


An online learning space for "Culture Making in the Empire," a 2013 interim course at Calvin College taught by Rob and Kirstin Vander Giessen-Reitsma. Content from previous versions of the course are also archived here.
I have been to Woodland Mall numerous times before, but after watching The Persuaders I was able to notice and point out things that I have never noticed before. The Persuaders made me realize that the mall really isn’t just a large building with an array of stores inside of it, it is much more complex. I always wondered why malls contained food courts. I would occasionally think to myself, “people are here to buy clothes, shoes, etc…not to eat!” It occurred to me that the reason why food courts and restaurants are placed in malls is to encourage the consumers to stay longer. While walking around the mall with my sister, we noticed that it was almost as if each store was in a competition with another one. The signs and advertisements for certain deals and specials caught your eye in every store, and the manikins in the display cases were always dressed in very attractive outfits which draws the attention of the consumers. One thing that I found amusing that never came to my attention before is that almost EVERY person that exits the mall, is leaving unsatisfied with what they have and they are wanting more. From the coffee stand located in the center of the mall; to the massage chairs lined up in a row, I have now realized that the mall is just a trap that producers have set up for consumers.
Growing up in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, malls have always seemed rather unnatural to me. The closest American mall was three hours away making mall trips difficult. Not that it mattered; I had no intentions of going shopping anyway. As I arrived with friends this past Saturday at Woodlawn mall, I was filled with a kind of sick awe. I felt like there were hundreds and hundreds of cars lining the parking lot. It took my friends and me a good five minutes just to find a parking spot. Walking inside the doors of this temple of commerce I wondered to myself, “What do so many people need to buy?”
As I strolled through the bustling palace of human desire, I realized that I had asked the wrong question. Being the rather pragmatic person that I am, I had miscalculated in reasoning that people go to the mall to accomplish the tangible goal of buying specific items they require/desire. From my perspective, malls were counterparts to supermarkets. I thought both had the same idea behind them, with differences involving only the essentialness of the items being sold at each. Instead, I realized that people go to malls for the experience of being there. The ideas we had discussed in class were finally starting to fit into place.
As I glanced around shops, I saw friends and families enjoying a Saturday afternoon. People looked relaxed and seemed to be enjoying taking in all of what the mall had to offer. It was strange to see. Perhaps part of this mall experience is the perceived fulfillment of spending what one has earned. I think that individuals go to the mall on the weekend and think, “Hey, I worked hard all week. I deserve a chance to relax and enjoy the result of my hard work.” This leads me to wonder if in the present climate, individuals are less satisfied by the direct results of their work and more interested in using their jobs as a means to an end. After all, in today’s job market, many people view just about any available job as one worth taking. Instead of finding a job that gives a sense of fulfillment to the individual, people are separating job and fulfillment, using a job to go out and find a sense of fulfillment somewhere else. An interesting thought to ponder, true or not.
As my friends and I departed, I was both amused and disturbed when both of my friends asked where we had to leave the mall in order to find our car. They had both been disoriented as the makers of the mall intended. This was the last piece of evidence I needed to believe everything that the article “The Shopping Mall as ‘Stairway to Heaven,’ Leading Nowhere.” Pointing my friends in the right direction and finally departing, I knew more than ever that I hate shopping.
Invictus is a film based on the story of South Africa’s 1995 Rugby World Cup team. Morgan Freeman stars as Nelson Mandela who decides to use the Cup as a means to bring the country together in the aftermath of the abolishment of the apartheid system, which occurred in 1991. South African rugby captain Francois Pienaar, portrayed by Matt Damon, must lead the team to victory if Mandela’s “human calculation” is to fully succeed.
"Forgiveness liberates the soul, it removes fear."
While the delivery of its message is perhaps a little heavy-handed at times, Invictus does a wonderful job of examining racial reconciliation. After enduring years of white discrimination and hostility, Mandela doesn’t take the “an eye for an eye” or “tit for tat” approach that we too often see in the world. Instead, Mandela realizes that the only way South Africa can come together and function as a country is if the Afrikaners and Africans can learn to trust each other. This is far easier said than done. Whites live in fear of retribution from the blacks that they’ve abused for so long and Africans struggle to find forgiveness for their former oppressors. As a news anchor in the film puts it, Mandela has the job of "balancing Black aspirations with White fears."
Mandela decides the best way to bring the country together is to get it to rally behind its national rugby team, the Springboks. This is viewed as a very controversial move by many blacks as the Springboks, to them, represent the apartheid system they have only recently broken out of. Only white people care about rugby and root for the Springboks. Blacks are interested in soccer and always root against the Springboks. Because of this, it is decided at a national sports meeting that the Springboks should be replaced by a new team, representing the new South Africa. However, before this change is enacted, Mandela comes and convinces the blacks to keep the Springbok team intact and let them represent the country in the upcoming World Cup, hosted by South Africa. When questioned on this decision, Mandela responds, “If I cannot change when circumstances demand it, how can I expect others to?”
