Slutwalk was held on April 21st at Victoria Park in downtown London on one of the first nice days of the year – something that didn’t go unnoticed by participants. The organizers of Slutwalk say that a much-needed shift in perception was what they’re aiming for with the walk. The fact that rape is never the victim’s fault should be self-evident, but it isn’t always upheld in the court of public opinion.

Slutwalk isn’t merely about a female’s right to act ‘slutty’ – it has more to do with the notion that women’s choices in the ways that they present themselves to the world should not be held up as evidence for crimes inflicted upon them.  Some participants chose to wear their favourite dresses, others wore bras and shorts. Scrawled slogans were a common body decoration. I had a heartbreaking conversation with a woman about the notion of bundling up and relative catcalls. Women are still harassed in the streets and this has little to do with the clothes they choose to wear and more with the power that the catcaller chooses to exercise. The sad truth is that females are objectified no matter how many layers they choose to don.

Hackles have been raised over feminists’ use of male-defined vocabulary to describe the movement. Some feel that it detracts from the intended goal of reappropriation by following the old Madonna/whore binary. The slut in Slutwalk is a provocative mantle, used to draw the attention of the press to feminist issues. The core message is: your body, your rules.

“I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

This statement, spoken by Const. Michael Sanguinetti during an safety forum at Osgoode Hall Law School, set off a wave of responses. Feminists (male and female) were fed up with the onus placed upon the victim. Sanguinetti (who later apologized for his comments) placed the responsibility in the hands of scantily clad female victims, erasing all other victims of sexual violence with his ill-chosen words. The victim-blaming attitude trivializes the will and autonomy of the rapist. Soon, Slutwalks were popping up like franchises. The movement spans continents and languages, yet is fairly decentralized. There is no Slut HQ.

The organizers of the march focused on the intersectionality of the feminist community of London – a friendly reminder that not all feminists are of the same vein. Stephanie Kapusta, an activist with the Women’s Issues Network at UWO, spoke of prejudices that members of the trans community face on a daily basis. Kapusta offered a few reflections on language and the dominant discourses that emerge from them: “Trans women often face a similar issue to cis women who are raped,” Kapusta said, framing a link between the two communities. “Both victims are often called evil deceivers – trans individuals are accused of gender fraud and rape victims are often accused of wearing hems that are just a little too short.”

Detractors of the movement often focus on the provocative nature of the word itself. Slutwalk takes the intent behind Take Back the Night and shoves it into the daylight. A person’s clothing is not an invitation to rape them. The movement also focuses on victim blaming, a focus that became all too necessary in the wake of CNN’s Steubenville coverage.

The London chapter of Slutwalk was organized by Jess Kiley and Jessica Fay, with assistance from the Women’s Issues Network. Kiley addressed the crowd, starting off with some simple rules: “Obey traffic lights and make sure you stay on the sidewalk.” As for troublemaking, “We’ve never had an issue with that,” Jess added.

Louise Pitre, Executive Director of the London Sexual Assault Centre, spoke for her work: “If anyone would ever doubt that we need to reclaim the word slut, this is why. It is often worse to be raped than to be a rapist.” Pitre rattled off a list of the recent victims featured in the media: Amanda Todd, Jane Doe of Steubenville, Audrie Pott, and Rehtaeh Parsons. These women are lightening rods for media attention but they only represent a small sample of the victims of sexual violence.

