#response2

           In Audre Lorde’s series of writings I recognized a general theme between all of them. The idea of black women taking the white perception and internalizing it into how they see themselves and how they live life. As if white colonials colonized our minds, our bodies, and our hearts.

The white perception holds hatred, therefore, that hatred inhabits our everything and we will never progress. As Audre says in “Eye to Eye: Black Women, Hatred, and Anger”; “as we fear each other less and value each other more, we will come to value recognition within each other’s eyes as well as within our own, and seek a balance between these visions.” However, I don’t think society can ever get to that peace and live in harmony despite our differences. The power of the patriarchy and the white men that inhabit it oppress us, “for within structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive. . . feelings were meant to kneel to thought as we were meant to kneel to men. But women have survived” (Poetry Is Not a Luxury). This was a powerful quote that struck me and made me realize how much I hold in in my emotions. As society forces walls around groups, we naturally build those walls within ourselves. But the last line of the quote “women have survived” is something to be said. We have lasted this long with perfect posture despite the oppression weighing down our shoulders.

We are trying to survive in the patriarchy on our own, but why not do it together as sisters? Audre points out women have instilled hostile relationships with each other instead of supporting one another, especially in the black community: “as black women, we have shared so many similar experiences. Why doesn’t this commonality bring us closer together instead of setting us at each other’s throats with weapons well-honed by familiarity?” (Eye to Eye: Black Women, Hatred, and Anger). If we eliminate those hostile encounters and learn to support each other, we can “arm ourselves with ourselves and each other, we can stand toe to toe inside that rigorous loving and begin to speak the impossible” (Eye to Eye: Black Women, Hatred, and Anger). As we build a harmonious matriarchy we can heal each other and ourselves in the process and live with the prospect that we can live—not survive.

Squishing a bit under the supposedly gently taps, perhaps being a bit dramatic about it, he looks up at her questioningly before moving a nubby paw to pap her back.

The article Making Monsters: Lady Gaga, Fan Identification, and Social Media by Melissa A. Click , Hyunji Lee & Holly Willson Holladay discusses how Lady Gaga is using social media in order to create a large following of loyal fans: “social media, particularly Twitter, play an important role in the relationships Little Monsters have developed with Mother Monster” (Click, Lee, and Holladay). As seen in the quotation, these fans call themselves “Monsters,” and affectionately refer to her  as “Mother Monster.” Lady Gaga became well acclaimed for her unique and fresh approach to stardom. She heavily relies on social media in order to connect with her fans. Although I had never particularly loved Gaga enough to be a Monster, a close friend of mine definitely was. She followed Gaga on every social media site possible, especially Twitter. On the other hand, Cory Doctorow’s article The Internet is the Best Place for Dissent to Start suggests what were to happen if social media sites were to decrease in popularity, or to be exterminated entirely. If Doctorow’s idea were to over lap with Gaga’s approach to a fan base, almost her entire following would be lost. While the two articles themselves are very contrasting in content, the outlaying ideas can be examined individually, and pieces of each concept can be placed on top of each other, providing a unique outlook on what the world might come to without social media. 

Doctorow’s article was a much more politically based, and seemingly authentic, source. Therefore, some terminology must be defined in order for the whole picture to come together. He refers to some people as being dissidents. A dissident is, by definition, a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state. With this knowledge in mind, it can be assumed that the article will be, by nature, about a governmental issue. He claims that “Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media tools...reveal the social ties between dissidents, making it easy for secret policemen to swoop in and round up whole movements without having to bother with the tedious business of wiretapping and surveillance in order to figure out whom to arrest” (Doctorow). If we are to simply take that concept, detach it from his argument, and reapply it to Lady Gaga’s Monsters, and how they connect with her, we are starting to see how valid his point might be. It rings true regardless of the situation. Ultimately, the Monsters have created strong social ties described by Doctorow, and have put themselves into groups such as on Facebook, that would make it easy for them to be eradicated entirely. It would save all of the people who are against Lady Gaga and her flamboyant ways to “swoop in and round up whole movements without having to bother with the tedious business of wiretapping and surveillance in order to figure out whom to arrest” (Doctorow). See how easy it was to take Doctorow’s thought and apply it to Gaga? The versatility of the argument knows no bounds. 

There are more ways than one for these groupings to affect fan bases. “The increased potential for celebrity-fan interactions in social media allows fans additional opportunities to feel close to celebrities” (Click, Lee, and Holladay). This seemingly goes without saying. Of course there is increased potential. We are in the twenty-first century, are we not? Doctorow would be inclined to agree, as he claims that “while YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (and other popular social services) aren't good at protecting dissidents, they are nevertheless the best place for this sort of activity to start, for several reasons” (Doctorow). This is not a forsaken statement. However, what if we were to take Doctorow’s concept to the extremist level, and completely take out the internet and all forms of social media entirely. Would we be able to survive? 

I think that is a very complicated concept. Some people would be able to adapt and move on. However, others would simply dwindle out of existence. Some people, like Lady Gaga. Her entire fan base of Little Monsters would be lost. Yes, they love her, and say they will follow her to the ends of the earth. And there are some creepy ones who might. But realistically speaking, it is an irrational idea. People who introduced themselves entirely dependent on social media will remain entirely dependent on social media. “…Imaginary relationships with media

figures, including celebrities, are encouraged by the media industries, which “lavish

considerable effort on techniques that not only invite but virtually force this kind of

identification”” (Click, Lee, and Holladay). The world could not exist as is without social media. I’m sorry Gaga, but if social media go-go’s, it’s game over. That’s a wrap. 

Click, Lee, and Holladay. Making Monsters: Lady Gaga, Fan Identification, and Social Media (2013, June). Retrieved from file:file:///Users/lanawest/Downloads/Click%252C+Lee%252C+Holladay+-+2013+-+Making+Monsters+Lady+Gaga%252C+Fan+Identification%252C+and+Social+Media%20(1).pdf