I was really pleased with your participation in today's class. It's always so nice when a guest lecturer has a grand time with students! And, of course, from your end, it demonstrates your hospitality, which we have alluded to as the most important virtue in the media.
Some points for discussion to prepare you for Thursday's seminar:
1) How do we differentiate positivism and critical theory? What are their different tenets? How do they understand reality? Or specifically: cultures, identities, individuals?
2) Try to apply both frameworks in studying the same media phenomenon. For example, what are the differences in questions and methods that the two perspectives have when studying children's use of home computers? (You may use other cases)
3) What is reflexivity? And what is its contribution to media and communications research?
See you all on Thursday! Prepare for (a lively!) discussion of ideas covered in Lectures 1, 2, and 3!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
1) How do we differentiate positivism and critical theory? What are their different tenets? How do they understand reality? Or specifically: cultures, identities, individuals?
Positivism is more for exploring. It's all been predetermined and we just have to find it. It's sort of that energy law: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only difference is this one is about information. It believes that all info is already there and we just find it. We don't make the info. We discover it, tabulate it, use crappy math on it...
It's the scientific method and all that crud. I can almost see it like shampooing: lather, rinse, repeat. Positivism is: observe, experiment, replicate. Dull, much?
It understands all those wonderful people, cultures, and identities and puts them under general headings. Again, I must mention the Borg. We are but drones, slaves to the hive mind, tools of the Queen. We are one. Comforting, right? Not! Unity is good in moderation but it's even better to be your own person and to be recognized as such.
Yeesh, based on positivism, I'm just college student number blah-blah, a statistic for their findings. Uh uh! I think not! I'm no number! I have an identity. I am, despite things my sister says to the contrary, a person. :)
Now for critical theory...well, this is the fun stuff , isn't it? Power to the people and all that. Let's find oppression and kill it! Yeah! It's very different from positivism because we're seen as people, not numbers. We aren't guinea pigs upon which the scientific processes are imposed. Nope...we're asked our opinions. We have opinions!
In critical theory, information is created by us, by society. We affect what we're living in. No more of that replication gobbledygook. It's understood that every moment is unique.
All right, I hope I got that right...
2) Try to apply both frameworks in studying the same media phenomenon. For example, what are the differences in questions and methods that the two perspectives have when studying children's use of home computers? (You may use other cases)
Ok, I'll take "How Students Perform on Math Tests Based on Whether They Were Listening to Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' or 'We Are The Champions' or nothing while Studying for the Aforementioned." Humor me, I like to be specific.
Anyway, the positivist would do statistic crap, graphs. One graph for Bohemian, one for Champions, and one for those who listened to nothing. He'd see his results, try to replicate them until he saw a pattern. Once he sees a pattern, he reports and dances to We Are The Champions. (Ok, dancing is optional. Whatever. Positivists are dull. They need to dance.)
The critical thinker would take tons of factors into consideration. Maybe the student you forced to listen to Champions hates that song because it reminds him of the time his girlfriend dumped him for an athlete. Maybe Bohemian helps one student because it makes him feel free (Let him go! Let him go!) You take all that extra stuff into consideration. You see the test subjects as individuals.
Does my example make sense? By the way notice the allegory. Champions = positivists since they currently rule the academe. Bohemian = critical because they're undermine for radical thinking. Yeah, I try to be clever and fail. :)
3) What is reflexivity? And what is its contribution to media and communications research?
(consults the holy atrocity that is Wikipedia) Wikipedia tells me it's circular relationships between cause and effect. Hm...like a dog chasing its tail? Bidirectional so that both become causes and effects. Ok, I'm really iffy on this. Is this like a temporal paradox? Where effect precedes cause? All right, I'd rather not touch this because I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Enlighten me?
Okay. So I'm answering this based on how I perceive things. Sooo, I don't know if they would sense or something, unless Robyn hits me again. *wink*
1) For me, I put it my understanding this way: positivism is to the absolute right::critical theory is to personal experience.
What's more important in our society today is how we adapt top change - how we integrate our personal experiences daily to how we see things around us. Sure, 9.8 m/s/s governs the law of gravity. Whenever we perform an egg drop experiment, we always get a velocity of 9.8 m/s/s from where we drop those "cute little eggs with parachutes attached to the." But how do we use in our lives? Right? Simple. Do not jump from the top of a tower. THINK! Why? Because if you do, you're going to fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, and what the implication? You'll die! I hope that makes sense.