I need Slutwalk because I’m more likely to shut a catcaller up by telling him that I have a boyfriend, rather than a curt no. I need Slutwalk because the threat of another male holds more authority than my own refusal. Slutwalk is a way to dismantle that way of thinking. The movement is not so much about getting rid of what we don’t want but being clear about what we do want. We need a new narrative — one that has a holistic view regarding female sexuality and the right to exercise it, as well as protections for victims of violence.

~~~

Kennedy Ryan just finished her second year of a plain old degree in MIT. She loves white button down shirts, cinnamon gum and Johnny Cash. She hates people who hum in public. Writing this in the third person was really awkward for her.

Minegishi’s response to the ordeal? She shaved her head out of remorse and later apologized to fans through the ever-cathartic medium of YouTube. The ordeal garnered international media attention, but instead of getting kicked out entirely, Minegishi was demoted from team member to “trainee.” Hell, were it not for her show of honesty and regret, the entire event would probably have gone unnoticed on this side of the world.

From a North American perspective, this seemingly extreme form of celebrity apology does not even compare to the damage control our celebrities (and their PR teams) undertake when they screw up. I mean, if we applied these same values to the ongoing sexual escapades of Taylor Swift, she’d be rocking a mean crew cut too. Consider the slew of negative coverage surrounding the ongoing physical and aggressive encounters with Justin Bieber and the press, and more recently his attempt to give a WorldStarHipHop-worthy beatdown to a cheeky London paparazzo.

While the act was provoked and arguably not worth a head-shave, Bieber absolved the situation over Instagram with a rather unapologetic and boastful statement about how the press shouldn’t be so instigative regarding his commercial success. Even though his statement probably went over better than Minegishi’s more apologetic response, I’m beginning to think that fans deserve a greater sense of recognition, loyalty and respect from the celebrities they support. If famous people are going to make bad decisions, their fan base should always be acknowledged first.

Outside of social media, celebrities are really only reminded of how important they are to fans through direct encounters with fans themselves, and through eager paparazzi who exist to provide content to distant groupies as a method of making bank. Sadly, our interest in celebrity culture seems to justify the paparazzi’s questionable ways of procuring information: their persistence and disregard for celebrity privacy to the point of incurring restraining orders and assault charges. Our desire to stay informed about our favourite famous people can sour the celebrity-fan relationship, thanks to such overbearing demands and consequential life interruptions.

The responsibility for the movement toward stronger fan acknowledgement rests not only with the North American celebrity, but also with the necessity for tactfulness on the part of those who respond to our need for information about the stars: paparazzi, media journalists, etc. While Japan’s honor-driven acts have proven to influence even celebrities, celebrity humility in North America is nonetheless a rare art form, and that needs to change. I’m not asking for dramatic acts of remorse every time a star breaks a rule or argues with the press – I just think that if the head of the CIA can publicly apologize for an affair on television, then ambiguous Instagram messages should pale in comparison.

~~~

Matt Anstett is a second-year student of MIT and Criminology. When not scribing cold cases for Western’s Cold Case Society, you might find Matt volunteering for the benefit of humanoids outside the Western bubble.

The final issue of OPENWIDE volume 12 is on stands now in NCB and the UCC! We’re going out with a bang this year with tons of great articles, student spotlights, poetry, and more. Between those two beautiful covers you’ll find a heartfelt letter from your outgoing FIMSSC executives Jordan Coop and Kelly Mark and an interview with the incoming crew, Jordan Pearson and Steven Wright. You’ll get the low-down on why bar photography as a form of free creative labour sucks, why we need a little of that “FSU” spirit back, Access Copyright, Girl Talk, and way more.

Pick up your physical copy today or read it after the jump:

Email applications to openwidezine@gmail.com by 6 pm on April 16th. 

  Interviews will be held on April 17th and 18th. You will be contacted with your interview time on April 16th.

—

We are looking for a dedicated team to continue to expand the reach and impact of OPENWIDE for the upcoming year. Interested in pushing the avant-garde and keeping the FIMS and UWO community creatively informed and connected? Then go forth, and apply today.

You may apply for a max 3 of the following positions: Managing, Print, Creative, Online

If you have any questions, email them to openwidezine@gmail.com

Good luck!

The Positions

Managing Editor

A leadership role with the purpose of assisting the editor-in-chief to direct the vision and operations of OPENWIDE. Involves coordinating the editorial team, as well as staff writers and contributors.

Print

Section editors must be strong writers, have an eye for detail and be able to work well in a team environment. They must be able to generate relevant and interesting content. The following sections are available:

WORLD: Canada and the world, politics, economics

A&E: arts, entertainment, technology, culture

WESTERN LIFE: FIMS, student life, university politics

Creative

Graphics Editor: Responsible for handling the graphics content and layout for OPENWIDE in print. Will also work closely with the web editor to co-produce online graphical content. Mandatory experience in Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator.

Marketing Coordinator: Responsible for networking; coordinating OPENWIDE’s social media presence (along with the web editor), connecting with the street team, and linking OPENWIDE to the community. Will coordinate promotions/advertising, and play a prominent role with any OPENWIDE community-related events.

Online

Web Editor: Producing the content for the OPENWIDE’s online section. Includes transferring print content to online form, as well as publishing/formatting online stories and advertisements. Will work with the graphics editor for online graphical content, and the marketing coordinator for the social media content.

Assistant web editor: Assisting the web editor with maintaining online content. Must be cooperative in a group setting.

 The Application

PART I: WHO ARE YOU?

Please provide the following:

• Your name
• Your year of study
• Positions you are applying for

• (If Editorial Team, rank your top 3)

• Preferred e-mail address and phone number
• Availability on April 17th and 18h for 15-minute interview

PART II: WHAT ARE YOU ALL ABOUT?

1. What prior experience/qualifications do you have that would help you excel in each position you have applied for? (Point form is fine).

1. In your opinion, what is/should be the purpose of the OPENWIDE?
2. Would like to see OPENWIDE take a new direction in the upcoming year? If yes, explain why, and if not, explain why you think the current structure is a strong one.

Editorial Team and Managing Editor ONLY:

• Stephen Ward, in The Invention of Journalism Ethics, says that facts are but a “small part of our corpus of knowledge.” He notes that journalism, particularly online, has transitioned into a style that increasingly interjects opinion, “a more interpretive stance towards stories.

Do you think that this been detrimental to journalism? A positive change? Or both? (300 words or less)

• Stephen Ward calls for journalists to be “catalysts of public discussion” rather than detached, impartial observers.

In 150 words or less, agree or disagree.

• Please attach a short sample of your written work. Please avoid lengthy essays – concise is better. Written responses, articles, etc. are all acceptable. Applicants for the Online positions are encouraged to attach a sample page from a personal web design project, or a screenshot from a personal website or blog (please note that this is not mandatory).

1. Graphics Editor ONLY:

TAKE A LEAP

This photograph of artist Yves Klein shows him taking a “Leap Into the Void”, consequently the title of the work. In a one-page magazine 8.5×11 layout, tell us how your contribution as graphics editor will help OPENWIDE make a leap of its own and answer the questions in part 1 and 2. Incorporate this image in your layout, the title “Take a Leap”, and well as any other images and graphics you find appropriate.

The application process requires you to come up with an idea for a cashless future (which is impossible, but that’s a whole different topic). After that you share your idea with MasterCard through LinkedIn along with a copy of your resumé. Sounds pretty normal, right? Wrong. Before you submit your idea and resumé you are encouraged to share said idea throughout your social platforms. Why? Because, “The more likes and retweets you get, the better your chances of getting noticed. Don’t forget to use the #InternsWanted hashtag so we can find you.” Oh, and don’t forget to follow MasterCard on Twitter, because if you are selected for an interview, you’ll be notified via direct message on April 15^th. Wait a minute, this sounds a lot like a classic social media contest… Should I submit my Klout score, too?

“You want some advice? Impress someone.
Pick up the phone and put yourself out there.”

For those of you unfamiliar with MasterCard’s #InternsWanted campaign, it is a ‘social interview’ that’s in it’s third year. It’s called a ‘social interview’ because it’s not a job search; it’s a popularity contest. Seriously, it’s a fucking contest. Check it out.

Not a job, a contest.

What’s wrong with this, you ask? Everything! I would expect that you, my fellow MIT colleagues, would be able to see how idiotic this ‘job search’ really is. We learn about this shit every day. It’s drilled into our brains from professors like Alison Hearn, Matt Stahl, Warren Steele, and Jonathan Burston—the world is out to fuck us, yet all those who applied to this job seem to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Don’t you see what kind of threat this poses to the job industry? Can’t you see that it’s behaviour like this that is naturalizing the competitive nature in today’s job market? Your likely response: “But the job industry has always been like this.” No it hasn’t. What you mean to say is, “The job industry has always been competitive,” but it’s usually a competition based on relative skills, not because Steve is more popular than Dylan.

What the fuck is going on?

To really examine how awful this process is, let’s go back in time, like, 4 or 5 years when you were getting your first job. Maybe you were applying to work at Tim Horton’s or McDonald’s. You had no experience. This was the first time you put yourself out there. The first time you really took a leap of faith. The first time you were really vulnerable. Now imagine your surprise if you were to hand in a resume and hear the manager say, “Okay great. Now just go home, ‘like’ us on Facebook, share your job application, and whomever get’s the most ‘likes’ gets the job. Hope you’re popular!” You would be pretty bummed out to say the least.

The best part about this whole thing, though, was when our beloved faculty, who teaches us to be cautious of how terrible society is, sent out an email encouraging all of us to apply! Fuck yeah, MIT! It’s a depressing corner of our curriculum, because, what MIT is really saying is, “Hey, we’re gonna teach you to be ‘anti-establishment,’ but at the end of the day, if you want a job, you better man up and compete like everybody else.” MasterCard’s ‘social interview,’ #InternsWanted, social media campaign is the fucking antithesis of MIT.

“I would expect that you, my fellow MIT colleagues, would be able to see how idiotic this job search really is.”

Am I applying for this MasterCard internship? Absolutely not. Over 350 people have applied for this job. There are 5 positions. If this social media contest isn’t the most effective way to sift through that many resumes, then I don’t know what is. Bonne chance to all those who applied, though. God knows you probably need it.

You want some advice? Impress someone. Pick up the phone (funny how that’s impressive these days) and put yourself out there. Yes, today’s job market is extremely competitive, and yes, it’s more who you know than what you know, but it’s a double-edged sword, my friend. If you have a skill and you do it well, someone will one day be like, “Woah, you’re pretty good, eh?” But then again, you need to know someone who’s actually going to say that, and chances are it’s not going to be the person you’re sucking corporate dick for over the summer at your unpaid internship.

How is that okay?

Say, for example, you’re a whiz at designing websites and you find a website that’s poorly designed, has a lot of bugs, and generally sucks. Send them an email, tell them why their site sucks, explain your qualifications, and tell them why they should hire you and fire the other guy. Just because there’s a goalie in the net doesn’t mean you can’t score. No business is going to be pissed because you called them out on their professionalism. Remember, they’re most interested in their public image and how they spend their money, and if they’re wasting money paying some lazy dude, you should jump on the opportunity.

With the economy in such rough shape the job market is fierce. Competing for a job can be acceptable, but not in the way that MasterCard—and many other institutions—present it. A social competition? I always hated reality television. Can we change it? Probably not. So do we just accept this new social competitive job model? Hell no. I urge you to do whatever it takes to get someone to notice your skills or talent. Don’t get me wrong, you can learn a lot of useful things from an internship, most importantly real life job experience, but just because you’re an intern doesn’t mean you can’t amount to more. If you see an opportunity, take it. Introduce yourself to everyone, act the part for whatever job you want, because at the end of the day, if you know the right people, it could make the difference between an unpaid internship and a salary with benefits.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this ‘social interview’ is the way of the future, to weed out the candidates with weak social skills. What do I know—I’m just some asshole in second-year MIT who wears a Hawaiian shirt all year long. I could probably talk some more shit about you, MIT, MasterCard, or society in general, but my quesadillas are getting cold.

It’s that time of year again: spring cleaning. I’d recommend starting with your iTunes. Here are a few must-have tracks to start off, from me to you:

Tame Impala – Feels Like We Only Go Backwards  

Heavily influenced by 60s and 70s psychedelic rock, Tame Impala produces a feel good dream sequence melody through disorder. Borrowing elements from pop and rock, what emerges from the synthesized chaos is a unique sound. Between their carefree arrangements, a lot of their subject matter is about typical confessions of heartbreak. Lyrically they’re like a better sounding Australian One Direction. This is my favourite song off of their newest album, Lonerism.

Daughter – Medicine

Daughter, originally a solo project of Elena Tonra turned indie-folk trio (featuring Remi Aguilella and Igor Haefeli), hail from London England. Tonra specializes in calming teenage angst and making it pretty. She originally reminded me of Florence [and the Machine], but I feel there is something more simplistic and raw here. This track is off their EP Wild Youth, but they just released their first full-length album, If You Leave, last month (I recommend “Human,” “Lifeforms” and “Still”)

Imagine Dragons – Radioactive

The indie-rock band seems to be experimenting with dub step influences, and I don’t hate it. With its soulful beat it’s doing something different on this track. They win at conjuring up some of the most explosive choruses. Their new wave approach makes their sounds strange and mesmerizing simultaneously.

Wild Belle – Keep You

Click image to hear “Keep You” by Wild Belle on SoundCloud

Wild Belle is an indie-pop project from Chicago. Think along the lines of Beach House if you need a sound reference. They’re a brother-sister duo, but there is no sibling rivalry – together they create island-esque rhythms, borrowing inspiration from soul and reggae to create a completely original take on the two genres that is all their own. The sharp vocals provide an edgy juxtaposition against easygoing and effortless vibes. The musical arrangements offer expressive arrays of instruments and sounds. Plus I’m a big fan of long-wave synths and female vocalists.

