In recent years, flexibility and the ability to deal with change have become increasingly valuable in the workplace, even more so than knowledge or services, Gregg argues. This is because employment of today’s age in most settings requires lifelong learning, due to the business cycle and technological advancements, among other things. Thus the security associated with salaried jobs has been slipping away due to the constant changes in the environment and need for adaptability, and with it the interchangeable nature of workers. Workplace interactions, too, have become increasingly impersonal, especially with the rise of e-mail, a preferred method of workplace communication that includes the incentive of increasing efficiency/productivity, while also enabling human contact and face-to-face interaction to diminish, with the claim that in person communication has incredible potential to waste time.

Though there is a certain value to personal interactions, e-mail and other more removed forms of communication are at times criticized more than necessary, as in reality they bring benefits to the workplace and other social interactions. Networking has been made easier in the 21st century due to the acceptance of interaction in a more removed sense, which has made long-distance and remote communication and quick exchanges exponentially more convenient and efficient. However, the explanation that human contact can lead to wasted time fails to acknowledge the attention scattering and time wasted on the internet, part of which e-mail can contribute to. When it comes to communication, the human attention span can always be diverted, plus e-mail culture today entails a specific etiquette in which everything is claimed to be “urgent,” to which an employee cannot accurately handle, and instead must prioritize and determine which messages actually possess urgency.

The emotional detachment from one’s work is a trend seen increasingly often, as employment is a necessity but not regularly something that is looked forward to. This seems to be increasingly true among millennials, who have shifted the workplace culture, yet it seems that today’s generation has a focus on informality, rather than impersonality, though they may wish to keep their work and personal lives distinctive, as Gregg mentions. Though some may be standoffish towards this new functioning of workplace environments, ultimately the needs/demands of employees will overpower the system; if this method is popular it will remain as such, but if not, like all things, with time it will be washed out and replaced with a system favored by the people who exist within it.  

The exigence associated with Gossip Girl is that of severe economic inequality and the advantages and privilege that accompany coming from money. Additionally is the fixation with wealth and its entertainment value; as a society there seems to be a monetary component to every piece of our lives.

The audience of my project is still something I am considering, but is most clearly the audience of the show itself- teenagers are the main subjects and viewers of the show. As of right now I am planning on making a choose your own adventure/viewer guide to show the existence of privilege.

Project 1 Draft

Section 1: Description Summary

Gossip Girl follows teenagers in the Upper East Side of New York City as they navigate growing up amid immense wealth and high-society connections. Through high school drama and scheming exists an underlying narrative concerning wealth and the power that accompanies it, in addition to the difficulty of moving between classes and being accepted among Manhattan’s elite.

Section 2: Context: Application of Lanham

Material possessions and pure amount of money are fixated on a great deal- designers are mentioned constantly to indicate wealth, sophistication, and high class (stuff). With that comes the component of fluff, seen in the existence of the Gossip Girl webpage, which functions as an economy of information in the form of secrets. This results in the fixation on a few individuals, the main characters of the show, giving them celebrity status by transmitting information about them and giving them more attention than others.

Section 3: Context: Application of Zelizer

Entitlement is a main form of of capital in Gossip Girl, as most characters have a trust fund and expect to be given money and continue their current lifestyles because of the families they were born into- their names hold a certain value and thus entitle them to certain treatment and praise from their peers as well. Gifts are seen in the lavish exchanges between friends, designer clothes and expensive jewelry commonplace in this society. Compensation is more seen among the adults in the show, as the kids do not expect to work, other than the outsiders, who do not have money to fall back on. Compensation again ropes in the notion of power, as people in charge are not seen doing much work, yet make money nonetheless. 

Section 4: Context: Application of Bourdieu

Boudieu’s forms of capital are incredibly relevant in this series, as cultural background, including class and family background, create the perception of each student by their peers and essentially dictate their value, and cultivate the opportunities and advantages available to them. Social capital, too, holds great power, as social connections/network give already privileged characters a leg up and allow them to leverage connections to increase the advantages they hold.

