All papers should be written according to MLA format. You should discuss the theme of the work that you analyze. When you turn in your final papers to my email account at raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com, please indicate that you are turning in your final paper by attaching the word final to the name of your document: e.g. JeanToomerFINAL.doc.
When I download attachments marked FINAL at the end, I will issue a final grade and will not send you any paper back for revision. Please turn in your final papers by the end of the week so I can calculate your grades. I should have your grades availabe by the end of the week as soon as you turn them in. You still have to show up for the final exam and show me your exam permit. I should be able to give you your grade at that point.
For our final exam:
Watch the videos below and read the articles. Include a few references to the videos you watched and to the articles you read in the following two page essay: Write about Toyota and its reputation as a brand. Do you feel that Toyota has lost its reputation because of its approach towards its products, or do you still see Toyota as a reputable brand? Has your perception of the autmobile industry changed because Toyota made so many errors?
You need to take the CAAP Writing Skills test. Please go to google, type in CAAP, and study the writing skills test. Be sure to study the writing skills test and not the CAAP writing test with the essay. We will take the test on Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
How many calories are there in a large family size bag of Doritos?
One serving size is 1 ounce, which is about 28 grams, which comes out to about 15 chips. There are 12 of these servings in the whole container (the whole bag). It's 120 calories per serving. You need to multiply that by the number of servings in the bag to find out how many calories are in the whole bag. 120 x 12 = 1440
So there are 1,440 calories in the whole bag.
Let's say you weigh 150 pounds. The average 150 pound person burns 100 calories per mile. That means that you would have to run 14.4 miles to burn off the entire bag of Doritos!
However, you can see for yourself how many miles you would have to run to burn 1440 calories. Remember, this is assuming that you ate a large bag of Doritos with 12 servings at 120 calories per serving in one meal. Go to this calorie burn caculator and determine how many miles you would have to run to burn off 1440 calories. You will have to enter your weight. You can write about this for extra credit. Here is the calorie counter: calorie
That's a lot of calories! I would try to stick to a serving or two!
Here are a few essays to read that might stimulate your thoughts about the Doritos assignment:
Today, I will post information about all of the assignments. Here is a video lecture on all of
the assignments and on what you need to turn in to me.
If you have any questions about the assignments, please email me at raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com.
We added one additional assignment today.
You should read "Self-Help for a Shopaholic" under the Shopping link at the upper right hand side.
Be prepared to write an essay next class on Tuesday, April 15th. You should bring a copy of "Self-Help for a Shopaholic" so you can include quotes in your assignment. Discuss Rebecca Bloomwood's shopping addiciton in the story. What are the symptoms of her psychological addiction? Do you think she will overcome her addiction? Do you think shopping addictions are a problem in our society?
Also, we will have one other assignment later on (next Tuesday). Bring to class a shopping artifact--some item that you purchased. Tell the story of how you purchased it, discussed why you purchased it, and describe how it identifies you as a consumer. You can write this essay in class as well.
* Please note that you should rewrite your essays on a computer after the class. You may bring your computer to class if you are writing on your computer.
Thursday, April 8th, 2010
Please send me your Doritos assignment.
I also need your analysis of Shor's essay, "The Politics of Consumption." Analyze whether she is correct in asserting that we need a new way to approach consumerism. She focuses on the fact that we are often not critical enough of the wasteful way we often live. For example, much of this economic crisis we are in now is a result of many people's misguided idea that living on borrowed credit is a way of life. Do you think we can change the ideas we have about what we buy, or is American society to wrapped up in consumer culture to change? Use quotes from Shor's essay.
Here is Shor's essay below:
The New Politics of Consumption
Juliet Schor
In contemporary American culture, consuming is as authentic as it gets. Advertisements, getting a bargain, garage sales, and credit cards are firmly entrenched pillars of our way of life. We shop on our lunch hours, patronize outlet malls on vacation, and satisfy our latest desires with a late-night click of a mouse.
Yet for all is popularity, the shopping mania provokes considerable dis-ease: many Americans worry about our preoccupation with getting and spending. They fear we are losing touch with more worthwhile values and ways of living. But the discomfort rarely goes much further than that; it never coheres into a persuasive, well-articulated critique of consumerism. By contrast, in the 1960s and early 1970s, a far-reaching critique of consumer culture was part of our political discourse. Elements of the New Left, influenced by the Frankfurt school, as well as by John Kenneth Galbraith and others, put forward a scathing indictment. They argued that Americans had been manipulated into participating in a dumbed-down, artificial consumer culture, which yielded few true human satisfactions.
For reasons that are not hard to imagine, this particular approach was short-lived, even among critics of American society and culture. It seemed too patronizing to talk about manipulation of the “true needs” of average Americans. In its stead, critics adopted a more liberal point of view and deferred to individuals on consumer issues. Social critics again emphasized the distribution of resources, with the more economistic goal of maximizing the incomes of working people. The good life, they suggested, could be achieved by attaining a comfortable, middle-class standard of living. This outlook was particularly prevalent in economics, where even radical economists have long believed that income is the key to well-being. While radical political economy, as it came to be called, retained a powerful critique of alienation in production and the distribution of property, it abandoned the nascent intellectual project of analyzing the consumer sphere. Few economists now think about how we consume and whether it reproduces class inequality, alienation, or power. “Stuff” is the part of the equation that the system is thought to have gotten nearly right.
Of course, many Americans retained a critical stance toward our consumer culture. They embody that stance in their daily lives, in the ways they live and raise their kids. The rejection of consumerism, if you will, has taken place principally at an individual level. It is not associated with widely accepted intellectual analysis, and an associated critical politics of consumption.
But such a politics has become an urgent need. The average American now finds it harder to achieve a satisfying standard of living than did the average American twenty-five years ago. Work requires longer hours, jobs are less secure, and pressures to spend more intense. Consumption-induced environmental damage remains pervasive, and we are in the midst of widespread failures of public provision. While the current economic boom has allayed consumers’ fears for the moment, many Americans have long-term worries about their ability to meet basic needs, ensure a decent standard of living for their children, and keep up with an ever-escalating consumption norm.
In response to these developments, social critics continue to focus on income. In his impressive analysis of the problems of contemporary American capitalism, Fat and Mean, economist David Gordon emphasizes income adequacy. The “vast majority of U.S. households,” he argues, “can barely make ends meet….Meager livelihoods are a typical condition, an average circumstance.” Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute focuses on the distribution of income and wealth, arguing that the gains of the top 20 percent have jeopardized the well-being of the bottom 80 percent. Incomes have stagnated and the robust 3 percent growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s are long gone. If we have a consumption problem, this view implicitly states, we can solve it by getting more income into more people’s hands. The goals are redistribution and growth.
It is difficult to take exception to this view. It combines a deep respect for individual choice (the liberal part) with a commitment to justice and equality (the egalitarian part). I held it myself for many years. But I now believe that by failing to look deeper, to examine the very nature of consumption, it has become too limiting. In short, I do not think that the “income solution” addresses some of the most profound failures of the current consumption regime.
Why not? First, consuming is part of the problem. Income (the solution) leads to consumption practices that exacerbate and reproduce class and social inequalities, resulting in, and perhaps even worsening, an unequal distribution of income. Second, the system is structured such that an adequate income is an elusive goal. That is because adequacy is relative, defined by reference to the incomes of others. Without an analysis of consumer desire and need, and a different framework for understanding what is adequate, we are likely to find ourselves, twenty years from now, arguing that a median income of $100,000—rather than half that—is adequate. These arguments underscore the social context of consumption: the ways in which our sense of social standing and belonging comes from what we consume. If true, they suggest that attempts to achieve equality or adequacy of individual incomes without changing consumption patterns will be self-defeating.
Finally, it is difficult to make an ethical argument that people in one of the worlds’ richest countries need more when the global income gap is so wide, the disparity in world resource use so enormous, and the possibility that we are already consuming beyond Earth’s ecological carrying capacity so likely. (This third critique will get less attention in this essay—because it is more familiar, not because it is less important—but I will return to it in the conclusion.)
I agree that justice requires a vastly more equal society, in terms of income and wealth. The question is whether we should also aim for a society in which our relationship to consuming changes, a society in which we consume differently. I argue here for such a perspective: for a critique of consumer culture and practices. Somebody needs to be for quality of life, not just quantity of stuff. And to be so requires an approach that does not trivialize consumption, but accords it the respect and centrality it deserves.
whey protein concentrate, onion powder, partially hydrogenated soybean and cottonseed oil, corn flour, disodium phosphate, lactose, natural and artificial flavor, dextrose, tomato powder, spices, lactic acid, artificial color (yellow 6, yellow 5, red 40), citric acid, sugar, garlic powder, red and green bell pepper powder, red and green bell pepper powder, sodium caseinate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, nonfat milk solids, whey protein isolate, and corn syrup solids.