Happy listening.

~~~

Leah Lalich is a second year MPI student who two-times with the English program. She writes on thewildvibes.com and talks on CHRW’s Beige Alert about her spontaneous music obsessions. She once saw John Stamos on a plane and he thought she was pretty.

“Words in the Wind”, mixed media, by Ruben Monzon

An End

Words waft spectre-like among us: they are spoken and embodied; they are revoked and undone piece-by-piece, evaporating into the thin night air. I wonder, maddeningly, whether I had simply dreamed them up.

A promise is precarious. No matter how earnestly it is whispered, no matter how fervently it is pledged with the tenacity of a white-knuckled grip and a creased forehead, it must always have the sharp edge of unspoken conditions. The bitter disappointment of an end begins with mere words–words that mean nothing, words that mean everything.

~~~

Alysha McLeod studies English and Women’s Studies at Western. She is a self-professed strident feminist and crazy cat lady (Her current total is two, but her belief is that cat ownership is a slippery slope: once you’ve got more than one, you’re pretty much doomed to have many).

It starts with a black screen. Sirens and the clattering of debris make use of the state of the art sound system.

September 11, 2001.

An emergency responder speaks to a woman trapped on a floor above the impact. They talk back and forth in their 2001 voices. Context is given as her words beat against the screen that is still black, inside your head, and the walls of the theatre that already feel too close.

I could say that I was naïve about the particulars of the film. I knew that it was a movie about the nature of terror. I knew that it was a movie about enhanced interrogation. I knew that it was a movie about torture. I knew that it was a movie about the military, secret ops, intelligence. Navy SEALs. America. The Middle East. However, all those themes stem from a single point and I wasn’t expecting to feel so jolted. I didn’t relax for the duration of the film. 157 minutes. I didn’t sleep the night after. I called my mother and I asked her what that day was like.

At age eight, I was too young to experience the news event of the decade as it was meant to be experienced. An attack on the American mainland. ‘First time ever,’ the adults whispered around me. I have no sense of the day and it holds no shape in my mind. I came of age in the post-terror incubator. I was asked to remove my shoes before going through metal detectors and walk forward when I saw the gesture. I learned to avoid wearing shoes with laces. There was one Bush-era year when we had a connecting flight through O’Hare and every fifteen minutes an announcement was piped through the airport speaker system: “The Security Threat Level is now at orange.”

Zero Dark Thirty is different simply because it doesn’t play by the elementary rules of storytelling.  The film has characters and it has settings – the audience soon becomes familiar with aerial shots of CIA black zones spreading across Pakistan’s Karachi desert. However, it lacks any semblance to a conventional plot.

Screenwriter Mark Boal created a movie about a plot in the most literal sense of the word. Any yarn of a storyline is shoved aside by a linear series of vignettes. Characters meet each other in leaps and bounds of space and time. A liaison in a Middle Eastern café could be left dangling after a long, drawn-out scene in CIA headquarters. It’s an interesting narrative choice and pushes the boundaries of audience engagement. Motives play a part in the film. There’s an overwhelming sense that the Bad Guy must be caught at any price but in this 21^st century version of cowboys and Indians we never see why the individual characters do what they do – only that they do their jobs. Where do these people come from? Where do they sleep? Who do they love?

There’s a noticeable shift that occurs halfway through the film. After the dates on the screen start to read familiar numbers, the viewer starts to collect memories of recent years. The president is described as analytical. His administration is shown to be more careful than his predecessor’s. Any audience that expected a trigger-happy “shoot ’em up” catharsis would be disappointed. Almost every shot fired was shown to be a careful one.

The element of fake-real was what unsettled me the most. How can one separate fact from fiction and parse them out when they’re presented as photo-realistic? Kathryn Bigelow has made the first newsreel film. Topic: The War on Terror. As I sat watching it, I wondered when I’d be given the mercy of fiction. When the dirty walls of the Abbottabad compound were revealed, I felt like I was watching the news. The dim feeling of recognition only added to the uneasiness.

I became aware that my stomach hurt.  If I had an itch I waited five minutes to scratch it. I tucked my hand under my chin and kept it there for the whole movie, too afraid to move. I spent twenty minutes thinking about bringing my legs up and resting my heels on the cushion of my seat. I wanted to tuck my legs against my chest and curl up into a ball right there in the theatre. I closed my eyes when I heard guns being fired. My eyelids fluttered along with the rat-tat-tat of their weapons.

