#america considers it public domain which is another discussion but does mean the movie is online for free | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

junephang2021 · 3 years

Text

Cultural differences: collectivism vs individualism

In the case of HAPPINESS:

“In the case of the SHARING mapping [Source: SHARING; Target: HAPPINESS], the concept of HAPPINESS pertains to social aspects of this emotion and reflects the collectivist nature of Korean society. “Sharing,” as an idea and an act, can be considered one of the most important norms of Korean society as it relates to establishing, maintaining, strengthening, and fostering social relations within a community. Such reciprocal social interactions are understood as keeping harmony within the society.” (Türker, 2013, p. 102).

One of the most interesting discussions I had with nearly all of my participants was how collectivism might be reflected in the Korean language. Interestingly, there was a consensus that Korean culture leans toward collectivist, group-centered values, but when asked to describe happiness through Korean metaphor, none cited the HAPPINESS IS SHARING mapping, and most descriptions of general expressions of happiness in Korea did not align with the sense of sharing described in the selection above. The following statements reflect a strong sense of collectivism in Korean society, but through the perspective of modesty rather than sharing:

“In Korea, [happiness] is kind of a silent moment. They seem more humble. They are very reflective of their happiness, and it’s very deep for them. They cherish it.” (Anna, 22)

“[Koreans] don’t brag or show off, it’s more subdued. Maybe it’s a lasting effect of Confucianism, but I think it’s rooted in modesty. It’s easier to show off your happiness through others’ achievements rather than your own.” (Shin, 26)

“North Americans are more willing to show [happiness] than others. Koreans are a little shy showing their contentedness to others by fear of showing off.” (Heejin, 58)

“In the US, people start talking about why they are happy. They talk first, and it goes [along] with their feelings. In Korea, they feel first, and then later they express [their happiness]. Koreans don’t want to show off or brag, that’s part of their cultural manners.” (Isaac, 65)

The notion that happiness should be kept to one’s self out of consideration for others is an interesting approach to collectivist social norms. The emergence of potential cultural mappings for the expression of HAPPINESS in Korea, like HAPPINESS IS DEPTH, or HAPPINESS IS MODESTY, indicates a difference in the role of HAPPINESS between American and Korean culture, even as a “desirable” emotion (as opposed to ANGER or SADNESS).

The following quote touches on HAPPINESS IS DEPTH:

“American [happiness] just feels easier. Maybe I associate happiness in Korea to getting to the point you wanna be at. In America, it’s easy, it’s shallow. In America, I’ll be happy when I have fun with friends, party, whatever. I had a good time, and I feel happy, but to me, that’s not true happiness.” (Minseok, 28)

The following quote touches on HAPPINESS IS SHARING:

“In Korea, we try to hide our happiness. But [America and Korea] are very similar in how people express happiness, even with different cultures. Sharing happiness in Korea is a good thing as well, not like sadness or anger. Still, there’s hesitation of being too open about it in Korea.” (Sanghoon, 52)

And this quote touches on HAPPINESS IS A NATURAL FORCE:

“I would say that Koreans are more expressive about their happiness. North American happiness kind of feels like a lifestyle issue; people are figuring out what makes them happy, they set goals and emphasize mental health, self care... It almost feels like an industry, there’s a bit of a weird obsession over it. In Korea, they find happiness is simple things, like ‘this coffee is really good.’ They just let happiness happen, whereas in America, it’s something that needs to be managed.” (Maya, 31)

Maya (31) characterizes happiness as something to be “let happen,” indicating passivity on the part of the person feeling happiness. Describing happiness in America as “something to be managed” directly positions this American happiness opposite the passive Korean one--in America, the person is an active agent, seeking and manipulating their happiness. The emergence too of HAPPINESS IS AN INDUSTRY in English/America also signals an absence of passivity on the part of the person.

If indeed the collectivist values of community, collaboration, and sharing produce cultural mappings in Korean metaphor and/or emotion expression, they manifest differently. According to my participants, Koreans seem to internalize their happiness so as not to brag or compete with others. However, they externalize it as well, to share the positive emotion with their group or community. I am led to wonder whether sharing one’s happiness and “shared happiness,” the former carrying a risk of bragging while the latter does not, need to be differentiated in this case.

