Broadcast Media
Interactive Media
Marketing
PR & Journalism
Blog feed 
Article
Category : Marketing Academic developments
Can we dissect this video to find elements of Fromm’s critique against exacerbated consumerism? Is there an option for all to find more ‘satisfying ways of being’ outside consumption, or is this something for those who have an inbuilt ability to be? Are consumer goods really that evil? Is consumption for the lazy, and true enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi) something reserved for the truly enlightened?
Anybody willing to defend consumerism as a way of life?
“”
Comments
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 15, 11:57 AM
You know these are lines from ‘Fightclub’. Read the book. Watch the film. Laugh. But cry at the irony that these messages are now part of a consumer spectacle ( a film and a best selling book) and therefore part of the very system that they attack. Janice will no doubt point out also that the focus on having (or being teh things you have) is consistant with Fromm’s excellent arguements.
You know these are lines from ‘Fightclub’. Read the book. Watch the film. Laugh. But cry at the irony that these messages are now part of a consumer spectacle ( a film and a best selling book) and therefore part of the very system that they attack. Janice will no doubt point out also that the focus on having (or being teh things you have) is consistant with Fromm’s excellent arguements.
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 15, 01:42 PM
ON BBC4 last night (get it off BOB), ‘Are we having fun yet’. A nice final comment on ‘post-consumerism’ and hte increasing recognistion that we all already have all the material things we want and they don’t really help.
ON BBC4 last night (get it off BOB), ‘Are we having fun yet’. A nice final comment on ‘post-consumerism’ and hte increasing recognistion that we all already have all the material things we want and they don’t really help.
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 15, 01:45 PM
Also, read ‘brave new world’, by Huxley. Or watch Romero’s original ‘Dawn of hte dead’. Both good satire on our consumer lifestyles and they also suggest that this debate is not new. So when and why do we get these popular culture attacks of consumption? What drives them? What is their purpose?
Also, read ‘brave new world’, by Huxley. Or watch Romero’s original ‘Dawn of hte dead’. Both good satire on our consumer lifestyles and they also suggest that this debate is not new. So when and why do we get these popular culture attacks of consumption? What drives them? What is their purpose?
Posted by: Janice - Mar 15, 05:48 PM
Mike you have reminded me of Romero’s critique, so I have also added a clip of “Dawn of the Dead”. Perhaps somebody may want to have a go in describing/explaining why this is a critique of consumerism. Perhaps they may even be layers to a the critique, so attention to detail my say something else about the destructive nature of consumption.
Mike you have reminded me of Romero’s critique, so I have also added a clip of “Dawn of the Dead”. Perhaps somebody may want to have a go in describing/explaining why this is a critique of consumerism. Perhaps they may even be layers to a the critique, so attention to detail my say something else about the destructive nature of consumption.
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 15, 06:23 PM
From a video game article I wrote and on this subject….
Videogames have been frequently criticised for their violent content and many do indeed contain violent images, but I want to consider a different aesthetic which might explain some of the appeal of games; one quite similar to the contemporary experience of recreational shopping, and one that may result in an analysis of the consumption of videogames that is quite different from accusations of socialised violence.
This is not the first time that shopping and horror-violence have come together to form a critique of consumer culture. For example, George Romero’s film Dawn of the Dead (1978) contains scenes of graphic violence: stomachs being ripped open; heads being decapitated; flesh being bitten from limbs. Not surprisingly it was caught up in the video nasty witch hunt in the UK in the 1980s (Wright, 2005). However Romero’s apparent purpose with this film was not to incite violence and murder in viewers, but to highlight problems created by a growing consumer society (hence most of the action takes place in a then very new phenomena: a shopping mall). The punch line to Dawn of the dead is that the zombies are us consumers. Ironically though Loudermilk (2003) acknowledges that far from getting viewers to question their consuming lives, the effect of the film may be to induce a consumer daydream of what a viewer might do should they find themselves free-range in their local mall. Harper (2002) also notes how a mall may be re-enchanted as viewers of the film re-enact scenes, re-imagining their mall as zombie-infested. The film itself was also a commercial success as a popular consumer spectacle. And Wright (2005) even notes that it may have inspired a number of videogames that allow the film to be re-experienced by players in digital virtual space. Dawn of the Dead is not then primarily a story of monsters, violence and murderous intent, but is a story about our consuming lives and the problems this mode of being produces. But it is also a successful product of the very culture that it apparently tries to undermine and contributes to the successful marketing of other commercial locations and media. Although to denounce the film as simply ‘video nasty’ would deny its central arguments against a consumer culture, it is also possible to argue that far from succeeding in this aim, Dawn of the Dead has become part of the culture that Romero called for viewers to escape from.