If Bigelow had made a movie that showed a payoff without the information gleaned from torture, I would have called her a liar. But she showed it, because it happened. I don’t want to write about the politicized scenes of torture. I don’t want to remember them. I found myself disconnecting from the movie to preserve a sense of composure. I went to other spaces in my mind when I heard the soft, awful moans of the inmates. The film earned its controversial mantle from the necessary inclusion of those scenes.

It’s not good practice to read over reviews before reviewing a movie for yourself, but I did it anyway. Other writers described the film as gritty, its protagonist as flame haired, its motives as political. I committed the cardinal sin of Google searches and went past the first page of results. I found a wasteland of issue-based results: pro-torture, Oscar bait, America rah-rah-rah, female directors. None of the lingering effects of the film were discussed.

The 24 hour news cycle never could have found its footing were it not for the events of 9/11. The rhetoric of the event moved past factual record and into the arena of News as Spectacle. As a result, watching events unfold on the TV screen now feels like watching a carefully scripted film. However, as one medium cops another, the storytelling techniques are exchanged. The CNN aesthetic is always present in Zero Dark Thirty. As scenes play out, they seem to suffer from a lack of flashy graphics. The modern news aesthetic has informed the film and the audience expects to see scrolling text and solemn anchors woven in to the action onscreen. For a film that claims to be a depiction of real people and real events, it plays closer to the line of parody.

~~~

Kennedy Ryan is in her second year of a plain old degree in MIT. She loves white button down shirts, cinnamon gum and Johnny Cash. She hates people who hum in public. Writing this in the third person was really awkward for her.

A power that has, in one way, manifested itself through an “Oprahfication” of today’s society — our culture is more confession-based than ever before. Divulging information about our personal lives or insecurities would have been unheard of in a previous generation (outside of church confessional, at least) but in today’s world — one of reality television and a rotating sushi-bar of “celebrities” milking their fifteen minutes of fame — we readily share information with one another. Public therapy has become a norm in today’s generation and this can be, at least partially, credited to Oprah’s influence.

When she began The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1985, the public was immediately charmed. Oprah was not the typical figure you would see on television in more ways than one — she was overweight, black, and a woman. While these characteristics might have made her a risky personality for media executives to get behind, it was these very features that made Oprah more accessible to audiences; Oprah seemed to personify an average woman in America. Daytime audiences responded emphatically and swiftly, vaulting her show to the top of ratings-charts within months of its debut. This is the position it would stay for virtually all of the show’s duration.

Oprah’s show was a trailblazer, unafraid to tackle society’s taboos that many would prefer remain untouched. For instance, a 1990 episode focused on Truddi Chase, a woman who suffered from multiple personality disorder (now called DID; Dissociative Identity Disorder) and described her experience of having ninety two distinct personalities. Americans had likely never heard of this disorder, perhaps with the exception of the television movie Sybil, a 1976 television movie starring Sally Field as a woman with sixteen different personalities. The candid nature of the episode, which included Oprah breaking down in tears, was among the first notable “confessional” episodes.

While Oprah tackled a variety of issues during her show’s run, she always championed gay rights, particularly in earlier episodes. Episodes that frankly discussed homosexuality preceded even the Truddi Chase episode. Indeed, one of the main pillars of “Oprahfication” was an acceptance of gays in society.

In 1988, in honor of National Coming Out Day, members of Oprah’s studio audience stood up, stated their name and proudly asserted they were gay. Unprecedented for the time, gay acceptance would soon become a recurring element of the show. During a show on gay marriage in the 1990s, a discussion amongst the audience was occurring when a woman stood up and explained that she was tired of gays “flaunting their sex lives.” This was a common sentiment at a time when a steady undercurrent of heterosexism ran through American public opinion (of course, this is still a fairly common sentiment, and insidious heterosexism persists to this day). Oprah’s response elicited an enthused response, “You know what I’m tired of?” she asked. “Heterosexual males raping and sodomizing young girls. That’s what I’m tired of.”

Episodes where guests came on the show to discuss their feelings about traumatic experiences in their lives, whatever they may be, became common. As well, celebrities revealing intimate details about themselves seemed to happen organically — Oprah just had a way of causing famous people to “spill the beans.” All this occurred with a reported forty two million people watching weekly. These public revelations on The Oprah Winfrey Show were so commonplace they soon became commonplace in our everyday lives.

As they years drew on, her power seemed to be dissipating; ratings for her show were in a steady decline. Her public image, however, remained remarkably positive and carried with it some informal political, cultural, and economic leadership amongst Americans. Whenever she added a new book to her book club, sales for her selection still skyrocketed, even towards the end of her talk show’s run.