It's like taking an exam. You memorize all those historical dates, figures and personalities. But what will you with them after taking the exam? Unless we bash them for what they did or we think "ahhh, this guy made sense because he paved the way for communication lines to be possible from both ends of the world," we will be able to use these knowledge, these absolute truths to the realities of daily living.
In life we should think critically. We question stuff. We don't join int he crowd and simply believe things people make us believe. We should think. We should critic why they do this before hopping on the wagon.
Culturally speaking, Filipinos in general, when they see good things, they never question it. Never! That's our nature eh. We are really good people. But then, the modern Filipino is inquisitive. He never stops asking questions, even if what he's questioning is for the good of all. The modern Filipino may be critical! I mean "may be."
2) Let's try this. When a wife tells her husband on the night after their wedding, "Cupcake, let's fondle. Let's make this night memorable!!"
In positivism, we know that having sex is for reproduction - to make cute little babies that are noisy when they cry.
In critical theory, we ask the question, "Why do we need to have sex?" Right? I mean it can be for love purposes, or just to make things a li'l hotter cause it's cold outside, or just because it's cute to engage in one. Here also comes in the question on STDs and all those rituals and stuff. (Okay, that didn't make sense, right?)
But here's the point: In positivism, we ask the classical questions who, what, when, where. In critical theory, we pose the question why and what are the implications of doing such?
3) I choose not to answer #3 yet.
I hope I made sense. Because if I didn't, probably I'm saying something known and understandable only in my own world. So hit me!
"It's the scientific method and all that crud. I can almost see it like shampooing: lather, rinse, repeat. Positivism is: observe, experiment, replicate. Dull, much?"
I like your graphic representation of this!
And it's true. It's so boring (like me *grin*). It's repetitive.
It's the static stuff we see around. And see my point, it's an absolutist point of view. What I see is right. What I know is correct. My facts are absolute. Because I followed the scientific method. *does the Dr. Aguas face and thumbs up thing*
EJ: Hit you? When did I hit you? @_@ Hit on you, maybe. *also winks* Joke!
Ok, back to deep discussion!
I can take apply the framework to your example, too. First, that opening line. Yeah, you aren't going to score with certain women using that, while some will think it's a turn-on. Now, why is that? The positivist will probably try to graph it. Use it on women and see how many times he gets slapped as opposed to how many times he scores. The critical theorist would take the woman into consideration. Does she have a sense of humor? Is she conservative? Can she snap my spine in half if I make an inappropriate advance?
Your sex analogy seems spot-on despite differing from mine. Excellent relation of the kinds of questions one asks to what kind of framework one ends up using. I've been more preoccupied with the involvement of math. Positivism involves math hence it is evil. Math oppresses me. *shrugs*
And I'm glad my shampooing analogy was striking enough to catch your attention. Dear, you're not boring or repetitive. You're an individual, not a statistic. You certainly can't be summed up in shampoo instructions. I don't think anyone can be.
Ah yes, the annoying absolutist POV. Yeesh, nothing is absolute. You can't sum things up in numbers and facts. If we could, that would be recall sad because I doubt I'd understand anything. It would also suck out all the joy in the world. Imagine if happiness could be tabulated? Ew...
xD Dr. Aguas...OMG! *plays Kim Possible ring tone* Saving the world one theology class at a time. :P
Whoops, typos. I meant "really sad." Not "recall sad..." @_@
Diba? What's the use of 9.8 m/s/s if you won't apply it naman? That's fucked up.
I mean drop an egg, and record 9.8 m/s/s and drop another egg that is colored red, and record 9.79 m/s/s.
It changed, but it's still 9,8 m/s/s if you approximate it.
And yeah, regarding the honeymoon. You actually think critically if you ask yourself and your wife if you want to have a reproductive sex or not. When you just want to have it for fun, you'll think of using condoms. But if you want to have it for the sake of love and intimacy, sure, you'll think of not using one. So there.
Actually, yeah, when you say "Cupcake, let's fondle. Let's make this night memorable," you'll get two different results.
In the positivist, maybe the couple will follow a handbook - let's say the kama sutra - on how to have good sex. Right? I mean, there is a step by step process on how to achieve orgasm.
But the critical theorist will explore other ideas not listed down in the kama sutra. Right? Right!