I want to consider these ideas about the nature of consumer culture as a way to understand contemporary violent videogames in the hope that doing so provides a different insight into the experience of play than the dominant debate on violence. Romero used graphic violence to illustrate and argue against the mundane, alienating, one-dimensional ‘false security’ of consumption. However a more sympathetic reading of consumption highlights a friction between Romero’s Frankfurt School inspired parody and more recent enquiry into the role of consumption that see it as an aesthetic and pleasurable activity (Harper, 2002). An alternative reading of Dawn of the Dead might see the core band of survivors as lost, drifting without clear goals until they imagine making a shopping mall their own. Their consumption retreat provides purpose in their otherwise desperate lives and the conclusion to the second act sees the utopian dream of the mall collapse only when there are no more commodities to be acquired (only then is the game over). This is meant to tell us of the ultimately futile nature of consumption as a route to happiness. In fact it could be read as a reminder that the consumer aesthetic lies in novelty, spectacle and desire for commodities, not their ultimate ownership (for example see Featherstone, 1991; Campbell 1987, McCracken 1988, Urry 1996;Belk et al 2002). The ‘problem’ for the survivors in Dawn of the Dead is that the novelty of shopping and the desire for the goods in the mall expires more readily than the monster hordes. Maybe the current concerns about video game ‘nasties’ also fails to acknowledge a sophisticated consumer aesthetic at their heart? Might it be that aside from the violence, contemporary ‘First Person Shooter’ (FPS) games share a similar shopping aesthetic to that presented in Dawn of the Dead? Read this way we might be less concerned by videogames’ ‘superficial’ violence and more interested in the specific trajectory of consumer culture that they represent.
From a video game article I wrote and on this subject….
Videogames have been frequently criticised for their violent content and many do indeed contain violent images, but I want to consider a different aesthetic which might explain some of the appeal of games; one quite similar to the contemporary experience of recreational shopping, and one that may result in an analysis of the consumption of videogames that is quite different from accusations of socialised violence.
This is not the first time that shopping and horror-violence have come together to form a critique of consumer culture. For example, George Romero’s film Dawn of the Dead (1978) contains scenes of graphic violence: stomachs being ripped open; heads being decapitated; flesh being bitten from limbs. Not surprisingly it was caught up in the video nasty witch hunt in the UK in the 1980s (Wright, 2005). However Romero’s apparent purpose with this film was not to incite violence and murder in viewers, but to highlight problems created by a growing consumer society (hence most of the action takes place in a then very new phenomena: a shopping mall). The punch line to Dawn of the dead is that the zombies are us consumers. Ironically though Loudermilk (2003) acknowledges that far from getting viewers to question their consuming lives, the effect of the film may be to induce a consumer daydream of what a viewer might do should they find themselves free-range in their local mall. Harper (2002) also notes how a mall may be re-enchanted as viewers of the film re-enact scenes, re-imagining their mall as zombie-infested. The film itself was also a commercial success as a popular consumer spectacle. And Wright (2005) even notes that it may have inspired a number of videogames that allow the film to be re-experienced by players in digital virtual space. Dawn of the Dead is not then primarily a story of monsters, violence and murderous intent, but is a story about our consuming lives and the problems this mode of being produces. But it is also a successful product of the very culture that it apparently tries to undermine and contributes to the successful marketing of other commercial locations and media. Although to denounce the film as simply ‘video nasty’ would deny its central arguments against a consumer culture, it is also possible to argue that far from succeeding in this aim, Dawn of the Dead has become part of the culture that Romero called for viewers to escape from.