In the case of SADNESS:

“The SHARING metaphor [Source: SHARING; Target: SADNESS], as I mentioned earlier in regard to the HAPPINESS concept, reflects the importance of sharing in the Korean cultural model. Korean society and culture are strongly collectivistic, as opposed to the Western individualistic society. The source domain of SHARING yields only one linguistic expression, in which SADNESS is conceptualized as a concrete object to be shared by two or more people (e.g. seulpeumeul (hamkke) nanuda ‘X share sadness (together)’). There is a Korean saying, “If you share happiness, it increases; if you share sadness, it decreases by half,” which depicts perfectly the collectivist nature of the culture. Therefore, this metaphor should be considered another culture-specific metaphor.” (Türker, 2013, p. 114).

In my data, a similar pattern to that of HAPPINESS occurs where the participants perceive Koreans deal with their SADNESS individually, and tend less than Americans to readily express it.

“If I were to guess, sadness [in America] kind of seems like something people need to shed or get rid of as quickly as possible, whereas maybe in Korea it’s more of something that is taken and compartmentalized. There might be more of a culture of absorbing [sadness] in Korea.” (Abigail, 19)

“To me, [Korean sadness] is more repressed. They hold it deep down.” (Anna, 22)

“I associate [Korean] sadness with solitude. We deal with our sadness alone.” (Jordan, 23)

“Korean folks don’t necessarily allow themselves to healthily express sadness.” (Shin, 26)

“Koreans have Han, which I associate with just staying quiet and going through [their sadness].” (Minseok, 28)

“There’s a hyper competitive culture in Korea. They don’t want to express their feelings. They have a fear of burdening others, and they don’t want to show vulnerability, which I think is a fear of judgment as well. If you break the mold, you become alienated.” (Jacob, 32)

One participant cited the opposite:

“North Americans are more subdued, controlled in expressing sadness. In old Korean movies, you see groups of people crying, sobbing together. They share their sadness, they share their burden.” (Heejin, 58).

An interesting dichotomy around “shared burden” emerges in discussions about Korean sadness. Majority of participants feel that Koreans are hesitant to share their sadness with others for fear of burdening them, but some do align with the data in Türker (2013), and see the burden of sadness as something to be shared and born together. If there is a consensus among my participants that the SADNESS IS A BURDEN metaphor exists in Korea, there are different ideas of how this sadness should be expressed, despite the common motivation of benefiting the collective rather than the individual.

In the case of ANGER:

There is less data in my research and interview data that indicates correlation between anger expression and culture in Korea and America. My participants expressed a wide range of perceptions of how anger is expressed in the two cultures.

ANGER in Korea is more reserved:

“Anger in America is a lot more outward, clearly communicated. I think anger is more internal in Korea.” (Abigail, 19)

“Americans are bold and straightforward. Koreans circle around [anger], especially women.” (Olivia, 25)

“A lot of Korean people are not outwardly emotional, there’s a lot of repressing emotions, I find, due to manners, society, formality--there are a lot more social rules.” (Maya, 31)

“Anger tolerance is higher in Korea. In the US, people are blunt, they tell you what they’re feeling right away. In Korea, they keep it more inside. They hide their feelings. They don’t want to burden others either.” (Jacob, 32)

“In Korea, being angry, especially in public, is not as acceptable as in American culture.” (Benjamin, 33)

“Expressing anger in America is very casual to me, anger is embedded in a lot of day to day language and behavior...[Americans] freely throw anger around in their day to day communications. In Korea, a lot of people get offended when you use that kind of communication.” (Sanghoon, 52)

Most of the reasons for increased reservation regarding anger expression in Korea reflect the social emphasis on collectivism: politeness and proper conduct.

ANGER in Korea is more outward:

“I think Koreans, specifically people from Busan, according to stereotypes are much more stoic and prone to anger. They’re quick to let it out.” (Jordan, 23)

“In Korea, if you get mad, you get mad. In America, people, especially women, are more conditioned to be passive aggressive.” (Shin, 26)

“In Korea, [people] might say, ‘I’m gonna kill you,’ and that doesn’t really mean they’re going to kill you, but they are expressing their anger and feelings straight. People in the US cannot do that, they select their words carefully.” (Isaac, 65)

ANGER in Korea is depth, or a potential ANGER IS DEPTH mapping:

“In American culture, anger is petty, it’s pointless. It’s privileged. Korean anger can be petty and shallow too, but it’s more internalized, and deep.” (Minseok, 28)

ANGER in Korea is like ANGER in America

“I don’t think there are cultural differences. Rather, there are personal differences. Some people express [anger] more actively, and others just take more passive aggressive attitudes.” (Heejin, 58)

0 notes

stretchjournalemerson · 4 years

Text

Commodified Creativity: The Liberal Arts School and the Market

By Sam Goodman

Creativity. Passion. Imagination. These buzzwords litter the mission statements of America’s top liberal arts colleges. 75% of the schools listed on Times Higher Education’s Top 20 Liberal Arts Colleges in the United States have mission statements that include these words. Institutions encourage their young artists to attack the world with unbridled creativity and an uninhibited artistic spirit as they study the commonly known liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, fine arts, mathematics, music, literature, philosophy, language, and history.