Well I hope this thread doesn't become censored. It's not the graphic representation which is important. But you see the idea I'm pointing at?
Yes? Yes!
EJ: But 9.8 m/s/s is constantly applied, isn't it? You don't necessarily need an egg. It's what keep us from being bouncing off the planet, the gravity that keeps us stuck to the ground. I'm not sure. I got 28/70 on my high school Physics final, so who am I to speak? Science confuses me. @_@
Ah, I see. Yes, there is the reproduction choice. And the positivist looks at it as checkboxes. They copulated with the intent to procreate or they copulated with leisure in mind. It's just one or the other. Concrete. The critical theorist would take emotion into consideration, something that can't be quantified.
And yes, the lame pick-up line leads to, essentially, two results. Those results branch out though. What is the manner in which one was accepted? Rejected? The "how," as you mentioned earlier, is what makes it critical.
I'm not too sure about the Kama Sutra bit. Perhaps it is applicable in that manner. Then again, one could see the Kama Sutra as radical, against the standards of certain conservatives. In that case, using the book would be the critical path since one is exploring a culture aside from one's own.
Well, "censorship" is positivist, isn't it? We'd see that aspect of the theory in action if that occurred. xD Besides, "colorful" analogies shouldn't be frowned upon. In this world, we're having less and less taboos. For heaven's sake, a hundred years ago, I doubt people talked about the reproductive process. Now, it's just fodder for everyday talk. That's critical theory in action for you. Women used to be kept in the dark about this sort of thing, and now they're not. Besides, I believe we discussed this sensibly, and like adult. There was no underlying malice or lasciviousness.
And yes, the idea is clear. ;)
Why yes. The Kama Sutra is actually a critical theory method. Hmm. I stand corrected. Because you go out of your normal ordinary routine sex method.
Hmmm. And what we're doing right now is Critically theorizing. Right? We critique each other's ideas.
What a very productive discussion this is!
WOAH EJ AND ROBYN'S AT IT AGAIN :)) I liked the battle of the positivist's mind and the critical thinking mind this morning in class.
1) Honestly, at first, I associated Positivism with optimism because of the word "positive". But then during the discussion, I realized that it is one heck of a Brothers Grimm fantasy. Yeah, it may be optimistic in the sense that it tells us how things are in place and are waiting to be discovered and all that pirate adventure shiz. But it does not work that way in real life.
Hmm... It's like fairytales and reality TV shows, fairytale being the positivist view. In fairytales, the princesses/damsels-in-distress are always always looking for their destined prince. This shows how they(princesses/storytellers) think that the world has stuff in store for them. And in each fairytale, the events repeat or replicate each other despite some minor differences (like the 9.8m/s and 9.79m/s thing): Girl is the kind, oh-so-lovely character who gets bashed and abused by evil social climbers and then saved by some dashing prince and they live happily ever after. No matter how evil the other girls are and no matter how the prince saves D-I-D, it still follows the same flow of events... AND IT JUST DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT IN THE 21ST CENTURY ANYMORE! (I'm not angry, just stressing the point. ^-^)
So the critical thinking view is the reality show because it shows how complex human interaction is. Take PBB, for example. In each episode we see different factors of society come into play. It also promotes uniqueness and being comfortable in one's own skin. It acknowledges the differences that exist among people, countries, cultures. And it gives much power and freedom of opinion to the audiences through the voting system of elimination.
So as critical thinkers that we should be, I think we should go face the reality and stop clinging on to fairytales. Not only do we tend to become ditzy damsels-in-distress, sometimes we blind ouselves and turn into Evil Stepmothers without us noticing it.
I hope that made sense hahahaha :))
Um, this is something I scribbled in my notebook this morning and I just want to share it :) :
So, a positivist's mind does not work properly (delusional tsk2) because it assumes things that are not really definite and then attempts to apply it to the complex, most-of-the-time unpredictable human nature and behavior. They blind themselves with delusions of objectivity even when they are actually just imposing something they believe in.
In other words, a positivist mind is twisted like a neat french braid of a lady from the Rococo Period.
OMG I hope I am not babbling! @.@ Hahaha
EJ: Yep. Although it may be positivist to some people in India. There are some temples where those pictures are carved into the very walls. Some people may think that's the ONLY way to have sex. In that case, it wouldn't be critical at all so you were partially correct. It all depends on what views as normal. Stepping out of one's bounds and battling oppression is being critical. Staying in the box...that's positivist.