I want to consider these ideas about the nature of consumer culture as a way to understand contemporary violent videogames in the hope that doing so provides a different insight into the experience of play than the dominant debate on violence. Romero used graphic violence to illustrate and argue against the mundane, alienating, one-dimensional ‘false security’ of consumption. However a more sympathetic reading of consumption highlights a friction between Romero’s Frankfurt School inspired parody and more recent enquiry into the role of consumption that see it as an aesthetic and pleasurable activity (Harper, 2002). An alternative reading of Dawn of the Dead might see the core band of survivors as lost, drifting without clear goals until they imagine making a shopping mall their own. Their consumption retreat provides purpose in their otherwise desperate lives and the conclusion to the second act sees the utopian dream of the mall collapse only when there are no more commodities to be acquired (only then is the game over). This is meant to tell us of the ultimately futile nature of consumption as a route to happiness. In fact it could be read as a reminder that the consumer aesthetic lies in novelty, spectacle and desire for commodities, not their ultimate ownership (for example see Featherstone, 1991; Campbell 1987, McCracken 1988, Urry 1996;Belk et al 2002). The ‘problem’ for the survivors in Dawn of the Dead is that the novelty of shopping and the desire for the goods in the mall expires more readily than the monster hordes. Maybe the current concerns about video game ‘nasties’ also fails to acknowledge a sophisticated consumer aesthetic at their heart? Might it be that aside from the violence, contemporary ‘First Person Shooter’ (FPS) games share a similar shopping aesthetic to that presented in Dawn of the Dead? Read this way we might be less concerned by videogames’ ‘superficial’ violence and more interested in the specific trajectory of consumer culture that they represent.
Posted by: Matt - Mar 15, 06:35 PM
First off that lecture depressed me for a while Janice heading into a day of training in the art of spreading ‘the disease’!! The more I thought about it though I decided that what you were saying about inherent human nature being possessive makes sense. So surely capatalism and consumerism are a more healthy and productive channeling of this human nature than the unguided alternative which seems either to be a regimented communist regime or anarchy. The anarchistic approach would work fine if eveyone accepted the Buddhist alternative you depicted to achieve real contentment, however I have a feeling raw human nature would prevail in such an ungoverened existense with no ecenomic system. Depressing as that is.
First off that lecture depressed me for a while Janice heading into a day of training in the art of spreading ‘the disease’!! The more I thought about it though I decided that what you were saying about inherent human nature being possessive makes sense. So surely capatalism and consumerism are a more healthy and productive channeling of this human nature than the unguided alternative which seems either to be a regimented communist regime or anarchy. The anarchistic approach would work fine if eveyone accepted the Buddhist alternative you depicted to achieve real contentment, however I have a feeling raw human nature would prevail in such an ungoverened existense with no ecenomic system. Depressing as that is.
Posted by: Gemma Webster - Mar 15, 08:42 PM
from my basic knowledge on the subject i dont think that it is a disease because even though it is only short term happiness made from consumption; experiences can be had from those consumptions; such as an expensive dinner even if its with the one you love your going to remember it as a moment of happiness more than if you just make a sandwich together. I think consumption is only a diesease if your on your own and the only thing you thrive and desire for is money to buy nice things and you expect happiness from that. i think true happiness is a combination of the people you love or “the experience of love” and consumption. otherwise wouldnt we all be ill right now with this so called disease?
from my basic knowledge on the subject i dont think that it is a disease because even though it is only short term happiness made from consumption; experiences can be had from those consumptions; such as an expensive dinner even if its with the one you love your going to remember it as a moment of happiness more than if you just make a sandwich together. I think consumption is only a diesease if your on your own and the only thing you thrive and desire for is money to buy nice things and you expect happiness from that. i think true happiness is a combination of the people you love or “the experience of love” and consumption. otherwise wouldnt we all be ill right now with this so called disease?