By the end of the film, the country does end up rallying behind this once controversial team and celebrates together the eventual World Cup Championship victory. As the film reaches its climax, viewers are shown how two conflicting groups of people can be brought together if forgiveness is shown and leaders on both sides are willing to work together in compromise. Invictus shows that even though there is hatred and evil in the world, it can be overcome by forgiveness, compromise, and love. As the poem "Invictus" states, “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” We don’t have to give in and follow what the empire’s message of revenge and supremacy. We can break out of the Empire’s mindset and act in the ways of the Kingdom by showing compassion, forgiveness, and love, even in the most difficult situations.
Discussion Questions:
- How often in today’s world do we see compromise between two very opposite groups? Why is this?
- While the Springboks did when the final game, do you think the country of South Africa still would have come together in the pain of defeat? What do we need symbols to rally behind for, and after we’ve rallied behind them, does it matter what becomes of them? Once a connection is established between very different people, how easily can this connection be broken?
- As Mandela asks in the film, “If I cannot change when circumstances demand it, how can I expect others to?” With this in mind, are their areas in your life where you need to change in order to peacefully work and exist with others?
Reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/invictus/
Trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/invictus/
I chose to compare an issue of a Glamour magazine with the material that we are learning in class, and I have made several strong connections between the two. This magazine proves to readers that the media plays an incredibly strong role in peoples lives when it comes to determining their priorities and values. The February 2010 issue of Glamour that I used is packed full with advertisements for beauty products that are displayed in a way that persuades the reader that the product is a necessity. Other articles throughout the magazine deal with what is in-style when it comes to fashion and clothing. I feel like this magazine demonstrates many qualities that we consider are in the Empire. It demonstrates qualities such as deception, conformity, and self-promoting. This magazine does not go beyond focusing on physical appearance, which is avoiding the actual truth about life. The articles and advertisements in Glamour that promote certain beauty products and other supplies that can potentially alter a persons physical appearance, take away the feelings people have of being fulfilled. This magazine leaves the reader wanting more and not being content with what they have. In my opinion, I consider this magazine to be a type of “sin”. In a lecture in class, Ken Heffner said, “sin reveals itself by changing our third or fourth priorities and making them first.” This statement has a connection with this Glamour magazine because it persuades us to be obsessed with our physical looks and traits which is completely opposite in the Kingdom of God. It is safe to say that truth is not being revealed in this magazine, but it does thoroughly demonstrate what the media has done to people, and how strongly magazines such as Glamour affect individuals. Although human beings should be focusing on things other than their physical appearance, the media is continuing to distort the priorities and values of people throughout the country.
Discussion Questions:
1) Do any of these types of fashion magazines have a positive affect on us? Explain.
2) In what ways can we help ourselves not give in to these certain desires that media is trying to persuade us?
"Technically brilliant and emotionally wrenching, District 9 has action, imagination, and all the elements of a thoroughly entertaining science-fiction classic."
One ordinary, family- oriented, hardworking man named Wikus van de Marwe, an MNU field operative (Multinational United) is placed in charge of relocating a race of aliens whose spaceship hovers above Johannesburg, South Africa. After an attempt to talk with an alien about the eviction, Wikus was injured in his forearm and began to mutate. Wikus's changed arm is then capable of operating an alien weapon which is valuable to the government. Scientists want to take advantage of this capability. Wikus escapes and hides in an alien shanty. An alien named Christopher promised to heal him, and together they save the canister of fuel for the mother ship. Christopher and his son then leave, promising to be back, and Wikus stays to fight the people who were once his fellows. Now he is one of the alien creatures.The movie made in a documentary style that makes it absolutely exclusive and memorable, you feel just like being wrapped- up in the story!It feels real.
You can look at this movie from the different angels:you can be with the aliens, you can be with the humans or with the government."It has an alternate reality"( Almost in all movies there are good and bad sides, good and bad characters. At the beginning of the movie you identify the human government as good because it cares about its people, and tries to protect them from the unexpected interference of the aliens. The aliens, or prawns, are frightful and creepy creatures, who engage in criminal and destructive activities, which lead to demands from the human population for more control. They are definitely assumed to be bad guys. Two Empires are against each other: the human Empire is independent and powerful: militarily, politically and economically it is prepared to take care of itself; it defines normality and abnormality; In contrast, the alien Empire seems to be less powerful and independent, but it has a huge advantage- the most powerful weapon on the Earth. One day one of these Empires will win.
At the middle of the movie you begin to understand that prawns are not as bad as they seem to be. The humans, who are supposed to be intelligent, treat Wikus as a thing. People want to 'take to pieces' Wikus who is still a person, who feels pain and wants to live; he just has a mutated arm.What a big deal.I am sure that the powerful Empire like this one can find a way to help him. But as if it usually happens, everything supernatural must be studied.Not long time ago Wikus was sent to perform an important and dangerous mission, and now he is nothing, a guy who is 'different'. What a cruelty and evil! Aliens, who are assumed to be stupid, take care of each other and try to live in the Human Empire. There is a question: will Christopher be back to fight against people? I think he will be back but not for the battle, but for helping Wikus and taking his compatriots back home. Sure, there is a reason for the fight but i guess the aliens know that not all people are bad.
I think that there are can be some possible explanations of two these Empires: I can say for sure that humans and aliens are representatives of two powerful Empires with advantages and disadvantages( they can't be Kingdoms because they are unholy and vicious),but one Empire seems to be more humane, wiser and compassionate, and this one is the alien Empire.
Questions: