I went to the EMP this afternoon and it was interesting. I really liked the exhibition on Hip Hop and salsa, but my favorite was the one about the influence of Latino Music from San Antonio. As I listened to the Tejano music, I was taken back home to the Riverwalk. The sounds, the music, the beats, all reminded me of where I was from. These exhibits show sonic literacy, which is the ability to identify, define and construct our personal and cultural soundscapes. Basically, this exhibit studied the influence of Latino culture on U.S. music. The music from San Antonio has a large Tejano influence. Tejano is referred to as an influence from Mexico. Geographically it makes sense that Latino influence in Texas would be from Mexico. This music incorporates various forms of folk and popular music originating from the Hispanic people of Central and South Texas. There is some German influence on the Tejano music and they brought music genres such as polkas and waltzes. This exhibit explores the influence of different cultures on the Tejano music and in turn the influence of Tejano music on U.S. Popular Music. I really enjoyed coming to the EMP. Another style of music popular in Texas is Reggaeton. It is a mix of Spanish lyrics and Jamaican dancehall. I love listening to Raggaeton and it was interesting to learn about its origins as well as the origins of hip hop and salsa. I watched El Cantante a while back which was about the singer Hector Lavoe. He had started the salsa movement in 1975 and brought it to the United States. Through all the exhibits, the influence of different cultures and their music on U.S. Popular Music is shown through the movement of people to new places.   

– The new sound script for Fight Club will incorporate not only a new time period and tone but how voice-narration plays an important part in the film. For my first major paper, I plan on changing the time period in Fight Club to the Great Depression and have the narrator reflect on how his life was before the Great Depression. One of the causes of the Great Depression was debt, as “American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt” (Wikipedia). As we change the time period to the Great Depression, we are able to create a narrator who can take on a reflective and maybe aggravated tone toward debt and materialism. Through this change of time period and tone, we can create a different atmosphere that creates a similar view of materialism as in the current scene.

-The narration will be by the same character but in a different context- he will be speaking from  the time period of the Great Depression to reflect on his life before and how it progressed to the Great Depression. The narrator seems biased currently due to his situation and will be biased in the new sound script. I believe that this bias comes out of his situation rather than just being present. Through the change in tone and time period, we can explore how this bias about materialism and debt comes about and how the changes cause that bias to perhaps change. 

-The purpose of this sound script would be to show how a difference in the time period and the tone of voice of the narrator changes the voice-over narration and our view of materialism. I would like to be able to show how, even in a different time period, such as the Great Depression, materialism plays a role in the lives of people. One of the causes of the Great Depression was debt. Through the narrator’s reflective and perhaps frustrated tone and a change of time period, I would show how a materialistic lifestyle led to the Great Depression.

– The audience would be everyone- the change in voice-over narration would show that no matter what the time period, materialism plays an important role in many people’s lives.

- By observing Norton’s tone and the time period of the film, we are better able to understand how and why materialism plays such a big role in Norton’s life. Researching this question would allow me to broaden my views on different ways my new sound script could be written, and allow me to better answer the leading question for my sound script, “How does changing the narrator’s tone of voice and the time period of this scene alter the effects of how we perceive the materialism inherent in the current scene?”

-By changing the narrator’s tone of voice and the time period from which he speaks, we are able to view the effect that tone and time have on how we perceive materialism and the scene itself. In the current scene, we are able to view and hear the role materialism plays in the narrator’s life through the narrator’s sarcastic tone and the time period from which he is talking. By changing these two major elements, we are able to see the role voice-over narration plays in the movie and how through change in tone of voice and time period our perception of materialism is changed. This claim is reasonable because we are changing elements without completely changing the movie, but risky because many people would argue that voice-over narration takes away from the essence of the film. 

– Many will argue that voice-over narration is insulting to the audience or that it is a form of laziness, but voice-over narration really allows to interpret a scene differently and allow us to catch on to subtleties we might not have noticed, were it not enhanced by the voice-over narration. Kozloff writes that, “many of us value the cinema’s range—its ability to incorporate so many aspects of other art forms. The cinema is enriched, not watered down or polluted by, the artistic techniques it shares with other muses” (Kozloff). I strongly agree with statement and believe that through my new sound script, we will be able to see the positive influence of voice over narration.

– My claim and sound script are important because not only does it enhance the role of voice-over narration but also allows us to see the current scene through a different set of eyes and ears. By doing so, we will be able to see the effects of voice-over narration on the scene and the how through the elements of tone and time period the perception of materialism changes.