Posted by: - Mar 15, 08:44 PM
To leave the mind to wander of its own, as we know from Csikszentmihalyi is a dangerous thing, as I find your comment Matt, provocative in this regards. The type of disciplining dimension that capitalism provides in terms of framing consumer and labourer performances serves the purpose of ensuring ‘purpose’. Can this be achieved by another societal frame, do with the knowledge necessary to think up radical alternatives? Is it about being an enlightened consumer who is aware of that consumer goods (and their excessive ownership of) are not conducive to a more satisfying state of being? May this explain the rise of leisure activities? But again, a Marxist critique would quickly point out that leisure is reified as a commodity itself, then limiting a person’s potential to achieving a true sense of ontological self-actualisation.
Marxist critique aside, seeing consumption as a way of organising your everyday life and the capitalist mode of production as structuring one’s everyday is a line of argument worth expanding further. I wonder though, even is a to have mode of existence offers a very clear system of rewards which could keep somebody wrapped up in activity, whether or not somebody can achieve self-realisation. Is self realisation for all, or was Maslow right in stating that just an ‘elite’ of lucky ones like Abe Lincoln, Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt had achieve such heights.
To leave the mind to wander of its own, as we know from Csikszentmihalyi is a dangerous thing, as I find your comment Matt, provocative in this regards. The type of disciplining dimension that capitalism provides in terms of framing consumer and labourer performances serves the purpose of ensuring ‘purpose’. Can this be achieved by another societal frame, do with the knowledge necessary to think up radical alternatives? Is it about being an enlightened consumer who is aware of that consumer goods (and their excessive ownership of) are not conducive to a more satisfying state of being? May this explain the rise of leisure activities? But again, a Marxist critique would quickly point out that leisure is reified as a commodity itself, then limiting a person’s potential to achieving a true sense of ontological self-actualisation.
Marxist critique aside, seeing consumption as a way of organising your everyday life and the capitalist mode of production as structuring one’s everyday is a line of argument worth expanding further. I wonder though, even is a to have mode of existence offers a very clear system of rewards which could keep somebody wrapped up in activity, whether or not somebody can achieve self-realisation. Is self realisation for all, or was Maslow right in stating that just an ‘elite’ of lucky ones like Abe Lincoln, Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt had achieve such heights.
Posted by: Ramirez - Mar 15, 08:45 PM
Mike, could you upload your article somewhere so that we could read some more?
Mike, could you upload your article somewhere so that we could read some more?
Posted by: Mike - Mar 15, 08:48 PM
lol we are all ill (if you agree with Fromm). And there is no ‘inherent human nature’ that accounts for the purchase of designer clothes, etc. Rather ‘we’ (in the west) are socialised to see the world in specific ways that favour consumption. Biological reductionism doesn’t get you very far in accounting for consumption, I don’t think. And a ‘balance’ of human activity with consumer activity dosn’t seem like a balance at all.
I’m trolling of course
lol we are all ill (if you agree with Fromm). And there is no ‘inherent human nature’ that accounts for the purchase of designer clothes, etc. Rather ‘we’ (in the west) are socialised to see the world in specific ways that favour consumption. Biological reductionism doesn’t get you very far in accounting for consumption, I don’t think. And a ‘balance’ of human activity with consumer activity dosn’t seem like a balance at all.
I’m trolling of course
Posted by: Mike - Mar 15, 09:10 PM
Ramierz, I can’t, sorry. I have submitted it for publication and journals will not publish work that is already online. But a copy is on the notice board in w426 (the computer lab). It’s called Monsters and the Mall.
Ramierz, I can’t, sorry. I have submitted it for publication and journals will not publish work that is already online. But a copy is on the notice board in w426 (the computer lab). It’s called Monsters and the Mall.
Posted by: Mike - Mar 15, 09:11 PM
Oh, and this thread might be better in the forum where it can grow and break into other discussions. Register if you haven’t already.
Oh, and this thread might be better in the forum where it can grow and break into other discussions. Register if you haven’t already.
Posted by: Syd - Mar 15, 10:18 PM
After discussing this lecture for a long time with a classmate, I’ve managed to isolate my main critique of the “consumption as sickness” theory…which has more to do with the theorists themselves:
Have any of these authors ever really been poor? I’m not talking about voluntary ascetism, in the style of the Zen monks, but actually living below the poverty line and scraping for basic necessities.