Students pursuing the arts and the institutions that instruct them set out to be trailblazers in the world of self-expression and creativity. However, as an artist studying at Emerson College, one of America’s top arts and communication schools, I have found that this creativity has been largely co-opted by capitalist thought: one’s art is only valued if it is able to draw attention and generate profit. The function of art has shifted in the neoliberal arts setting.

The American liberal arts student is taught to create, not for the sake of creativity or the artistic spirit as their institutions say they encourage, but for the sake of the market. These institutions push the doctrine that if their students participate in the academy, they will be granted access to monetary opportunities in their field of supposed creativity. Through a financially-centric curriculum and an intense focus on student contribution to the creative economy, liberal arts schools indoctrinate their students, forcing principles driven by profit, not creativity.

When artists prioritize profit over creativity, they feed large arts industries that exploit workers for the personal gain of their wealthy leaders. Students who enter the creative world with a financial focus will be used as a tool in furthering asymmetrical systems of power and wealth within these arts industries. Contradictory to their mission statements, American liberal arts colleges have abandoned core values of creativity and artistic passion and exchanged them for ones of exhibition and profit.

It is essential to define neoliberalism in order to effectively enter this conversation. Author of “Neoliberalism” Tejaswini Ganti explores various elements of the history of neoliberal thought. He explains “the aim of [neoliberal] intellectuals…was to oppose what they saw as a rising tide of collectivism, state-centered planning, and socialism and to develop an agenda that was distinct from classical liberalism….market economy was far superior to state intervention and that the absence of private property was akin to totalitarianism” (Ganti). Neoliberal thought is largely tied to the deregulation of the free market, privatization, individualization, and the shift away from state welfare. Neoliberals encourage the privatization of arts industries, tearing various elements of culture out of the public, accessible sphere. Neoliberals rail against ideas of community and collectivism, ideas so essential to the creation of art.

I would also like to frame this discussion of commodified art in the theory of Walter Benjamin. In his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin argues that, because of the rise of mechanical reproduction, the function of art has dramatically changed over time. In prehistory, art was originally created for uses in survival, religion, and cult-activity. However, the reproduction of art has shifted its function from survival and religion to exhibition and profit.

Essential to Benjamin’s claim relating to the role of mechanical reproduction in the function of art is the concept of aura. The aura relates to a work’s original context and history. It is the work’s “presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be…The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence” (Benjamin 3-4). According to Benjamin, the aura of a work of art exists only within the original piece, not a copy. When a work of art is reproduced, it loses its original place in time, history, and the general context in which it was created. The concept of the aura only exists due to the advent of mechanical reproduction. Without reproduction, there would be no notion of authenticity; an original piece of art is only considered original because of the existence of its reproduction. When a piece is reproduced, its aura begins to fade.

Mechanical reproduction is entirely a product of the Industrial Revolution and 19th century ideals of individual capital and property ownership. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalist ideology which promoted the creation of a new, wealthy class of investors. The Industrial Revolution eventually led to the invention of the camera, one of the ultimate tools for artistic reproduction, according to Benjamin. Capitalism and mechanical reproduction are responsible for the destruction of pure art: art that retains its original context, history, and, therefore, aura, void of any commodification or manipulation.

In the context of the liberal arts school, commodified art is the only form of art. Pure art does not exist in the American collegiate system because the creativity promoted by liberal arts schools is tied directly to capitalism. Mechanical reproduction may not be the reason for a lack of pure art in academia. However, the ideals that fuel it, capital, property, and wealth, the ideals that Benjamin warns so vehemently of, certainly are.

As a student at a liberal arts college, I have found much of the creativity expressed by the student body to be tied to the market. Emerson’s most populated major as of 2018, Visual and Media Arts, is one heavily connected to the market. Film students are taught to create with the intention of promoting celebrity and generating profit, inherently capitalist ideals.