Section 5: Using Rhetorical Terms to understand what’s going on

Amplification- “Your one and only source into the scandalous lives of Manhattan’s elite”

Intro- every episode- power of Gossip Girl and the status of characters

Labels- “Lonely Boy”- reinforce outsider

Narration- Gossip Girl is a character known only by name and voice, but is never seen despite her power over the characters in society- her narration clues the audience in on 

Section 6: Using theories of rhetorical context to understand what’s going on (Btizer, Selzer)

Selzer:

Epideictic- give importance to certain things, every moment holds value

Forensic- the past (an one’s family history/background) used as blackmail, belittlement, us vs them/insider vs outsider

Contextual rhetoric- Gossip Girl site assigns meaning to people and events on a larger scale- environmental factors, personal histories influence and are influenced

Bitzer

Existence of classes and the drama that goes on in the lives of the characters enables Gossip Girl to exist

Show is social commentary on this world- replica with embellishments

McMillan Cottom- audience– character’s fixation on drama and trivial interactions/events allows Gossip Girl to develop- all tips are submitted by characters- they feed into the system

Main Ideas: wealth, inequality, power, class, insider/outsider

“It girl”- name carries meaning, brand, advances them > form of currency, power

Argument: Gossip Girl’s intense fixation on money and power illustrate the advantages and access those in upper classes receive versus the disadvantage and exclusion seen among non-elite members in a world dominated by wealth. The fact that teenagers are the center subjects of a show about money shows that the reach of money influences the lives of everyone, regardless of age, but also proves that wealth still brings along a plethora of issues, even though people may think money can solve any problem. Gossip Girl as a site and character highlights the troubles of relationships amid a world this dominated by money, as events are blown out of proportion and characters continuously target each other with the goal of furthering their own opportunities and prestige.

The existence of the show itself is a piece of commentary on the importance money is given in society and the degree of control it possesses; this show ran for 6 seasons (5 years) and brought in up to 3.5 million viewers at its peak, giving insight into the entertainment and drama that is centered around class differences and unimaginable amounts of wealth, and the marketability of it all.

Format: choose your own adventure story- illustrate constant advantages that wealthier get

I believe we should be asking how we can maximize the economy and ask how to make it work the best or for the greatest number of people. Often the people who make policy or have greater influence on the economy are in positions of greater economic power, meaning they are wealthier, and thus they cannot relate to the problems of the “have nots.” I would like to better understand economic inequality and its relation to hierarchies of difference, as social justice is an interest of mine. With that, I am curious to know if we can lessen the degree/extremity of economic inequality without reaching socialism- so many Americans hear the word socialism and panic or immediately reject it, so I think that the pure fear and aversion towards the term would prevent its implementation or success, yet there must be a way to change the immense discrepancy that exists between the top 1% and the lower classes. To me, it is difficult to fathom how a small group of people hold the majority of the wealth while millions are left to suffer with nothing. People always say they earned their money and thus it should not be taken by the government for people who “didn’t work,” yet I think examining circumstance and increasing education on the factors that influence economic inequality may lead to a greater understanding or more compassion, which could possibly help us ease this problem.

For-profit colleges, likely not what comes to mind when people picture higher education, are an option with few criteria that emphasize the necessity of closing towards their employees. The goal is to have students enroll, fill out financial aid paperwork, and come to the first week of classes. After that, it seems, the student and their financial situation, which is likely not overly prosperous or stable, becomes impersonal to the school, because the institution has obtained what it needs: money.

McMillan mentions that for-profit colleges’ livelihood is dependent on social inequality, and since this is not something that is going to disappear in the near future, for-profit colleges are, for the meantime, here to stay. This point calls into question the foundations of our society as well as the principles and purposes of education; demographic factors should not hold enough power to dictate one’s opportunities, yet they control or contribute to nearly every facet of life, and education should not exist for the purpose of making money, yet McMillan’s article sheds a light on this very occurrence. 

Personally I feel that education is a currency within society itself, but more than that it is a valuable experience that helps develop the character and intellect of an individual. It should not be reserved for only the privileged or majority members of society, nor should it be a method through which individuals are exploited. Taking advantage of people of lower economic positions and capacities makes a statement about the institution and with it calls into question the education they are providing; can character and skill be learned from a place that draws upon weaknesses for their own benefit and fails (or refuses) to see the harm they are doing upon those they are claiming to help? After all, these colleges prioritize profits over the best interest of their students, and thus one must wonder if members of the institution too are willing to sidestep the teaching/learning component of education, the true purpose, for the sake of economic prosperity.

