Under Pressure - third article for the uni paper.

For reasons that couldn’t be helped I was given less than a day to write this article; talk about working under pressure. My first thought was ‘bloody hell, what am I going to write about?!’ but after regaining my breath and appropriate English I decided to use my feeling of panic to structure the article. The way that I’d reacted to having such a short amount of time to write made me think about whether as students do we work better under pressure…or not?

I asked my friend Millie how she works best and she said “definitely under pressure, I’m lazy so being under pressure motivates me to work.” Whether this is the best way to look at it or not, it works for her and for me as well. I find it very difficult to work with no pressure at all and even though I get myself stressed out and work myself into a state, without that pressure it feels like there’s no urgency to finish my assignment! My housemate Hannah said that working under pressure is easier as you have no other choice; you just “have to do it.” This is true; I suppose there’s that feeling of adrenaline when your work has be finished and handed in by 3pm. It almost becomes exciting and that sense of relief you get once it’s done is just the best feeling!

While writing all of this, I got thinking about whether there are any other ‘pressures’ which affect us as students; big or small. I think there’s a constant pressure to do well which may possibly come from our parents but on the whole I think it comes from us; someone I spoke to said that they put a lot of pressure on themselves to work harder than they did in their A-Level’s to prove that they can achieve more. Things become more pressurized when you know that someone is relying on you; whether it’s finishing that presentation for Monday or booking a rehearsal space or even writing a decent article and handing it in on time!

If leaving your assignments to the last minute is what works for you then keep going, whether it’s the most sensible thing to do is debateable, but on the whole the people that I’ve spoken to have said that working under pressure is better for them and I agree.

Week 2 - Key Developments in UK broadcasting 1

Brief notes from my second lecture of 'Intro to Media Studies':

• Time lines are political - people have to make decisions of what to include or not include. It's their own timeline. Create their own history.
• Technological Determinism - a new thing which dominates and changes society
• 'March of Progress' - Great man - can people make history?

• Marconi invented wireless radio.
• Telegraphy = communication between two points via code
• Telephony = speech
• Wireless Telegraphy = coded messages which can be sent from a ship to land (for example)
• Wireless Telephony = speech

• Radio was originally created for the Navy, when the war ended manufacturers were worried that they would not sell anymore radios as they were not needed so they began to think about broadcasting.

• On the 14th November 1922 the BBC was born! It broadcast content to sell radios, it was funded by a share of a licence fee which was collected by the Post Office.
• The general manager was JOHN REITH.
• John Reith became the general manager at the age of 34, he was a Scottish engineer who was very religious. He "understood the importance of new media"
• He managed the BBC as a public service, it didn't exist soley to make money.
• It maintained a unified control
• Their key principles were to EDUCATE, INFORM and ENTERTAIN
  

Week 1 - Text and Context

The first lecture of 'Introduction to Media Studies' - here are just some brief notes:

• It's important to consider whether media texts such as social media, television dramas, radio, newspapers etc have been shaped in any way by the context in which they have been produced
• Is context important? - The 'stand alone' school argues that texts should be able to 'speak for themselves'
• What is context? - cultural, economic, political and social (Technological)

Historical Context
There are several different understandings of media history:

Version One

• Media history as 'events' and 'breakthroughs'
• For example - inventions
• There's a problem with this - it's not that simple, at times there are several inventors working on one thing. Another problem is that the economic and political conditions had to be right for the inventions to emerge

Version Two

• A technological determinist model of history
• For example - progress occurs when ideas are refined and developed, it's a process of smooth development
• Problem - the best technologies don't always triumph and economics can sometimes hold technologies back

Version Three

• "The March of the Progress"
• For example - the media play a role, British television grows more independent
• Problem - not much a 'march of progress' as a sense of struggle over control

• Technological Conversions = lots of different medias on one thing
• Corporate Synergy = a brand
  

Week 2, Seminar - J.S.Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft

Week 2 of History and Context, our first seminar...I think it went pretty well!
Here are the notes I took:

Mary Wollstonecraft

• Critical on men
• Her writing made her come across as strong minded, did this mean people 'believed' her more?
• Education was crucially important
• Patience and flexibility make an established woman
• Women need protection?
• Women should take control of their lives
• Reason and education are what women need
• Women mature faster than men
• Hypercritical - she preached about a certain way of life for women, yet did not live by her own 'rules'
• Some may say that she couldn't help it - she was shaped by the society she lived in
  
• Women are not inferior to men, they only appear to be because of their education
• Women are made weak by their society
• Women do not have enough to do which causes romantic fantasies

John Stuart Mill

• Live how you want to as long as it harms no-one else
• Society should not be able to control us
• Utilitarianism

Any links between Mill and Wollstonecraft?