You don't have to analyze every one of these ingredients. Pick out a few from the list that you think are dangerous for people's health.
Analyze the two commercials on Doritos. How entertaining were they? How effective were they? How informative were they? Do some independent research on the ingredients in Doritos and document your sources. What chemicals are found in Doritos and what are some of the ingredients you found? Are there artificial ingredients in Doritos and what health risks do they pose? Lastly, what did you learn from this exercise? Do you think it is worthwhile to read the labels of the products that you buy? Do you also agree with Shor's argument in "the Politics of Consumption" that we live in a dumbed down, artificial consumer culture? Write at least two to three pages and send the assignment to raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
I am taking over the second half of this course. Dr. Baltazar will be responsible for your grade for the first half of the semester. Your final grade will be the average of Dr. Baltazar's grade and my grade. In my portion of the class, we will focus on critical thinking skills and grammar skills. We will be doing specific readings on consumer culture and its effects on our society in order to have a topic to write about.
First, we did a brainstorm on shopping. Write down all of the ideas that you have about shopping.
Second, we will watch two different commercials and analyze them. Answer the following questions: was the commercial effective? What happened during the commercial? Lastly, was the commercial informative/memorable? Compare and contrast both commercials. Did they make you want to buy the product? Write at least one page.
Here are the commercials:
After watching the Doritos' commercials, read the label on a package of Doritos. Look up the different chemicals that are in them. Analyze how many miles you would have to run to burn ALL the calories you would gain if you ate an entire bag of Doritos. Analyze the different artificial colors and artificial ingredients in the bag.
Also, watch this video about junk food and how Americans eat improperly by eating junk food like Doritos:
Now, write a one page discussion of what you learned about the dangers of fast foods. How do you feel that the advertisement affected you? Do you think makers of junk food have a responsibility to educate the public about the dangers of the food that they are making? Do we live in a dumbed down consumer culture that avoids the facts about the products that are being sold on the market?
On Thursday, we will finish reading this article and write an essay on it after class (2-3 pages in length). You can send these assignments to me by Tuesday of next week at raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com.
The New Politics of Consumption
Juliet Schor
In contemporary American culture, consuming is as authentic as it gets. Advertisements, getting a bargain, garage sales, and credit cards are firmly entrenched pillars of our way of life. We shop on our lunch hours, patronize outlet malls on vacation, and satisfy our latest desires with a late-night click of a mouse.
Yet for all is popularity, the shopping mania provokes considerable dis-ease: many Americans worry about our preoccupation with getting and spending. They fear we are losing touch with more worthwhile values and ways of living. But the discomfort rarely goes much further than that; it never coheres into a persuasive, well-articulated critique of consumerism. By contrast, in the 1960s and early 1970s, a far-reaching critique of consumer culture was part of our political discourse. Elements of the New Left, influenced by the Frankfurt school, as well as by John Kenneth Galbraith and others, put forward a scathing indictment. They argued that Americans had been manipulated into participating in a dumbed-down, artificial consumer culture, which yielded few true human satisfactions.
For reasons that are not hard to imagine, this particular approach was short-lived, even among critics of American society and culture. It seemed too patronizing to talk about manipulation of the “true needs” of average Americans. In its stead, critics adopted a more liberal point of view and deferred to individuals on consumer issues. Social critics again emphasized the distribution of resources, with the more economistic goal of maximizing the incomes of working people. The good life, they suggested, could be achieved by attaining a comfortable, middle-class standard of living. This outlook was particularly prevalent in economics, where even radical economists have long believed that income is the key to well-being. While radical political economy, as it came to be called, retained a powerful critique of alienation in production and the distribution of property, it abandoned the nascent intellectual project of analyzing the consumer sphere. Few economists now think about how we consume and whether it reproduces class inequality, alienation, or power. “Stuff” is the part of the equation that the system is thought to have gotten nearly right.
Of course, many Americans retained a critical stance toward our consumer culture. They embody that stance in their daily lives, in the ways they live and raise their kids. The rejection of consumerism, if you will, has taken place principally at an individual level. It is not associated with widely accepted intellectual analysis, and an associated critical politics of consumption.