Bordieu argues that capital can be expanded beyond just economics, into cultural and social capitals. Cultural capital is essentially elements of identity, such as social class or education, in addition to what an individual owns, and can be broken down into what you have and know. Social capital, on the other hand, is diverged through networks and relationships and boils down to who you know.

Though Bordieu acknowledges the connection that exists between social and cultural capital and economic capital, the extent of this relationship is not stressed enough; one’s cultural capital, especially the family and social class they are born into determine almost every aspect of their life going forward, especially the education they will achieve, which is directly proportional to their economic potential in terms of income and wealth. Modern society is organized in a way that elements of an individual’s identity like race and class predict the opportunities that will be available to them. These attributes, for the most part, are static, as it is difficult or impossible to move between different categories, thus illustrating the advantages that exist for privileged groups, such as whites and rich members of society, contrasted with the severe disadvantage of all marginalized communities in the ability to accumulate all forms of capital.

These predetermined qualities that everyone possesses determine the kinds of people they will interact with (social capital), as it is human nature to stay within one’s own circle, yet this is also intertwined with the people one will encounter based on their cultural capital; social capital expands, for instance, when an individual attends a university, but they will only go to said university if they have the cultural capital to support them in that endeavor. Bordieu’s claim is completely valid in the sense that different kinds of capital exist, but arguably more important is the predetermined nature of all kinds of capital based on the demographics of the home the individual is born into.

Recently I watched Little Women, which though not centered blatantly around money, highlights the economic opportunities, or lack thereof, of women throughout time. Historically, the contributions of women have not always been recognized or incorporated into the economy, considering the social standing of females within society, thus limiting their opportunities to be financially independent or make any sort of profit.

In considering a rhetorical analysis of Little Women, a forensic approach would likely be taken, as this is a story/movie set in the past, and thus the likeness of that time should be examined. I would research the gender roles and with them, financial opportunities and obligations at the time, to give factual and historical context to fictional characters. In addition, I would likely investigate both the motives and angles of the author of the book and writers/directors of the film, in order to determine the origins of the fictional story and influence of events of the past on the story’s plot.

While Lanham expresses the materialistic nature of society that exists, much of this is just “fluff” compared to the currency that lies in information and attention today. The productivity and innovation that accompany knowledge enable the creation of new products and expression of information, thus capturing the attention of the general population. The short life span and constant replacement of material goods in today’s world increases the stories behind products and allows people to discern and give value to the data they deem important. With this come the emergence of fame, granted to individuals who receive a surplus of attention, as well as the competition or aspiration towards celebrity. 

An idea that stood out to me in this article is that of the short life span of products and constant need to replace material “stuff” with newer, shinier versions of essentially the same thing. The essence of “stuff” (or fluff) as a display of brand loyalty is something I never truly thought about, yet the consumerist culture in the United States, and globally, supports this concept, as people’s material possessions accumulate to show the places/sites they return to in addition to the ideals they support.

The concept of brand loyalty draws upon the concept of company ethics; though this is not something Lanham explores, it is an interest of mine, because often consumers are willing to overlook, or are ignorant to, the inhumane and environmentally harmful practices of a company they buy from. In an age where information is a highly valued form of currency, as Lanham argues, shouldn’t the values and tactics of a brand be known, and for the most part supported, by its consumers? While I do agree that attention and knowledge are commodities of today’s society, in certain settings, people are willing to bypass immoral company behavior for the sake of their material wants, which proves that the “fluff” of the world still holds immense power. 

Lanham’s writing grants a unique perspective in that it looks to explore economic systems and power by means of information and attention, which, at least to me, was slightly unconventional, as I, like many people, associate economics purely with monetary capital. In this regard, economics is socially constructed, at least to a degree, since the human population assigns value to certain things which in turn makes them worth more and increases demand. When information is so important, writing exponentially increases in value, as it is a form of communication and distribution of knowledge. As a mode of sharing informational capital with the general public, writing and the people behind it possess a great responsibility and degree of power, and have the potential to influence how people spend their limited attention.

Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.

— Oscar Wilde.

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.