I know that this critique of consumer society is aimed predominantly at Western, post-industrial society…but what about developing societies? It’s easy to characterize the pursuit of material comfort as greed, or the function of an overdeveloped society, when you’re part of it. At what point in these theorists’ opinions does a society move from survival mode (implied: acceptable) to luxury mode (implied: unacceptable)? And if they themselves come from a position of privilege, who are they to begrudge that transition to the less fortunate?
Fromm’s examples of the Zuni Indians or African tribes who have very little material wealth, and how they are somehow “better” because of it, are patronizing. These people are poor due to circumstances they can’t control; they are not necessarily purer in spirit. The truly poor people I’ve known in my life (indigenous Latin Americans, for instance) do have strong familial bonds because they depend on it for survival, but their daily struggle doesn’t bring them any greater purpose except that promised by religion. And they’d trade their simplistic life in a heartbeat for a more materially comfortable one.
I don’t disagree that greed can be a pathology, and that some people spend money in order to fill empty lives. But characterizing people who can’t do so as “noble savages” is imperialistic and offensive.
After discussing this lecture for a long time with a classmate, I’ve managed to isolate my main critique of the “consumption as sickness” theory…which has more to do with the theorists themselves:
Have any of these authors ever really been poor? I’m not talking about voluntary ascetism, in the style of the Zen monks, but actually living below the poverty line and scraping for basic necessities.
I know that this critique of consumer society is aimed predominantly at Western, post-industrial society…but what about developing societies? It’s easy to characterize the pursuit of material comfort as greed, or the function of an overdeveloped society, when you’re part of it. At what point in these theorists’ opinions does a society move from survival mode (implied: acceptable) to luxury mode (implied: unacceptable)? And if they themselves come from a position of privilege, who are they to begrudge that transition to the less fortunate?
Fromm’s examples of the Zuni Indians or African tribes who have very little material wealth, and how they are somehow “better” because of it, are patronizing. These people are poor due to circumstances they can’t control; they are not necessarily purer in spirit. The truly poor people I’ve known in my life (indigenous Latin Americans, for instance) do have strong familial bonds because they depend on it for survival, but their daily struggle doesn’t bring them any greater purpose except that promised by religion. And they’d trade their simplistic life in a heartbeat for a more materially comfortable one.
I don’t disagree that greed can be a pathology, and that some people spend money in order to fill empty lives. But characterizing people who can’t do so as “noble savages” is imperialistic and offensive.
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 16, 09:52 AM
Syd, your’s is a compelling arguemnt in some ways but for me it misses the point. You are trying to justify lifestyles that may revolve around £200 designer T-shirts and £50k BMWs by suggesting that ‘it’s better that starving’. Well it is obvioulsy so. But does this comparison get us very far in accounting for Westerners’ facination with buying and owning stuff? Drift too far from teh noble savage and you might return to the sort of comparative anthropology that sees native tribes as ‘primative’ and in need of (our sort) of development. Which is a bit patronising. And in any case, if we dwell too long on this comparisons you can’t help but think that we in the west must be very sick because we spend £1000’s on wastefull excess whilst for teh sake of a few pounds 1000s die. What sort bod sick society values a logo on a pair of trainers more that the life of a child just a few thousand miles away?
Syd, your’s is a compelling arguemnt in some ways but for me it misses the point. You are trying to justify lifestyles that may revolve around £200 designer T-shirts and £50k BMWs by suggesting that ‘it’s better that starving’. Well it is obvioulsy so. But does this comparison get us very far in accounting for Westerners’ facination with buying and owning stuff? Drift too far from teh noble savage and you might return to the sort of comparative anthropology that sees native tribes as ‘primative’ and in need of (our sort) of development. Which is a bit patronising. And in any case, if we dwell too long on this comparisons you can’t help but think that we in the west must be very sick because we spend £1000’s on wastefull excess whilst for teh sake of a few pounds 1000s die. What sort bod sick society values a logo on a pair of trainers more that the life of a child just a few thousand miles away?