I guess we are being critical of each other's thoughts. Not sure if it fights oppression though. I think our discussion is more sociocultural with you and I, as parts of society, influencing each other. Not sure. :p
Chyna: At what again? @_@
Lol, I have to agree with you on the fairy tales bit. Filipino literature, while a bit more colorful, also suffers from using story templates. I did a paper on fruit legends and majority of them involved body parts getting chopped off and turning into fruits and fruit trees. There's also the trend of vanity, selfishness, and disobedience being heavily punished. And of course...place names coming from a death and a clever pun. Marikina came about from a girl who was so vain that she fell in the water from being so engrossed in her reflection. She didn't listen when she was told she was "marikit na" and had to stop admiring herself. Pasig is the death cry of the Spanish lover of a girl named Paz. He fell into the river and yelled "Paz sigueme!" but she was too scared to save him. I know this is wrong since we can all already tell that the river's name comes from "dalampasigan." It was probably a story of Spanish invention. Anyway, excellent point, Chyna. Always fun to delve into literature. :)
(Claire Bear here. OMG. Robyn and EJ are really like talk show hosts.)
Debunking positivism
Positivism articulates that there’s no subjectivity, but saying that only objectivity is considered significant disregards the fact that we’re human beings. And, as humans, we should be known for our critical minds because our ability to think is what sets us apart from other species. In short, positivism is implying that people have no point of view, that they should only follow a set of standards. (In Leloy’s lecture, he stressed that there’s no “I” in an academic paper, or any other formal text. I agree with the points he made because, for me, “I” denies the existence of a mind. Who is the writer? A GHOST??? LOL. That was really funny.)
Positivists also say that existence is out there, and that it is detached from you, imply that the only thing necessary is exploration and discovery. You can’t actually change anything because of the positivist’s stance of “predetermined fate” for knowledge is said to be already laid out before you and, once you discover a particular existence, you have to do some sort of verification on it. If perhaps, you’re using the scientific method, the result must be similar to your following experiments. The data accumulated must be replicable.
I also believe that entropy(disorder) is inevitable. If someone’s conducting a causal experiment, there’s obviously an effect, but it is not limited to one because of the endless possibilities. The norms aren’t always norms, because they are prone to uniqueness. (Clearly, I am not a supporter of positivism.)
Cultures
Individualism and social standards exist. Both are important, but these two should be viewed equally. If individuals embrace uniqueness, generalities, on the other hand, categorize attitudes, race and the like, but the how they were measured involved are questionable. It’s like the misconceptions about COM majors around the world. Some people look down on us. Some people think we’re stupid in math. These generalities, obviously lacking in rational thinking, is the new racism. But there’re also positive feedbacks when it comes to the culture of a country. For example, Philippines is known for its hospitality. This reflects Filipinos in their best trademark.
CHYNA’s PBB example (I also like her fairytales example. :D It’s so interesting and fun to read!)
Unpredictability exists. (I’m not an avid fan of PBB, but there is a situation that I would love to mention. This is all based on glimpses I saw of the show.) The guardians of the housemates had arguments. For me, I considered them to be the mature ones, but I guess that’s not the case. I found their fights (Anna? And.. the spanish guy) and the way they gossiped about them really humorous compared to the teens. I mean, who would have expected that? They even hardly knew each other. Hahaha. (That’s all. LABO. Hahaha)
Chyna’s point about individuality(uniqueness): I agree that the housemates were picked because of their varying personalities. Difference is the spice of life!
Conclusion(THEO class)
How people should think shouldn’t be taught, it may be guided and influenced, but, definitely not taught. In the future, as one accumulates wisdom, one will begin to question. Just like in the discussions of Ray Aguas, spoon fed knowledge isn’t what a critical mind yearns for. How revelation is interpreted, for example, is. Its validity is based on the person. He/She would choose whether to believe it or not, whether revelation will be considered a reality. This is an example of a non positivist stand. What may be true to one, may be false to another.
If someone says, “There is no God. Believe me. Everyone does.” The listener should not instantly believe the speaker (that’s just plain stupidity). Understanding should be met.
In theo class, Ray said something like, “If you’re confused, that’s good, because it shows that you’re thinking.”
Understanding is for the mature and memorization is for kids.
Post a Comment