 -Fight Club is a film about consumerism and at the end shows that destroying it was the only way to be “yourself.” This statement stemmed from the technique of voice-over narration used throughout the film. Through my new voice-over we will be able to see the role of materialism before the Great Depression and perhaps how it led to it. My new sound script will enhance the ending of the film and perhaps make it more dramatic through the narrator’s new tone and the new time period. Through the new voice-over, we will change the audience’s perception on materialism but not the outcome of the film and its theme or message.  

-Through my new sound script I hope to enhance the positive influence of voice over narration and show my answer to my research question of how changing the narrator’s tone of voice and time period of the scene alters the effects of how we perceive the materialism inherent in the current scene. I plan on showing how the narrator’s tone and the time period of the film interplay to enhance other elements of the scene, such as the music, to influence our perception of materialism.

– Questions:

-Is this a good proposal for a sound script?

-How can I improve my idea to make the make the impact of my sound script stronger? 

I felt Alcoff contradicted herself a little bit. First off she is a social theorist arguing that we shouldn’t speak for or about someone or something because we might influence other’s thoughts in the wrong way. But isn’t she doing that by writing this article? Can we ever completely speak or write without influencing someone else? Even right now as I write these thoughts and you read them, they are somehow influencing your thought- whether by changing your perception, asking new questions, or even just by reading, you are subconsciously absorbing my opinions. You might believe or agree with them, but you are still reading, absorbing, and forming your own thoughts on them. Another place I believe she contradicts herself is at the end when she says, “Thus, the effect of a U.S. president’s speaking for Latin America in this way is to re-consolidate U.S. imperialism by obscuring its true role in the region in torturing and murdering hundreds and thousands of people who have tried to bring democratic and progressive governments into existence. And this effect will continue until the U.S. government admits its history of international mass murder and radically alters it foreign policy.” This clearly states HER opinion, and I believe she doesn’t consider the various factors she asks us to consider when speaking for or about someone or a situation.

 

All that aside there are some good points and some rather confusing points. In my opinion (there I go, not taking “responsibility for the effects of words” as Alcoff would say) you cannot speak without having influencing someone else, even in the slightest way.

“First, there has been a growing awareness that where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says, and thus that one cannot assume an ability to transcend her location. In other words, a speaker’s location (which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker’s claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one’s speech. “

“Who is speaking to whom turns out to be as important for meaning and truth as what is said; in fact what is said turns out to change according to who is speaking and who is listening.” 

I agree with these statements. We have to take into consideration what stand point we are talking from, from where we are talking from, and what context we have about the situation/person we are talking about. At the boys and girls club, a volunteer has to make him/herself a part of the children’s lives and act as an equal, not a superior figure. As a person you cannot not deny these children with the respect they deserve. I believe by understanding the way to approach and treat these children is a key element in being a successful volunteer. This all incorporates the use of context, where you are located, how your social background may differ and how you decide to overcome these obstacles to be successful. In speaking for these children, are we treating them with respect? Are we treating their background and social place with dignity? Are we speaking for them, about them, or with them?

“ In particular, is it ever valid to speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me?”

Yes, why not? As long as you talk with these people, understand the context of their situation, the background they come from, and have sufficient evidence then why can you not? You influence people through your words, and if you can help someone with them, then why not? It is a different story if you do not have the context or know the people you are helping, but if you are speaking with these people and are helping get their word across, then I see no reason why it wouldn’t be valid to speak for others unlike you.

“On the one hand, a theory which explains this experience as involving autonomous choices free of material structures would be false and ideological, but on the other hand, if we do not acknowledge the activity of choice and the experience of individual doubt, we are denying a reality of our experiential lives.9 So I see the argument of this paper as addressing that small space of discursive agency we all experience, however multi-layered, fictional, and constrained it in fact is.”

“The dominant modernist view has been that truth represents a relationship of correspondence between a proposition and an extra-discursive reality. On this view, truth is about a realm completely independent of human action and expresses things “as they are in themselves,” that is, free of human interpretation.”

“Such a view has no necessary relationship to idealism, but it allows us to understand how the social location of the speaker can be said to bear on truth. The speaker’s location is one of the elements which converge to produce meaning and thus to determine epistemic validity.12″

“One important implication of this first premise is that we can no longer determine the validity of a given instance of speaking for others simply by asking whether or not the speaker has done sufficient research to justify her claims. Adequate research will be a necessary but insufficient criterion of evaluation.”   

I don’t completely understand the first statement. If you want analyze something, then why are we analyzing something that is fictional and can never be? If do so, aren’t we just creating more problems? And I don’t completely understand what exactly she is analyzing.