Posted by: Syd - Mar 16, 10:56 AM
Hi Mike, I admit that my critique sounds tangential. But I feel that it addresses the foundations on which these assessments of society are created.
I agree that excessive spending creates artificial needs, and a self-perpetuating cycle of inadequacy for people who are used to valuing themselves by what they have. Only a real free-market evangelist would pretend otherwise. But Western culture doesn’t have a monopoly on greed sickness.
Lack of empathy and “social sickness” infects every country and culture in the world. For instance, Rwandan rebels hacked off small children’s arms so they might not be able to use weapons against them in the future…this kind of horrific treatment of each other’s people can be traced back to disputes over property and possessions of land and food. It’s another form of greed sickness. But is it OK because it’s about food and not £200 T-shirts?
You could argue that imperialism has led to the disenfranchisement of the native peoples, forcing them to desperate acts. You could ALSO argue that to whom much is given, much is expected, and wealthy Western nations should use their power to help fix what colonialism broke. (I happen to agree with this principle.) But ultimately the responsibility for perpetuating such sickness must rest solely with the individual. And I don’t feel that you can blame this kind of pathology on Prada purses when it comes down to the individual act. Greed sickness seems to me a universal human impulse, transcending culture or ethnicity, and therefore a much, much deeper problem than these theorists are prepared to address.
Hi Mike, I admit that my critique sounds tangential. But I feel that it addresses the foundations on which these assessments of society are created.
I agree that excessive spending creates artificial needs, and a self-perpetuating cycle of inadequacy for people who are used to valuing themselves by what they have. Only a real free-market evangelist would pretend otherwise. But Western culture doesn’t have a monopoly on greed sickness.
Lack of empathy and “social sickness” infects every country and culture in the world. For instance, Rwandan rebels hacked off small children’s arms so they might not be able to use weapons against them in the future…this kind of horrific treatment of each other’s people can be traced back to disputes over property and possessions of land and food. It’s another form of greed sickness. But is it OK because it’s about food and not £200 T-shirts?
You could argue that imperialism has led to the disenfranchisement of the native peoples, forcing them to desperate acts. You could ALSO argue that to whom much is given, much is expected, and wealthy Western nations should use their power to help fix what colonialism broke. (I happen to agree with this principle.) But ultimately the responsibility for perpetuating such sickness must rest solely with the individual. And I don’t feel that you can blame this kind of pathology on Prada purses when it comes down to the individual act. Greed sickness seems to me a universal human impulse, transcending culture or ethnicity, and therefore a much, much deeper problem than these theorists are prepared to address.
Posted by: Mike Molesworth - Mar 16, 11:52 AM
Syd, is ‘greed sickness’ a universal human trait? I’m not sure. But in any case you are still reducing the complexity of culture to some biological ‘cause’. True or not, it doesn’t explain the culture. It doesn’t actually account for the human condition, but rather dismisses it as ‘something natural’. I don’t think comparisons get us very far. The analysis needs to focus on the experience of consumption and what it means for the people who consume. Does it make them (mentally) ill? Is a life world focus on having, a pointless, wasted life – a sad, lost opportunity? Or is it something that gives meaning, expression and creativity to otherwise pointless lives? And if it gives meaning, at what cost (to the individual and others)? hence my point about Dawn of the Dead. Romero wants us to see the Mall as ultimately meaningless. he draws attention to this at the start of the second act when the survivors stop for fuel at a deserted farm. ‘come on, ‘, one of them says, ‘there’s nothing here’. It’s ironic because the farm is actually a place that is able to sustain the survivors in the long term. They could live their and farm the land, but they reject it in favour of the glittering space of the mall. But the mall becomes a prison for them and they become trapped in it. In the end it kills most of them, but 2 escape. This is Romero telling us the ‘flee’ consumption; to get out whilst we still can. But to offers no alternative and this is the problem with Marxist critiques overall. Fromm tries for something but I found the end of Having and Being a little scary with a call for some cultural panel to decide what the population should and shouldn’t value.
