In a society where the secular is becoming representative of western culture (Mcdannell (2012) where media conglomerates have decided what is to become mainstream and 'cool', endorsed of course by the new era of "the celebrity"- how then is the individual to find their own path to what they believe is sacred within their lives?
Mcdannell's (2012) article "Scrambling the Sacred and Profound," discusses the modernising of the western world and the historical changes to the discussion of 'what is sacred' and 'what is profane'. To Mademoiselle Geulen however, in one of the most courageous acts, to her simply, the idea of 'the sacred' was her little charges in the boarding house where she worked. To her the profane became the German soldiers who told those innocent children to separate according to their race and religion. Yet Instead of abandoning her idea of "the sacred" Geulen questioned the soldiers judgement, their orders and their morality. Were those German soldiers who took children away from boarding houses, away from families; actually profane? Or were they just serving their country, because they had been conscripted into a war they did not believe in and perhaps might have even been killed if they disobeyed orders? Did fear make them question their understanding of morality and then inturn become confused about what their own true version of "the sacred" was?
For instance, we know its wrong to murder, but if I am conscripted into a war, where, If I do not shoot a gun, which I would never have had to use if my government, which I did not vote for, which held radical beliefs about winning back the land with a "triumphant sword" (Adolf Hitler (1925). If I do not shoot this gun and protect my self and fight for my homeland, am I a coward who lets his 'mates' fall at the hands of enemy guns? Or am I just upholding my understanding of morality and the basic commandment of "thou shall not kill"- and then if I choose to kill against that understanding, what then becomes of my idea of "the sacred"? Could we at the most fundamental level of our soul live with the idea of killing, especially if our government supports and celebrates the death of the enemy as an achievement and if so, do I then have to adjust and modify my understanding of what I thought was sacred.
Rabinbach and Adorno (1975) in, "The Culture Industry Reconsidered" discuss the ideology behind the support of the masses. This idea is coherently linked from the discussion about Apple products dominating the technology market, and the continuation of their popularity, has everything to do with branding and mass consumption, as well as the idea that Apple products are 'cool' and mainstream. If we take this idea and expand it to the propaganda and fear campaigns of 1940's Germany. The idea that Hitter changed the idea of 'what is sacred' within the lives of thousands of individuals and that he justified the deaths of innocent children, can be considered. If we delve within our own minds and find that path to our soul, to perhaps the God of our understanding, can we admit that the opinions we voice are sometimes at odds to what we truly identify as our morality; our centre for right and wrong. But if we are given powerful support for that opinion, can we justify a change in that core sense of morality? Would we even own an IPAD or have the opinion that it is cool, if society did not agree with us? And when the war was over, new leaders took over and the dominant opinion changed in Germany, how did that affect the individual's sense of right and wrong? Can one re- adjust the idea of "what is sacred" so completely in a matter of years?
How then did Mademoiselle Geulen keep a hold of her beliefs and moral judgements, why was her understanding of what was sacred different to many of her contemporaries, why was she able to maintain her understanding of what was sacred , when all around her chaos reigned? Is it really as simple as being "twenty, young and fearless"? Are those who have Samsung and Android phones in this modern day society, the Individuals who we should be paying more attention too? Mcdannell (2012) raised the point that as western societies become more modernized we have also become more secular, perhaps society is beginning to learn from history and to understand why so many people flock to those individuals who take their sense of "the sacred" and teach it to others, or to celebrities who make it ok to "buy a t-shirt for fifty dollar's "(Mackelmore (2012) just because it has a desired logo on it, that the masses then believe is cool. Yet to this Hoover (2006) discuses that today's society is now fighting back and the 'niche' market has begun to impact upon media conglomerates who have had to diversify in order to keep up with the masses that Rabinbach and Adorno (1975) described in the 70's.
Perhaps then Hoover gives us hope, that someday we will break free of the need to maintain our status in society and make our own path in this world. That we should rely on our own sense of what is sacred or right and wrong or cool, instead of our continued reliance upon another's version of personal truths- In this we find the true message behind Mademoiselle Andree Geulen's story.
References:
Adorno T and AG Rabinbach. 1975. The Culture Industry Reconsidered. New German Critique. 6, Autumn, 12-19. http://orgnets.cn/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/21-adorno-culture-industry.pdf
Hitler, Adolf. 1925, Mein Kampf. Australia: Project Gutenberg. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt
Hoover SM. 2006. Media and Religion in Transition. In Religion in the Media Age, London: Routledge. Ch3, 45-83. (RL)
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. 2012. Thrift Shop Feat. Wanz. (Offical Video). Accessed: Australia: YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes
McDannell C. 2012. Scrambling the Sacred and the Profane. In Lynch G. and J. Mitchell with A. Strhan. Eds. Religion, Media and Culture: A Reader. 135-146. London & New York: Routledge.
Video Source: Mademoiselle Andree Geulen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR6PC74--1s&noredirect=1
No comments:
Post a Comment