Comments on: SocImages Apparently Undermining Itself One Image at a Time

By: Mubarak

Mubarak — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:56:03 +0000

If I’m not mistaken, picture number four is a goat show. Like dog shows.

By: Original Will

Original Will — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:06:43 +0000

I dunno, based on the number of comments I’ve seen on this site that say “feminism is obsolete” or “racism doesn’t exist anymore” or “us poor white males have problems too, feel sorry for us” or “get a sense of humor, it’s only a joke” or “you are over educated and looking too deeply”, I have to wonder. A lot of people do ignore the commentary, or just simply don’t believe it.

By: aneka

aneka — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:47:28 +0000

Well, I do think that pointing out individual things might even enforce stereotypes in a way. Critique of these specific things kind of validates the things that are wrong in general.

You can easily pick out one american ad, for an example, and critique it but this gives away the notion that in general american advertising and the commercialism associated is okay, and these are just the exceptional things that are being highlighted. This is the attitude I get from it, at least. The correct way of using such images would be using them to penetrate the real issue which would be the utter absurd wastefulness of the american way of life, in this particular example. But it is like there is this magical wall that kind of protects the real things behind these images from critique.

By: Restructure!

Restructure! — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:54:23 +0000

So I guess that means that the entire premise of our blog–pairing images with analysis–is fundamentally flawed. In fact, we’re likely simply reinforcing everyone’s stereotypes!

You’re not simply reinforcing everyone’s stereotypes.

It’s just that if your main goal is to debunk stereotypes, the perpetuation of stereotypical images makes the textual analysis less effective. However, I don’t think your main goal is to debunk stereotypes. I thought it was to analyze stereotypical images, and doing that requires posting the image.

And someone needs to analyze stereotypical images. It may not be the most effective method, but it covers ground.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:05:36 +0000

Absolutely, although I tend to look more at what people say here, because we all have vastly different opinions of one another but the respect for those opinions is what gives me the impression of opeen-mindedness. It’s not like we see pictures of one another doing different activities and then can assess who is open-minded and who isn’t.

By: Nique

Nique — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:00:04 +0000

I had no idea it was a goat. I thought it was some sort of llama. I’ve never seen such an ugly goat in my life, normally I think they’re pretty cute (and delicious!).

By: MTHS

MTHS — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:29:58 +0000

So…what exactly IS going on with that goat? Auction?

By: What photo shows. « Jared Del Rosso

What photo shows. « Jared Del Rosso — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:04:15 +0000

[...] across two soc-posts on photographs. The first was SocImages post about the interactions between texts, images, and stereotypes. The second was at Everyday Sociology Blog, where Janis Prince Inniss took on the interaction [...]

By: Liyana T

Liyana T — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:07:55 +0000

I found out that some of the photogs were from a site called ‘Infidels are cool’ basically its a strongly anti-Muslim/Arab site I think fanning the flames of xenophobia. I think its because of the belief that ALL MUSLIMS are the SAME and hold the SAME beliefs when this is EXACTLY ISN’T SO. Honestly such sites here among impressionable young Muslims have turned them equally xenophobic and prejudiced against Muslims en generale. Which is kind of scary it’s like that story of the Jewish man who became a Nazi. Society does put a lot of pressure on identity even if identity is something not everyone wishes to prescribe to.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:40:03 +0000

I must be a victim of peer influence here – I want to get the autograph of that goat.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:38:42 +0000

We often tend to notice what confirms our biases and ignore what doesn’t.
This is very true, and tough to fight. I know that when I decided to start blogging, I came to this site and many others looking for things that don’t necessarily mesh with my beliefs. The sites that I looked at that directly opposed my beliefs were extremely hard for me to read, and I found myself largely dismissing everything that was being said.

By: E

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:37:53 +0000

But most of kind of agree on things. Maybe not everything, but a lot. I mean with the exception of a few yank hating trolls. So it does kind of reinforce our beliefs. Especially maybe the one about us being open minded.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:03:43 +0000

I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion, but I do think that individuals and how their own worlds are shaped can really affect their world view of anything, including image analyses. I looked at those images just like I look at every other set of images that I might see from a particular country – they are a nation of tradition and modernity. That’s pretty much true of the entire world, now. Someone else might be like, “Whoa, they have electric?”

So someone with deeply held beliefs about a particular country or community, either negative or positive, may fit this assessment and may never move past those beliefs regardless of how much proof is shown to the contrary. It probably has little effect on someone else who may be aware of the stereotypes but who does not harbor the same strong preconceptions, or for people unafraid to be shown something vastly different from whatever they’d known in the past.

Besides, I think most people reading SocImages already come here with an open mind to find discussions that challenge our most commonly held beliefs, so you’re in the clear ;)

By: E

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:02:22 +0000

Exactly! People who says advertising doesn’t affect them are usually a walking name brand. From the hat to the socks, everything has logo on it.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:30:17 +0000

Ha! Thanks I needed the laugh today.