Syd, is ‘greed sickness’ a universal human trait? I’m not sure. But in any case you are still reducing the complexity of culture to some biological ‘cause’. True or not, it doesn’t explain the culture. It doesn’t actually account for the human condition, but rather dismisses it as ‘something natural’. I don’t think comparisons get us very far. The analysis needs to focus on the experience of consumption and what it means for the people who consume. Does it make them (mentally) ill? Is a life world focus on having, a pointless, wasted life – a sad, lost opportunity? Or is it something that gives meaning, expression and creativity to otherwise pointless lives? And if it gives meaning, at what cost (to the individual and others)? hence my point about Dawn of the Dead. Romero wants us to see the Mall as ultimately meaningless. he draws attention to this at the start of the second act when the survivors stop for fuel at a deserted farm. ‘come on, ‘, one of them says, ‘there’s nothing here’. It’s ironic because the farm is actually a place that is able to sustain the survivors in the long term. They could live their and farm the land, but they reject it in favour of the glittering space of the mall. But the mall becomes a prison for them and they become trapped in it. In the end it kills most of them, but 2 escape. This is Romero telling us the ‘flee’ consumption; to get out whilst we still can. But to offers no alternative and this is the problem with Marxist critiques overall. Fromm tries for something but I found the end of Having and Being a little scary with a call for some cultural panel to decide what the population should and shouldn’t value.
Posted by: Fio44 - Mar 16, 12:53 PM
The type of inherent behaviour we see in young children as they want to ingest everything, is something I think Syd is trying to get at. Why is that that a tottler’s natural tendency is to possess? Surely this is something that happens accross cultures. Does anybody know?
The type of inherent behaviour we see in young children as they want to ingest everything, is something I think Syd is trying to get at. Why is that that a tottler’s natural tendency is to possess? Surely this is something that happens accross cultures. Does anybody know?
Posted by: richard - Mar 16, 01:52 PM
Is it natural to want to possess?
In the middle ages in Britain there were just a few words to help us communicte any desire we had ‘to want’...mostly we accepted our state of affairs as ‘natural’ ordained by god and king. It might be worth us sonsidering ust how many ways we have developed since that allow us to communicate about our wants….aided by marketers and by advanced capitalisum.
Of course its very difficult to image another time – but at least by reflecting on such a time we might begin to realise just how many of the thnigs we attribute to ‘human nature’ are more likely to be what we deem to be human nature. As Sartre said “existance predates essence”
Happy pondering
Is it natural to want to possess?
In the middle ages in Britain there were just a few words to help us communicte any desire we had ‘to want’...mostly we accepted our state of affairs as ‘natural’ ordained by god and king. It might be worth us sonsidering ust how many ways we have developed since that allow us to communicate about our wants….aided by marketers and by advanced capitalisum.
Of course its very difficult to image another time – but at least by reflecting on such a time we might begin to realise just how many of the thnigs we attribute to ‘human nature’ are more likely to be what we deem to be human nature. As Sartre said “existance predates essence”
Happy pondering
Posted by: Janice - Mar 19, 05:41 PM
Is this something that may be read alongside a theses of commodification. What you raise Richard is very compelling. Do we have the cultural lenses and language required to verbalise a want? Is this to do with what is attributed to be valuable. It is interesting to note, that from a not so Marxist perpective, what is considered of value or a commodity is historically constituted. However this may go both ways, yes perhaps in other historical moments things were not classified as appropriate to having, and our universe in terms of what gives more ‘pleasure’ would have been restricted; at the same time the human object may have well been classified as a commodity itself.
Is this something that may be read alongside a theses of commodification. What you raise Richard is very compelling. Do we have the cultural lenses and language required to verbalise a want? Is this to do with what is attributed to be valuable. It is interesting to note, that from a not so Marxist perpective, what is considered of value or a commodity is historically constituted. However this may go both ways, yes perhaps in other historical moments things were not classified as appropriate to having, and our universe in terms of what gives more ‘pleasure’ would have been restricted; at the same time the human object may have well been classified as a commodity itself.