I believe these statements are all connected with one fact- that of the unattainable. In the first we are analyzing a somewhat “multi-layered fictional discursive agency.” In the second statement we are discussing a ideal situation- where a statement can be stated free of human interpretation. Sure this is possible, but only in the mind of the person saying it. Anything and everything we say and write is processed by another’s mind where they analyze it. No matter what they do, it is human nature to observe, hear, and analyze everything we see and hear. Sometimes we’ll miss subtleties and focus on the big picture and vice-versa. But an important point she makes is that a “speaker’s location is one of the elements which converge to produce meaning.” If this so, perhaps because of the person’s background and credits what they say has come truth to it. Can we ever speak objectively? Maybe and maybe not. As we view various situations, we form opinions which then transfer into our own opinions and OUR OWN TRUTHS. No two people take the same information and interpretation from a certain situation, and through each of their analysis they establish their own truth. Therefore, can anything a person claims as true, be true to anyone? I feel like I am going in circles, and am making no sense just like some of the article but there are so many questions that arise from a few different points. In high school, when we did a presentation or debate we were asked to provide evidence. If we could provide evidence for our claim, it was valid. In the last statement Alcoff argues this notion. There is so much more than evidence that drives whether an argument is valid.

“To say that location bears on meaning and truth is not the same as saying that location determines meaning and truth.”

 

“There are numerous examples of the practice of speaking for others which have been politically efficacious in advancing the needs of those spoken for, from Rigoberta Menchu to Edward Said and Steven Biko. Menchu’s efforts to speak for the 33 Indian communities facing genocide in Guatemala have helped to raise money for the revolution and bring pressure against the Guatemalan and U.S. governments who have committed the massacres in collusion. The point is not that for some speakers the danger of speaking for others does not arise, but that in some cases certain political effects can be garnered in no other way.”

 

I like the fact that she doesn’t completely undermine the important role speaking for others can play. She warns us of the dangers, but still tells us about the benefits.

 

“As my practices are made possible by events spatially far away from my body so too my own practices make possible or impossible practices of others. The declaration that I “speak only for myself” has the sole effect of allowing me to avoid responsibility and accountability for my effects on others; it cannot literally erase those effects.”

 

I like this quote because we are responsible for our words and actions. As Newton said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything we do and say somehow has an effect on something else, whether it be on ourselves or someone else. I believe by speaking for and about the boys and girls club we definitely have to consider the effects of what we say and how what we say could be taken in a good and bad connotation. We will have to come up with arguments for the counterarguments we may encounter.

 

“Even if the speaker offers a dozen caveats about her views as restricted to her location, she will still affect the other woman’s ability to conceptualize and interpret her experience and her response to it. And this is simply because we cannot neatly separate off our mediating praxis which interprets and constructs our experiences from the praxis of others. We are collectively caught in an intricate, delicate web in which each action I take, discursive or otherwise, pulls on, breaks off, or maintains the tension in many strands of the web in which others find themselves moving also. When I speak for myself, I am constructing a possible self, a way to be in the world, and am offering that, whether I intend to or not, to others, as one possible way to be.”

 

I really like this quote because it sums up the effects our individual words and actions can have on the world.

 

“…but the point is that the impetus to always be the speaker and to speak in all situations must be seen for what it is: a desire for mastery and domination. Some of us have been taught that by right of having the dominant gender, class, race, letters after our name, or some other criterion, we are more likely to have the truth. Others have been taught the opposite and will speak haltingly, with apologies, if they speak at all… speaking should always carry with it an accountability and responsibility for what one says. To whom one is accountable is a political/epistemological choice contestable, contingent and, as Donna Haraway says, constructed through the process of discursive action… we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak; nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech; one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there.”

 

All of this is in part III and parts I believe are important. I don’t believe that speaking for others or about them is a desire for mastery. When you are helping someone sincerely, you don’t care who notices what you are doing or what you are sacrificing for the cause. You should only care about the outcome and how it will help those you are oppressing. Alcoff says that the oppressed should speak for themselves, but when it is hard enough for them to have a voice that others listen to, what do they do? They turn to someone through whom their voice will be heard. Perhaps these people can help these people form a voice in which they can eventually speak for themselves. There are many factors one needs to consider before speaking for someone but if in any way one does speak for or about someone then they should be ready to accept responsibility for their the effects of their words and actions. The same principle will apply to our volunteer service at the boys and girls club. If we say anything for or about the boys and girls club, whether received in a good or bad way, we are solely responsible for the effects and outcomes. In the end, we hope to help the boys and girls club, but what if our concerns are interpreted wrongly? Then we put the boys and girls club at risk- a risk they are willing to take by having as volunteers and perhaps spokespeople to further their cause. This is the danger Alcoff is talking about when warning us about speaking for and about others. But Alcoff counters this claim by saying, “It is not always the case that when others unlike me speak for me I have ended up worse off, or that when we speak for others they end up worse off. Sometimes, as Loyce Stewart has argued, we do need a “messenger” to advocate for our needs.”