• Mill was in 'favor' of women - being one of the first people to believe that women should have a vote
• He believed in living independently as long as no-one else was harmed
• Wollstonecraft believed that women should be independent when needed (not married) and that education was an important part of a women's life.

A small link can be found here.

Week 1 Lecture 1 - On Liberty

The first lecture back for 'History and Context', I think, went pretty good - it was actually really interesting and I have to say I enjoyed listening to it!
Here are the notes that I took in the lecture:

John Wilkes - press freedom
Mary Wollstonecraft - female freedom
John Stuart Mill - political ideal

John Wilkes.
He was a charming man despite his unfortunate looks, so much that he had numerous affairs and flings with women.
He wrote 'An Essay on Women' which has been called one of the dirtiest poems in the history of the English language!
He led a very colourful life indulging in the pleasures of women, bribing his way into Parliament, getting into jail, being exiled, being a part of the Hell Fire club and even becoming Mayor of London.
He was criticized by the higher classes and loved by the poor for his scandalous nature, the lower classes in particular liked him because he fought for the down trodden.
The United States also took a liking to Wilkes as he provided an example of how to agitate within the system.
He began the newspaper 'The North Briton' which was used as propaganda, with attacks on the Government along with scandal, rumours and insults. He described the secretary of state as "...a weak, passionate and insolent secretary of state".
People in the Government did not like the paper as it spoke often about them, criticizing and spreading rumours - so they planned to arrest Wilkes. The only problem was that the North Briton was written anonymously (even though everyone knew that Wilkes) so there was nothing anyone could do as there was not enough evidence pointing and Wilkes.
There were attempts to assassinate him, buy him out and even law suits against him but Wilkes enjoyed the controversy so began to print a new paper every week, issue 45 became the most famous and scandalous as he described King George III as a liar claiming that he'd turned to prostitution.
A General Warrant was used against Wilkes, this meant that the police could name the crime and throw anyone in prison who they suspected, so Wilkes was arrested along with 49 other people.
Wilkes sued the Government for invasion of privacy and he won the right to have privacy.
Later on his poem 'An Essay on Women' was read aloud by Lord Sandwich and he was charged with obscenity, he fled to France for several years until he returned and was arrested on his arrival back into the country.
Within prison he won back his seat in Parliament, became a counsellor and then worked his way up to be Mayor of London.
He decided to report on the Parliament (which at the time was illegal) which of course caused a lot of trouble but by doing this he made it possible for ordinary people to judge.

Mary Wollstonecraft.
She had a difficult early life, coming from a middle class family her father wanted to own some land to 'big up' his status within society; this failed and their social standing was declined sending them into working class. Her father began to drink a lot and became violent, she tried to protect her mother but at the same time she was also angry because she felt her mother didn't try hard enough to stand up for herself.
She was forced to work as a governess which made her deeply unhappy so she began to read a lot, to her education was the most important thing any woman (person) could have.
She agreed with Locke in that when we are born our minds are a blank slate; we learn as we grow. She believed that by having a good education you can give yourself the life you want, to be able to access freedom. Although she thought that the education that women received was superficial and holding them back.
She was fascinated with Rousseau - and the beginning of the French Revolution - as this was a time about equality and freedom.
She did not understand why the passing of wealth was only through the male family members, she didn't understand why it couldn't go on equality or who was more capable to do the job.
The Vindication of the Rights of Women could be taken as Wollstonecraft showing a mirror image to the female society - 'do you not see the madness?'. Her answer to this was education.
She believed that when in a relationship women play their role as with men, but when single and independent gender should not be an issue or divide society the way it does.
Later on in her life she had a failed affair with a man called Imlay, they had a daughter together but he left her which caused her to attempt suicide twice.
She later married Goodwin which whom she had another daughter but shortly after childbirth Wilkes died. Her husband wrote a very frank memoir after she had died, revealing everything about her life - the affairs, the suicide attempts along with everything else.
After this her reputation was ruined and until the Suffragettes brought her back into the spot light she was almost forgotten about.
People questioned whether she was the 'champion of feminism we had all thought?'.