In the context of filmmaking, actors perform, not for an audience, but for a camera and crew; the actor need not adjust to a specific audience as they might in theater. Performance is easily able to be altered and, therefore, lacks aura. Because of this “The film responds to the shriveling of the aura with an artificial build-up of the ‘personality’ outside the studio. The cult of the movie star, fostered by the money of the film industry, preserves not the unique aura of the person but the “spell of the personality,” the phony spell of a commodity” (Benjamin 11-12). The film industry is inherently tied to exhibitionism. Star players within the industry become more important to the audience than their performances in the films themselves. This concept of the cult of the celebrity ultimately leads to the commodification of people as celebrities are idolized and monetarily compensated by their audiences. Filmmakers and actors create films for exhibition sake and monetary gain. Likewise, film students are taught to do the same.

Business of Creative Enterprise and Marketing Communications majors are taught how to thrive in industries that take advantage of small artists and generate profit through largely unethical means of production. As the Business of Creative Enterprises’ home page understates, their students learn “to become executives, managers, and innovators.” The success of students in these majors is dependent on the free market, dependent on power structures that allow for the rise of the ‘executive’ and the fall of the working class.

However, as a Writing, Literature, and Publishing major, I rarely encounter class discussions that center around the economic role literature plays in the art world. Unlike film, business, and marketing, writing is, as Benjamin would argue, an undisputable form of pure art as it is unsusceptible to mechanical reproduction and retains a constant aura.

100 years after Emerson College’s Boston campus was opened as an arts and communications school, the college opened a campus in Los Angeles, California. The L.A. campus has produced countless Hollywood actors, directors, producers, and screenwriters. Because of Emerson’s ties to the industry, their alumni have dubbed themselves the “Emerson Mafia.” The Mafia is essentially a body of well-connected members of Hollywood who can help young graduations network in their respective industries. The concept of an engaged alumni is seemingly harmless. However, the goal of the group is not to connect all Emerson students for the promotion of art and creativity. The Mafia’s mission, according to the group’s two 13-year-old Facebook pages (which have 18 thousand members), is to advertise “job opportunities…upcoming events…[and] promote [personal] work.”

The Emerson Mafia’s primary function is a capitalist one: advertise employment opportunities and individual artists’ work for the purpose of profit and exhibition. One joins the Mafia hoping to benefit, not creatively, but financially.

If the Mafia’s mission statement lined up with Emerson’s, it would be to encourage imagination and artfulness. Yet, the Mafia is more concerned with capital than creativity. When searching “Mafia” on Emerson's website, 139 search results appear, showing the college’s approval and endorsement of the group. Emerson students who join the Mafia allow their art to function primarily for the sake of profit, abandoning original intent and aura.

Another aspect of the commodified liberal arts creativity is how schools choose to market to their target audience. If admissions standards fall in line with mission statements, liberal arts colleges would look for creative, passionate students. However, author of "The Semiotic Production of the Good Student: A Peircean Look at the Commodification of Liberal Arts Education," Bonnie Urciuoli, argues that art schools market towards their ideal, constructed image of the perfect student, a brand she defines as the “Good Student.”

According to Urciuoli, the Good Student brand is created by the liberal arts school to promote “an unambiguously positive image of the product of higher education” (Urciuoli). However, this ‘product of higher education’ does not live up to the artful, creative standard toted by liberal arts colleges. The ‘unambiguous positive’ student is not a starving, struggling artist who is willing to create despite great personal loss. Quite the contrary. The Good Student is one who understands how to navigate and achieve great profit within the class system. The Good Student can be both an artist, but more importantly, a business person.

Urciuoli expands on this idea of achieving profit. She explains “For…pricey elite liberal arts colleges…the social reproduction of class takes precedence, although this point is not generally made explicit. To the extent that graduates of such institutions are expected to be trained…to acquire a high-end…skill set of ‘cultural capital,’…the most useful [of which] is social knowledge by which one can successfully navigate…class mobility…in and out of the workplace” (Urciuoli). ‘Cultural capital’ is a set of skills that one can use to demonstrate cultural competence and social status. Colleges train their students to acquire cultural capital, a term tied directly to classism and status. The Good Student is one who can embody the capitalist mindset; the academic and the artist alike are successful based on their ability to navigate class mobility. Personal, monetary progress is branded, marketed, favored, and encouraged over traditional artistic ideals. Class reproduction is more of a priority than pure creativity.