But such a politics has become an urgent need. The average American now finds it harder to achieve a satisfying standard of living than did the average American twenty-five years ago. Work requires longer hours, jobs are less secure, and pressures to spend more intense. Consumption-induced environmental damage remains pervasive, and we are in the midst of widespread failures of public provision. While the current economic boom has allayed consumers’ fears for the moment, many Americans have long-term worries about their ability to meet basic needs, ensure a decent standard of living for their children, and keep up with an ever-escalating consumption norm.
In response to these developments, social critics continue to focus on income. In his impressive analysis of the problems of contemporary American capitalism, Fat and Mean, economist David Gordon emphasizes income adequacy. The “vast majority of U.S. households,” he argues, “can barely make ends meet….Meager livelihoods are a typical condition, an average circumstance.” Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute focuses on the distribution of income and wealth, arguing that the gains of the top 20 percent have jeopardized the well-being of the bottom 80 percent. Incomes have stagnated and the robust 3 percent growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s are long gone. If we have a consumption problem, this view implicitly states, we can solve it by getting more income into more people’s hands. The goals are redistribution and growth.
It is difficult to take exception to this view. It combines a deep respect for individual choice (the liberal part) with a commitment to justice and equality (the egalitarian part). I held it myself for many years. But I now believe that by failing to look deeper, to examine the very nature of consumption, it has become too limiting. In short, I do not think that the “income solution” addresses some of the most profound failures of the current consumption regime.
Why not? First, consuming is part of the problem. Income (the solution) leads to consumption practices that exacerbate and reproduce class and social inequalities, resulting in, and perhaps even worsening, an unequal distribution of income. Second, the system is structured such that an adequate income is an elusive goal. That is because adequacy is relative, defined by reference to the incomes of others. Without an analysis of consumer desire and need, and a different framework for understanding what is adequate, we are likely to find ourselves, twenty years from now, arguing that a median income of $100,000—rather than half that—is adequate. These arguments underscore the social context of consumption: the ways in which our sense of social standing and belonging comes from what we consume. If true, they suggest that attempts to achieve equality or adequacy of individual incomes without changing consumption patterns will be self-defeating.
Finally, it is difficult to make an ethical argument that people in one of the worlds’ richest countries need more when the global income gap is so wide, the disparity in world resource use so enormous, and the possibility that we are already consuming beyond Earth’s ecological carrying capacity so likely. (This third critique will get less attention in this essay—because it is more familiar, not because it is less important—but I will return to it in the conclusion.)
I agree that justice requires a vastly more equal society, in terms of income and wealth. The question is whether we should also aim for a society in which our relationship to consuming changes, a society in which we consume differently. I argue here for such a perspective: for a critique of consumer culture and practices. Somebody needs to be for quality of life, not just quantity of stuff. And to be so requires an approach that does not trivialize consumption, but accords it the respect and centrality it deserves.
Some Guidelines for Re-Reading Schor
1. Schor writes that “credit cards are firmly entrenched pillars of our way of life.” Her essay was published in 2000. Do some research to support that this claim still holds true today. Use statistical evidence. How much credit card debt, for example, does the average American family have today? Has the amount risen since 2000? Option: Do research in small groups and share your findings.
2. Schor claims that “shopping mania provokes considerable dis-ease.” How does she support this claim? What worries her most?
3. How does Schor support her point that “the average American finds it harder to achieve a satisfying standard of living”? Schor was writing in the late 1990s. Her essay was published in 2000. Would you say the average American finds it just as hard or harder today to achieve a satisfying standard of living? Can you find evidence or support?
4. What do some American socio-cultural critics believe to be the “key to well-being,” to living a “good life”? What do they focus on? What does Schor believe? Copy her “I…believe” sentence and the sentence that follows.
Saint Paul’s College: Department of Humanities & Behavioral Sciences
Composition II
Course Information:
English 162-3
Spring Semester 2010 Instructor:
Dr. Comprone
Class Time: T R 1-2:15 P.M. Office: RH 136
Classroom: Office Hours:
Reading LabMWF 2-4 P. M. T R 2:15-3:15 P.M.
Office Phone: Credit Hours:
contact by email only 3
Email: raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com
Website: www.comprone.info
Endorsement Competencies for Education Majors:
Understanding of the knowledge, skills, and processes of English as defined in the Virginia Standards of Learning.