John Stuart Mill.
He had a very strange up bringing and education, his God father was Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill.
By the age of 3 he was reading Greek, learning English and understanding Latin - he was most likely one of the most intelligent people in Europe by the age of 16. The only problem was that Bentham and Mill only taught him what they thought was useful, so at the age of 20 he had a nervous breakdown. He only understood and knew one side of life.
He began to read from the poet William Wordsworth and this is what brought him back to reality.
He believed that freedom of speech was an absolute - "all silencing of opinion is an assumption of infallibility".
A modern example is from the doctor Andrew Wakefield who reviled that the MMR vaccine could give children autism. He was largely criticized for giving his opinion because it caused a lot of upset when in actual fact we can't prove that his theory is wrong. This is why Mill believed in freedom of speech as an absolute - to have personal freedom.
'Experiments in living' - having your own freedom as long as no one is harmed. As a society, being able to live freely gives people the choice to see how other people live and perhaps follow suit.
A self regarding action is something which only harms yourself for example taking drugs, it only becomes wrong if you have a family to support or it harms others (the family).

Liberty.
Laissez Faire - free trade.
Freedom over equality.
Equality of opportunity.
Educating people was very important, this was how we gained rewards
Religion and morality are private matters.
Personal freedom - people can live how they want in different ways - Pluralism.

Utilitarianism.
Bentham's ideas, carried on by John Stuart Mill.
It's the idea of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.
Eudaimonia - all about happiness and avoiding pain.
Mill created a way of measuring happiness, there were higher and lower pleasures for example a higher pleasure would be going to the theatre whereas a lower pleasure would be sex/drugs.
Hedonism.

Jan 8th. A New Semester.

Tomorrow is January 8th 2010.
I am actually going to work hard, and keep up to date with my lecture/seminar notes.
If I begin to slack - someone hit me.

Many Thanks
Claire

Lecture/Seminar 1 - Renaissance

The European Renaissance was between the 14th and 16th century.

• Started because the main cities in Italy were at war which eventually resulted in a flourish of creativity.
• A chance to celebrate freely the human form.
• The Socratic Method - named after the Greek philosopher Socrates - a method of inquirey and debate between individuals with opposing view points. Questions are asked to stimulate rational thinking and new ideas.

Seminar Paper,

Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Social Contract (book 1) – Seminar Paper
Rousseau was born in Geneva in the year 1712, after the age of 12 he had no formal education; perhaps this was what attracted him to Thérèse Le Vasseur. This was the women who he stayed with until his death but never formally married, she was an illiterate chambermaid in the hotel where they met in 1745. Rousseau’s mother died during childbirth and at the age of 10 his father, due to a brawl, fled Geneva leaving him in the care of other family members. Perhaps this is what influenced his decisions about his own five children which he took them to orphanages in Paris. It is later said that he regretted this decision and felt bitter.
A writer during the 18th century; he was very passionate French philosopher who often disagreed with the work of Hobbes and Locke mostly disagreeing on the “state of nature”. A state of nature is a time before law and society, Rousseau believed that we were born free and animalistic before a society although he does say that it’s a necessary evil. The original state of nature came from Hobbes; he said that we were animalistic and chaotic so we needed to elect a leader who had God-like powers, he would be able to do whatever he wished as long as he protected the people and the country. By electing one leader the people lost all of their rights. Hobbes also believed that within us we have natural rights which cannot be given to us or taken away from us. Rousseau challenged Hobbes’s theory saying that he was imagining impossible scenarios of socialized people living outside the society they were brought up in. Rousseau believed that we knew neither right from wrong; our bad habits are the products of civilisation.
Rousseau is seen to be the founder of Romanticism; it is about the uniqueness of an individual and about going against the political norm of the 18th century.
After his death his ideas were still very influential especially in the French Revolution, the legislation which was introduced, "The declaration of the rights of men" had many hints of Rousseau’s work; "Men are born and remain free and equal in life" and "The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation" Rousseau's statement "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" is where the link can be found.