Urciuoli’s focus on elite art schools implies that wealthier schools promote the social mobility of their already wealthy students. Capitalist ideals of private property, personal capital, and individual mobility are evident.

Dean Kenning explores these capitalist ideas through the lens of the professional arts setting in his essay “Art world strategies: neoliberalism and the politics of professional practice in fine art education.” Kenning argues that neoliberal ideology, one of market-based productivity and enterprise, can shift the mindset of a student studying in a creative setting. Kenning claims that “education policy has, over the last decade in particular, been tasked with the role of changing thinking and behavior so that student desires coalesce with premarket economic policy” (Kenning). Kenning notices a trend in liberal arts curriculum; students are being pushed to think about their work in relation to the market. This profit-driven mindset destroys any possibility of the existence of pure art. Kenning’s argument that this trend has evolved over a decade implies that this mindset has become embedded in liberal arts students’ thinking.

Kenning expands upon these arguments while in conversation with Angela McRobbie’s Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. McRobbie discusses the politics of creative labor, arguing that the promotion of creativity is a way to encourage market innovation. McRobbie explains that “enthusiasm and critical intellect of people are precisely what is captured…and actively used to replenish and innovate so that capitalist production is seemingly…made more interesting’ (McRobbie 40). Both Kenning and McRobbie argue that the dialogue around creative industries has changed greatly: the art and economic spheres have become closely intertwined. The meaning of ‘creativity’ is more closely tied to economic innovation than artistic excellence. However, this shift in thought has begun in spaces where many young workers begin entering their fields: college campuses. Those supposedly studying methods and modes of art are taught that those concepts are directly tied to the economy. Pure art does not exist in spaces where creativity is tied solely to market-based innovation.

By sacrificing true liberal arts values for the neoliberal agenda, liberal arts colleges actively destroy the collective spirit that has been cultivated by communal art spaces. Kenning explores various aspects of neoliberalism, stating that it “is a form of behavior geared towards competitive strategies, and it is the job of neoliberal governance to actively produce competitive behavior in individuals, for example by attacking the collectivist principles represented in trade unions, the public sector and the welfare state, so that market rationality and the price system can regulate society more fully” (Kenning). Art cannot thrive in an environment that encourages intense competition for the sake of destroying collectivism. Collaboration and community are values that the art world cherishes greatly. To sacrifice these values in order to generate profit is to defy all standards, ethics, and values arts communities have worked to establish.

Neoliberal thought encourages behavior antithetical to that of the traditional art world. One must be competitive and cutthroat to survive in their field, even if their field is in the arts where collaboration is vital. As students are taught through primary and secondary education, collaboration, creativity, passion, and innovation are essential for success. However, neoliberalism has made it impossible for young artists to be successful without the end goal of their creativity being wealth and celebrity. Ideals of both artistic collaboration and competitive profit cannot exist within the same sphere.

Liberal arts schools should prioritize the fulfillment of their students’ artistic and creative spirit. First and foremost, arts schools must host a holistic curriculum in the humanities that is not, in any way, tied to the market. If schools wish to produce graduates who are prepared for success, they must disconnect their definition of success from any notion of profit. Success

should be measured in levels of creativity, passion, and imagination, not in dollar signs.

Acknowledgments

Christopher Craig, a truly inspirational man, who has opened my eyes to an incredible world.

Anna Harberger who has always helped in cultivating the collective spirit.

My WR 121 peer reviewers, specifically, Kate Healy, Sophia Kriegel, Sareen Bekerian, Ramona Kriesel, and Kristina Kuewa.

Mary Kovaleski Byrnes who has truly changed me as a person and as a writer.

Thank you.

Works Cited

Baty, Phil. “Best liberal arts colleges in the United States 2020.” Times Higher Education, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-liberal-arts-colleges-united-states#survey-answer, Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, translated by Harry Zohn (1935), edited by Hannah Arendt, Schocken Books, 1969, pp. 217-253. https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

Bradley, Elizabeth. “Mission Statement.” Vassar College, http://info.vassar.edu/about/vassar/mission.html. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Block, Sian. “The College and its Mission.” Barnard College, https://barnard.edu/college-and-its-mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Casey, Brian. “MIssion Statement.” Colgate University, https://www.colgate.edu/about/mission-statement. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Cassidy, Kimberly. “Mission.” Bryn Mawr College, https://www.brynmawr.edu/about/mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Chodosh, Hiram. “CMC’s Mission and Motto.” Claremont McKenna College, https://www.cmc.edu/about/mission-and-motto. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Cole, Nicki Lisa. “What is Cultural Capital? Do I have it?” ThoughtCo, Dotdash, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-cultural-capital-do-i-have-it-3026374. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Fowler, Vivia. “Wesleyan College Mission Statement and History.” Wesleyan College, https://www.wesleyancollege.edu/registrar/catalog/mission_history.cfm. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Ganti, Tejaswini. “Neoliberalism.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 43, Annual Reviews, 2014, pp. 89-104. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155528. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

“Indoctrinate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate. Accessed 23 Apr. 2020.