Skills necessary to teach the writing process and the different forms of writing (narrative, descriptive, expository, persuasive, and informational) and to employ available technology.
Knowledge of grammar, usage, and mechanics and their integration in writing.
Pre-requisite: Students must have completed Compostion I.
Required Texts: Print out Consumer Culture Project on this website. You may have to cut and paste it onto a Microsoft Word document in order for the document to print out properly. You can email me (raphaeljohncomprone@gmail.com) if you want a copy of the Consumer Culture Project with digital images. We will read essays and think critically about the consumer culture from this project. Please bring this project to class.
Selection of Texts: TBA
Course Description: The purpose of this course is to provide college students with the ability to express themselves in a professional context. Students will be encouraged to think and write critically, and they will also learn the basic rules of the English language. There will be four tests on grammar and numerous essays on various subjects.
Course Rationale: The purpose of this course is to develop each student’s proficiency in the English language.
Course Goals, Objectives, and Corresponding Program Outcomes: The goals of this course are the following:
1 To help students develop as writers and critical thinkers
2 To develop a passion for self-expression in students
3 To provide students with all of the grammatical skills necessary to write successfully in an academic and professional context
4 To develop in students a passion for reading critically
Expectations for Student Behavior as Related to Course Objectives and Their Corresponding Program Outcomes:
Please arrange for meeting with me during my office hours. Students must behave appropriately by: 1) avoiding talking when the professor is speaking, 2) being punctual (students will lose points for tardiness and excessive absences), 3) always bringing their textbooks to class, 4) actively participating in class, 5) not plagiarizing, 6) avoiding the use of foul language and abusive behavior, and 8) being polite to other students.
The attendance policy is as follows:
Students missing more than 9 times (EXCUSED or UNEXCUSED) must WITHDRAW or receive a
failing grade of F.
This policy will be strictly enforced.
Students with 2 or less absences will receive an additional 10% for their final grade. Excused absences will not be factored into this calculation, e.g. a student who has three excused absences and no unexcused absences will not receive an additional 10% added to his or her final grade.
Students cannot obtain excuses for absences after the semester is over.
Class Format, Process, and Methods of Instruction:
This semester, we will be completing a series of assignments based on reading and thinking critically about consumer culture.
Students can only receive incompletes upon permission by the instructor (an incomplete can only be filed for during the semester) and only if they are experiencing financial difficulties or a grave personal matter (I must be notified in person by the student or by a relative before the end of the semester). Excuses will only be accepted from the Provost's office. I will only accept assignments in person (do not slip any assignments under my office door--I am not responsible if any of these assignments should end up missing). It is the student's responsibility to make up any missing work and to check on his or her grade during the semester. Absolutely no excuses for absences can be issued after the semester is completed (if you do not show me the excuse during the semester--you have to show me the excuse in person, do not put it under my door--I will not give you an excuse--this applies to athletes as well). Athletes must personally give me a copy of their game schedule and indicate to me the days they will be absent. They must also make up any work and or missed instruction the day after their absence. ABSOLUTELY no grade changes are possible after the semester. Please check with me before the end of the semester to see if you have any outstanding work to complete.
In this class, we will discuss selected passages from the texts assigned in class:
In-class essays and research paper: 50%
Tests: 40%
Attendance and Participation: 10%
Total: 100%
Course Outline and Assignment Due Dates:
TBA
List of Assigned Readings and Assignments:
TBA
For the grammar tests, students will be responsible for the following terms: noun, demonstrative pronoun, reflexive pronoun, personal pronoun, reciprocal pronoun, indefinite pronoun, possessive pronoun, independent clause, dependent/subordinate clause, compound sentence, simple sentence, complex sentence, compound-complex sentence, prepositional phrase, subordinating conjunction, coordinating conjunction, adjective, adverb, preposition, correlative conjunction, linking verb, transitive verb, intransitive verb, direct object, indirect object, object complement, relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun, conjunctive adverb, predicate, subject, gerund phrase, infinitive phrase, absolute phrase, adjective/relative clause, participial phrase, appositive phrase, adverb clause, noun clause, declarative sentence, imperative sentence, interrogative sentence, exclamatory sentence
Recommended Internet Sites: www.comprone.info for updates on assignments, syllabi, poetry club submissions (extra credit)