In 1762 Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, he began with the words "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains”. From this he goes onto describe how the “chains” of society keep man held down and unable to be truly free. He said that the only legitimate political authority was that which was made by all of the people, the social contract and general will.
In the Social Contract he says that “The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence.” Later on he again talks about children “...they are born man and free...before they come to years of discretion, the father can, in their name, lay down conditions for their preservation and well-being...” From this I get that he actually just wants the best for his children, he believes that by giving them away they are returned to being free. Although I was taken back when he said (talking about man) “his first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself...and consequently becomes his own master.” This made me question whether actually ‘freeing’ his children was just so that he could become his own master, thinking about himself and how he wanted to live his life. Although again from looking into his early life his reasons for giving away his children might be because he grew up without a mother or father, perhaps he thought he benefited more without them.
At one point in The Social Contract, Rousseau cites an example of the Roman republic’s comitia to prove that even large states composed of many people can hold assemblies of all their citizens. The comitia was a Roman Assembly with a direct democracy which worked very well. I think that the reason he chose to use this example of Rome is because it was seen to be a very powerful place, it was known for its well structured democracy and money. If he linked Rome’s strong direct democracy with his idea of the social contract he could persuade people that it was the best for their country.

Rousseau said that the general will was about belonging and following the system people so to become free and we would return to our animalistic state before an evil society. It’s about providing a common good for all, he wanted a direct democracy with no representations where we are all free to contribute and vote and none of our powers will be given to a third party. Rousseau also says that “anyone who refuses to obey the general will, will be forced to be free”. I feel that he has contradicted himself as he later on says “force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have”.

Overall I do like his ideas of a direct democracy and being free, but I think it’s almost impossible. There will always be natural leaders within a group of people so even if there is no appointed leader one will arise. The representative democracy we are in today I believe makes a lot more sense, we still get a say with what happens in our society as the leaders act on our interest, they try to make changes that the public want. When Rousseau talks about this kind of democracy he says “even if scattered individuals were successively enslaved by one man, however numerous they might be, I still see no more than a master and his slaves, and not certainly a people and it’s ruler...”

Man Fact.

“Five per cent of men admit to using a toothbrush after it fell down the toilet” - this is one of the ‘124 AMAZING MAN FACTS’ from last month’s Cosmopolitan. I must say that out of all of the ‘MAN FACTS’ this one definitely caught my eye.

For someone who is rather clean conscious I could not even begin to imagine brushing my teeth with a filthy toilet juiced toothbrush. I have no bloody idea what brings any man to use his toothbrush even after it falls into the toilet...I mean come on its not as if they’re expensive! Go and buy a new one!
Another thing on my clean conscious mind at the moment is the increase of Swine Flu and Fresher’s Flu at university. I can hardly say I’m pleased about the sniffs and snivels I hear in my many lectures but I’m happy to say (for the moment) I’m getting through it (probably due to the fact that I carry tissues in every pocket and wash my hands on a more than regular basis) oh the joys of winter.

“’Tis the season to be jolly, tra la la la laaaa la la blah blaaaaah”

Oh god, on the subject of the dreaded Swine here is another ‘MAN FACT’ from Cosmopolitan: “more than two-thirds of all men said they’d snog a girl who had swine flu if she was attractive enough.” Now I’m sorry if I’m just overly concerned about my health but why on earth would you want to put yourself at risk at such a horrible illness? Come on, how many times have the news people told us to STAY AWAY from people with swine flu and yet men, idiots, shallow one-minded pricks still would kiss a girl just because she was good looking?! What is happening to the world, sometimes I wonder.

Living With the Other Side - newspaper version

I thought that by moving away to uni I would leave the immature antics of my 11 year old little brother behind me but how was I to know that it would be right there waiting for me in my new house at West Downs in the form of two new housemates.
Living with guys for the first time has been a culture shock if I’m honest, I’m still getting used to walking into the kitchen for breakfast and instead of being greeted by my mum with some food I get a “’sup darlin’” from my hung over housemate in a dressing gown. I don’t really know what I expected from living with boys, I asked my housemate Katie whether she had any expectations and she said “I thought they would be messier!”

After thinking about it actually it must be weird for them to be living with girls, especially when in my house there are five girls and only two boys. I asked my housemate Mark whether he had any expectations about living with girls and he said “Octopussy, the film Octopussy. Exactly like that, I thought I’d be Roger Moore and you’d all love me.” He also said that the good things about it were “you’re all nice to look at and you smell good...” I think using this evidence it is safe to say that boys really do never grow out of being immature, they only grow bigger egos!

On a more serious note I really do think it’s a great idea to mix boys and girls together in university accommodation, for someone like myself who has never lived with anyone other than my family (which for the majority of Fresher’s is the same) I have found it a fantastic experience. I’ve met new people which I love living with, I’ve learnt about their backgrounds and where they’re from and it’s just given me a new outlook on life. Mark said that “...the diversity makes it more fun” which I also agree with, it’s a great chance to meet new people and experience something completely different.

So what do you think; do you like living with the other side?