 

“The source of a claim or discursive practice in suspect motives or maneuvers or in privileged social locations, I have argued, though it is always relevant, cannot be sufficient to repudiate it. We must ask further questions about its effects, questions which amount to the following: will it enable the empowerment of oppressed peoples?” 


 

Though Alcoff makes many good points, I believe one of the most important ones is this last question. Ultimately, when we specifically speak for or about others (ignoring our everyday talk and its implications), we wish to help someone or their cause. But there are many factors to take into consideration before actually being able to help someone. Cruz and Illich said in their articles that perhaps we can better service the country by not doing service in these third world countries. Illich said, “The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have volunteered in the first place…I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce excercising the power which being an American gives you,” and Cruz says, ““I want us to talk about why, in the context of conflicting interests and the historical dominance of one racial or gender group over another, it is possible that ’service,’ in and of itself, can have racist or sexist outcomes despite good intentions. For example, I resist the notion of service learning for U.S. students in the Philippines, my country of origin, because I think it perpetuates a ‘colonial mentality’ among Filipinos and a kind of ‘manifest destiny’ amoung U.S. students. To my way of thinking, the results of the history of U.S. dominance in the Philippines is so overwhelming that it is almost impossible for a U.S. student doing what is regarded on both sides as ’service’ not to deliver a message of superiority.” Through both these quotes we are shown what can happen if the context of the situation is not taken into account and how “service” in its broadest sense can be bad. There are many factors that need to be taken into account when talking about service, just as when you are speaking for or about others. In either case what you consider a “service” may not actually be a service and rather than help, make the situation worse.

  

“Or even that the best way of understsning that your help in teh ghetto is neither needed nor wanted is to try, and fail. I do not agree with this argument. The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have volunteered in the first place…I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce excercising the power which being an American gives you.”

Toward the end of Ivan Illich’s “To Hell With Good Intentions,” Illich makes an interesting arguement that enhances the of the meaning of to pay interest on, one of the many definitions of service. He makes a point to show that by not understanding the consequences of volunteering without understanding the context of the situation, we ultimately worsen the lives of those we are helping. We ultimately pay an interest for the damage we do- our price is realizing that our help was neither wanted nor good. Illich claims that the price we pay for gaining this “insight” is too high for his people and his country. The damage we do cannot even be compenstated by the little interest we pay, which is gaining this insight. Illich implies that the greatest interest we can pay on the debt of the damage we’ve already done is to “voluntarily renounce excercising the power which being an American gives [us].” By doing this, we can hopefully start undoing the damage caused by the “good intentions” of volunteers before us. 

2 First person Narrators: One will be an advocate for the people living in the tunnel and the other will be a resident of the tunnel.

Advocate: More educated, optimistic, and talking about the goals of their cause

Resident: More personal response, more candid

Time: Occurring 2 or 3 years later

Yes, the narrators are part of the film

Gender does not matter

Age: mid-30s to 40s

Race/Ethnitcity: Majority African-Americans 

Lines:

Beginning of Clip 3:

Advocate speaks:

“At the time of negotiations with Amtrack, our goal was to utilize already existing federal programs to help liberate the people from their horrendous living conditions. Our first step to helping these residents was to find them suitable housing whether it be in the form of shelters or government subsidized housing. Although we recieved resistance from them, we ultimately achieved the goal of improving their lives.”  

To close the scene the resident will speak:

“Yea we went to the shelters- we had no choice. It was that or being killed. They refused our pleas to go away, they trashed our homes, they insulted us, and degraded our way of life. “

The first sound clip we heard was of a movie trailer. We assumed it was a family comedy because of the voice-over narration and the pieces of dialogue that was included. The keynote sound in the first half was of upbeat violin music and the signal sounds were the dialogue, cartoon noises, the voice-over narration and the typewriter. There is a transition moment where the music changes dramatically and the speed of the narration also slows down. Then the second half starts and the signal sound is the music.

In the second sound clip we heard buzzing noises, drums, melancholy church bells, a strong steady beat, and had a ritualistic tone building to a climax. The keynote sound was the buzzing and the signal sound was the drums. The second clip sounded like it was part of a horror or thriller movie because the sounds were typical of a horror/thriller genre.