement appeals to men because it not only ensures a product that can provide in multiple facets, but the ad itself is unique. It is like a picture book where you follow a story and see its development. There is no descriptive paragraph to read, only pictures. The advertisement is easy, simple, and comprehendible. Sometimes less is more and don’t let this advertisement’s lack of description fool you. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. In Hennessy’s ad, they have three pictures.

The Speeding Bullet

What exactly is a subculture? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a subculture is defined as “a culture subgroup differentiated by status, ethnic background, residence, religion, or other factors that functionally unify the group and act collectively on each member.” In a more simplified form, a subculture is essentially a culture within a larger culture. Thanks to the ubiquitous mass media, I was able to watch a movie called The Fast and The Furious which has given me insight into one of the most prevalent subcultures in today’s society. Everyday I see cars “racing” down the streets and wonder if these fast drivers have an ulterior motive behind that heavy foot. I have come to learn that the expression “petal to the metal” actually sums up a lifestyle that is followed religiously by certain groups of people. The past couple of weeks, I had the opportunity to study the life of street racing and learned what unifies and brings this group of street racers together. More specifically, the essence of street racing can be characterized by, and often associated with, the popular artifact of a gun; they both share a sense of euphoria, the empowerment over the law, and dire ramifications.

The tires screech and the smell of burning rubber is in the air. The cars pick up speed and before you know it, they disappear into the horizon, leaving nothing but a veneer of dust to settle onto the ground. So, what are street racers racing for? "I race because it's a rush. I don't do drugs or any of that garbage, so racing is my high for that moment," says Zakk, 19. "It's a rush running from the cops." Street racers continue to race in their attempt to experience a state of euphoria. They race because their “high” can be achieved only by the pumping adrenaline that is produced by traveling at blurring speeds. For street racers, it’s not only about driving fast, it’s about the ability to move at speeds not humanly possible and this is what continues to keep this subculture together. I have learned the emotional release from street racing is also found in the popular artifact of guns. Just like street racers, gun owners also reach a state of nirvana from their little machines. Instead of being able to go hundreds of miles per hour in a few seconds, guns give their owners the ability to hold something powerful in their hands. I asked my best friend Jared, an enthusiastic gun collector and hunter, why guns are so popular. “You know, it’s something you can’t really put into words. Shooting a gun is an experience. It is so scary and loud that it’s fun. You get goosebumps, you shake, and you laugh. The sensation you get after shooting a gun is what makes you want to do it again.” While both street racing and guns shed a feeling of exhilaration through entertainment, they also disperse a sense of empowerment.

Street racers are a cohesive group of individuals that not only seek the thrill of attaining high speeds, but also individuals that want to achieve recognition amongst their peers. Street racers spend thousands of dollars investing into their “baby” so they can beat their opponent and be crowned the top dog. While finishing ahead of another person not only gives the winner bragging rights, it also gives them a sense of empowerment. All street racers share the enjoyment of playing “God”; to be able to create something that will give them super powers such as super speed. All of these improvements, however, come at a cost. ‘"The sky is the limit as to how much we spend on our cars," says Zakk. "I've probably spent about $4,000 worth of mods into my car. At $17,000, I've invested about 20% of the original cost back into the car. However, it is not uncommon to see kids dropping $10-30,000 on high performance motors, suspension, and styling enhancements."’ With all of these new modifications, street racers feel as though these improvements were not only made on their cars, but on themselves as well. As a result, drivers feel immortal and unaffected by any obstacle in their way, including the law. Street racers assume their cars can get them out of trouble with the police, but unfortunately, many face the harsh reality of breaking the law. Ironically, guns seem to have the same effect. Just like the cars, guns give the owners a sense of control on everything around them. Jared could not have put it more clearly. “The reason why I have such a fascination with guns is the sense of power it gives you. When I hold a gun in my hand, I feel fearless. I feel that nothing can hurt me and sometimes, I feel above the law.” Street racers have become a subculture known for its intrepid identity; however, sometimes this empowerment can impair judgment and lead to ominous consequences.

Street races are a source of entertainment and excitement for all those who are involved. Ranging from ages seventeen to twenty-five, participants and spectators get a thrill because they are part of something illegal, informal, and dangerous. This builds a sense of community among street racers and unfortunately, it is a community where innocent people are susceptible to death, but a risk all are willing to take. Street racers are not professional drivers and have never been formally trained to maneuver a car at such high speeds. There is no chance for them to practice which, unfortunately, gives drivers the only option of “on the job training.” Due to a lack of experience, the driver’s vehicle that took them from point A to point B is now a one hundred mile per hour weapon. In order to gain advantage against other racers, some street racers have modified their vehicles beyond the manufacturers’ standards and engineering specs. As a result, a racer can potentially blow an engine and lead his or her car hurtling out of control into a crowd. A gun is just like a car in a street race because of the different ways it can be used. While a gun is a tool to hunt for food, like a car that takes a person safely from one place to another, it can also act as a weapon that kills, just like a speeding car out of control. The use of a car and a gun can be a blessing, making tasks in every day life more efficient and effective. A car and a gun, if used improperly, can also cause fatal consequences: death.

Ever since the beginning of the muscle car era, the subculture of street racing has become ever more popular. Maybe it is because this culture offers so much to a driver: a euphoric sensation, power, popularity. Maybe because as a street racer, it doesn’t matter what color you are or how much athletic ability you have. I have come to learn that what makes street racing so great is its ability to accept every type of demographic. Street racing creates a level playing field so anyone with enough grit can win.