Perhaps the most significant demonstration of her preeminence came with her endorsement of Presidential contender Barack Obama. She gave speeches endorsing the candidate and made a number of joint appearances with him. After the 2008 election, two economists estimated that Oprah’s endorsement delivered Obama one million votes to the Democratic Party Primary and without her support, he would have lost to Hillary Clinton. Talk about power!

What had the most draining effect on her influence, however, was her decision to end her talk show after twenty five years and transfer her energy to a television network; OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network. The network launched on the first day of 2011 but the jump was not an easy one — after initially promising ratings, they began to fall — and quickly.

As ratings tumbled and the money bled (330 million dollars since the networks inception), analysts were predicting an end to Oprah’s reign as the most influential woman on the planet. Surely it wasn’t a farfetched conclusion; after all, people were turning away from her new endeavor. Many questioned how one person could sustain their own television network. Maybe our society was finally moving away from its “Oprahfication.”

After the network’s six month milestone, Oprah took the reins and began to actively retool the network and strengthen its programming. In it’s first year on the air, OWN was largely irrelevant in the ratings and featured abysmal shows that drew little attention. Oprah then took advantage of the winning personality audiences fell in love with in 1985. She launched several new shows, starring in each, in the hopes of turning things around.

One of these shows was Oprah’s Next Chapter, a show where she traveled around the world, and interviewed notable people. Just when it seemed like she was down and out, Oprah launched her rebound. One the earliest episodes of her new show featured an interview with Whitney Houston’s family soon after the singer’s death. The emotionally charged episode reignited the confession culture in television and proved that the “Oprahfication” was not gone. The episode proved to be a ratings hit.

The success of Oprah’s Next Chapter began to lift the rest of the network up, in part because it was providing something crucial — publicity. Oprah began landing celebrity after celebrity and managed to make news during many of the interviews. More than ever, it seemed famous people were willing to disclose personal details about their lives or explain their recent scandals.

In the final months of 2012, it became known that world famous cyclist Lance Armstrong had been doping during all of his Tour De France victories and throughout much of his career. The news sent shock waves through the sporting community and had the public captivated. Armstrong remained silent as his medals were stripped from him and endorsers began backing away from him. His silence was broken when he decided to talk to Oprah Winfrey.

The two-part episode of Oprah’s Next Chapter was estimated to have been watched by 28 million worldwide; unheard of for a cable network show. Moreover, in the days leading up to the interview, front pages of newspapers like the Toronto Star were covering the interview. Oprah had managed to use her brand of public therapy to make her network relevant again; it’s predicted the network will at least break even for 2013.

Oprah’s story is undoubtedly unique — she managed to turn a talk show into an empire that spawned an entire television network. Not only that but her power is so widespread that she’s arguably changed the way we interact with one another. Personal matters are more likely to be brought up amongst friends than before her show premiered.

“Oprahfication” of society has been profound but can Oprah take sole responsibility for our more open lives? Surely not, but her contribution to this can not be denied. Moreover, she helped eliminate taboos plaguing the mainstream media, allowing people to talk about issues that affect them, issues that previously would have been swept under the carpet. Homosexuality, sexual abuse, mental illness, and a host of other issues have now entered the public discourse. An “Oprahfication” continues but it begs the question — when Oprah finally disappears will her effects be felt years after?

Personally, I believe so. We live in a society that has become increasingly open about ourselves as individuals. It’s a staggering level of ever increasing transparency that has been occurring for the past decade at least. If nothing else, you could argue that Oprah fulfilled a niche  for the time and merely precipitated what would have naturally occurred within society. Regardless, her impact has been felt and will continue to be felt years to come.

The news of Oprah’s demise has been greatly exaggerated. As her network continues to gain steam, her influence on the public is just as strong. It seems the woman who has been donned “the most influential woman in the world” is here to stay.

~~~

Bradley Metlin is a first year social science student who loves politics, film, television, and anything pop culture. He spends his free time sobbing over his laptop in a fruitless search for a live stream of the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Pragmatically speaking, one cannot deny that genre-based categories still maintain some veneer of integrity. Originally designed for sound recording collections in libraries, the Alpha-Numeric System for Classification of Recordings (ANSCR) provides an example of a system for organizing “physical” formats, with an emphasis on the primacy of genre. On sites like Amazon.com and YouTube, collaborative filtering algorithms provide the basis for recommender systems. While not based on genre per se, they end up mimicking such tendencies.