Johnson, Paula. “Mission and Values.” Wellesley College, https://www.wellesley.edu/about/missionandvalues. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Kenning, Dean. “Art world strategies: neoliberalism and the politics of professional practice in fine art education.” Journal of Visual Art Practice, vol. 18, no. 20, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2019, pp. 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2018.1500112. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

Kington, Raynard. “Mission and Values.” Grinnell College, https://www.grinnell.edu/about/at-a-glance/mission. Accessed 14. Apr. 2020.

Mandel, Maud S. “College Mission.” Williams College, https://president.williams.edu/college-governance/college-mission/. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Martin, Biddy. “Mission of Amherst College.” Amherst College, https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/facts/mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

McCartney, Kathleen. “Mission of Smith College.” Smith College, https://www.smith.edu/about-smith/smith-history/mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

McRobbie, Angela. Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wJ9RDwAAQBAJ

&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&ots=mtuTP1be7p&sig=ON-tUDR3zL3O8Dn4ohd02 gr4Wk#v=

Onepage &q&f=false. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.

Moseley, John-Albert. “Department of Visual and Media Arts.” Emerson College, https://www.emerson.edu/academics/academic-departments/visual-media-arts. Accessed 14 Apr, 2020.

Patton, Laurie L. “Mission and Values.” Middlebury College, http://www.middlebury.edu/offices/technology/lis/about/mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Peeren, Esther. “You Must (Not) Be Bored!: Boredom and Creativity in Global Capitalism.” Boredom, Shanzhai, and Digitisation in the Time of Creative China, edited by Jeroen De Kloet et al., Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2019, pp. 101–109. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqr1bnw. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Pelton, Lee. “Vision and Values.” Emerson College, https://www.emerson.edu/about-emerson/vision-values. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Phelan, Bill. “Academics at Emerson College – Majors, Faculty, and More.” College Factual, https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/emerson-college/academic-life/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.

Poskanzer, Steven G. “Our Mission.” Carleton College, https://apps.carleton.edu/handbook/governance/?policy_id=864117. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Quillen, Carol. “Statement of Purpose.” Davidson College, https://www.davidson.edu/about/statement-purpose. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Raymond, Wendy. “Statement of Purpose.” Haverford College, https://catalog.haverford.edu/college/. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Rose, Clayton. “The Mission of the College.” Bowdoin College, https://www.bowdoin.edu/about/mission/index.html. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Smith, Brent. “The Art of Business.” Business of Creative Enterprises (BA), https://www.emerson.edu/academics/cross-departmental-programs. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

Smith, Valerie. “College Mission, Goals, and Planning.” Swarthmore College, https://www.swarthmore.edu/assessment/college-mission-goals-and-planning. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Starr, Gabrielle G. “Pomona College Mission Statement.” Pomona College, https://www.pomona.edu/about/mission-statement. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

Stephens, Sonya. “Mount Holyoke’s Mission.” Mount Holyoke College, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/about/mission. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Liberal Arts.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica inc., 2010, https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

The Emerson Mafia. “Group Description.” Facebook, 16 Nov. 2007, https://www.facebook.com/groups/6471621844/about/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.

Urciuoli, Bonnie. "The Semiotic Production of the Good Student: A Peircean Look at the Commodification of Liberal Arts Education." Signs and Society, vol. 2, no. 1, The University of Chicago Press Journals, 2014, pp. 56-83. https://doi.org/10.1086/675537. Accessed 12 Apr. 2020.

Wilde, Robert. “Causes and Preconditions for the Industrial Revolution.” ThoughtCo, Dotdash, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-and-preconditions-for-industrial-revolution-1221632. Accessed 6 Apr. 2020.

Wippman, David. “Mission Statement.” Hamilton College, https://www.hamilton.edu/about/mission-statement. Accessed 14 Apr. 2020.

#stretch2020 #researchessay #stretchjournal #researchpaper

0 notes