Quote:
|
In fact, I saw at least one post in here that chastised members for not critically thinking on their own.
|
I
WROTE that thread, and my ability to critically think is my very reason for disagreeing with you. Oddly enough, I think its more convenient to label this hegemonic and support Gramsci's theory. I *have* read Gramsci and I certainly believe it is an effective theory for describing intellectual control over the masses without their knowledge.
Quote:
We see some more evidence of how racism permeates our conscious and prevents us from seeing alternative explanations in this thread. One person commented that the bag was filled with loot, despite the fact that it's floating, we have no evidence the young boy took anything other than the case of Pepsi. And then we had an interesting comment on the fact that someone stole some pepsi, which wasn't a necessity to the poster. Completely missing the point that the "looter" was a boy--not a rational adult calculating what he may or may not need for survival.
Another commentator made a post that the backpacks probably had personal items in them. Why would such a comment be held to be valid? It only sustains on our preconceived notions of what people, most usually like ourselves, keep in backpacks in their ordinary lives. This is no ordinary situation...but we make judgements based on what we understand. And what we understand is shaped by the dominant culture. Other considerations appear irrational...this is the beginning of the concept of hegemony.
|
I'll again agree. This thread is littered with people under the "unintentional control" that hegemony provides. The idea that the white people had "personal things" in the backpacks and the black person did not, certainly. However, it does not (in my mind) influence the journalists. They described having a conversation with their editor over using the word "looting" as opposed to finding, and what it would mean.
Sociological theories are based on large groups of people, because they often break down quickly in small sample groups. As soon as someone begins to critically analyse the factors influencing the descriptions they cannot see due to hegemony, it ceases being hegemonic. They seperated themselves from their preconcieved notions about the subordinate class and chose the words only becuase one had WITNESSED looting, whereas the other had not. In the case where looting had been witnessed, they chose the word 'looting.' In the case where looting had not been witnessed, they chose the word 'finding,' because it might have been slanderous and offensive.
(I must mention, btw.. that your post was very well put-together and I found myself nodding to it -- but I still maintain that for the very reason that the photographers carefully selected their words so as to NOT succumb to their cultural predispositions, they're avoiding their default (hegemonic) reponse.)