Despite genre’s pervasiveness, no universal standard actually exists for it. As Aucoutuier and Pachet mention, the total numbers of genres and subgenres, as well as the hierarchical structures of web-based taxonomies on various music-related websites, can vary quite a bit. Beyond such formal systems, a particular habitus that associates itself with recondite musical tastes might possess its own way of categorizing music. Within those contexts, the conventions of more mainstream top-down genre-based systems don’t apply, and “poseurs” risk exposure.

Musical tastes can act as a signifier of one’s social status, which might account for some of genre’s staying power. Nonetheless, individual listeners can have musical knowledge, experience, and tastes that transcend genre-based categories. For those who have the access and inclination, new information communication technologies enable them to sample (in all senses of the word) music from a variety of genres.

Imagine a classical music listener who doesn’t enjoy all classical music, and who might actually prefer to find a piece from a “very different” genre that somehow reminds them of a favourite composition or composer. Even if they don’t possess the technical vocabulary to explain the parameters of what they’re seeking, they might be thinking of similarities that derive from some combination of a piece’s key, tempo, melodic contours, chords, and numerous other musical traits. Extramusical traits like lyrics, “aboutness,” and affective response (whether emotional, physiological, or both) could act as additional factors.

In discussing convergenre, it’s significant that Kashyap goes as far back as The Beatles’ usage of the sitar in their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The Beatles also became one of the first rock bands to receive keen interest from personalities typically associated with “classical” music, such as conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. Furthermore, composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, perhaps best known for his work in “electronic” music, appears in the back row of faces on the album’s cover.

In The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, Alex Ross provides an account of how this came about. Paul McCartney wanted to incorporate Stockhausen-like aural effects into the band’s Indian-influenced “Tomorrow Never Knows,” from their 1966 album Revolver. The composer’s appearance among numerous other mugs on Sgt. Pepper acted as a way of acknowledging his influence.

Listed below are the pieces Ross cites as McCartney’s inspiration:

More broadly, Stockhausen acts as one conduit between “classical” and other music realms. Admiration of him by musicians in other genres, including Miles Davis and Björk, reinforce his cross-genre appeal. Another admirer was Beatles contemporary Frank Zappa, whose infamous reputation derived to some extent from his seemingly undisciplined interest in mashing together a variety of genres. David Bowie is another example of a musician who has drawn upon “classical” musicians for inspiration. One of them was Philip Glass, who returned the favour by composing the “Low” Symphony in 1993 as a tribute to Bowie’s 1977 album. Like Stockhausen, however, Glass isn’t typically associated with a traditional “classical” sound. The Late Romantic composer Richard Strauss, whose 1948 collection of songs Vier letzte Lieder (Four Last Songs) acted as an inspiration for Bowie’s 2002 album Heathen, seems much closer. To bring out their affinities, and perhaps what Bowie had in mind, I recommend listening to both of the following clips together (with some slight timing and volume adjustments).

Some musicians go even further back, bringing about such seemingly improbable confluences as Baroque and heavy metal. Nonetheless, Robert Walser’s article “Eruptions: Heavy Metal Appropriations of Classical Virtuosity” provides solid evidence of such interactions. He also gives a broad overview of the incorporation of “classical” elements into rock music. Sgt. Pepper has a cameo, as do a number of progressive and art rock acts that emerged around the same time. Walser mentions jazz, too, which has interacted with the “classical” would almost as far back as the beginnings of the former. Ross discusses such interactions and cross-genre borrowings in great depth as well.

“Classical” music has had a long tradition of borrowing from folk music, too. At least in a broad sense, then, one could say that “classical” has always had strong ties with “popular” music. A fact obscured by various interests, whether for reasons of snobbery or reverse-snobbery. From that perspective, the kaleidoscopic and dizzying notion of convergenre is not a new one. If not in name, the phenomenon itself likely preceded the creation of genres.

~~~

Jason Neal is a third-year doctoral student in the Library and Information Science program. As one who shies away from shameless self-promotion, he encourages you to visit his blog on cross-genre similarities: http://geheimnisvollemusik.wordpress.com/. Despite the name, it contains less German than the writings of Adorno.